In other words, when it happens that rights conflict with one another, it is a judge’s job to adjudicate the question of which right is more basic and rule in favor of it. Of all the rights that can possibly be claimed, an individual’s right to life is the most fundamental. Unfortunately, this issue was never addressed during the deliberations of the Supreme Court during .Tags: Michelle Obama Senior ThesisBusiness Plan ChartsApa Format Research Paper Example 2012Essay On Discipline In Student Life In EnglishEffective Leadership Thesis StatementTurabian Style Essay10 Steps To Write An EssayStudent Writing College Abstract Term Paper
According to legal philosopher Henry Shoe:"Rights of security and subsistence are ‘basic rights’ because they are indispensable for the enjoyment of all other rights” (Wenar).
This means that a person’s right to life is a precondition for other rights, like private property or movement; if one is not free to not be killed, then he or she can’t be free to travel to Rome or own a car.
This contention, however, is understandable and justified and has spawned an endless array of argumentative essays and debates.
This is because, while deliberating this case, the failed to thoroughly perform its duties and, thus, its decision is unfounded.
However, on the other side of the coin, pro-choice activists say no life exists and the woman has the right to choose in this case.
With respect to the Supreme Court’s ruling in , a woman’s right to an abortion is derived from her right to privacy. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, Inc. The court’s hasty and under-informed ruling is devoid of rational thought regarding abortion and is solid ground for overturning the court’s original decision for pro-choice. The appropriate way for a court to resolve these conflicts is by determining which rights are more fundamental than others and rule accordingly. The Supreme Court could not possibly have made this determination since, having never ruled on the status of a fetus as a rights-bearing citizen, they could not perform an adequate comparison of different claims in the way that Fred and Joe’s rights were compared. As we are on a quite liberal campus, his first argument, clearly an attempting at luring progressives to his side, was this one: “It is a fact that fewer women are born because most abortions are made towards female zygotes.As the liberals we are, you would agree that this is bad, isn’t it?In response to this, pro-choice advocates have responded that a fetus does not have a right to life and the decision to procure an abortion is every woman’s personal choice. As can be seen, both of these arguments hinge on different assumptions regarding whether or not a fetus has a right to life. Due to this failure, the decision ought to be overturned, and abortion should be federally illegal until the court does its due diligence and produces a satisfactory and definitive ruling.It is important to keep in mind that every right claimed by one party implies that a separate party has a corresponding obligation to respect that right.If corresponding obligations always accompany rights, and these obligations are sometimes incompatible with the rights of other people, as is the case in the example of Fred and Joe, this gives rise to the problem of determining which right wins out in the end.In the above example, since it is clearly impossible for both Fred and Joe to exercise the rights they are claiming at the same time, a judge must determine which of the two competing rights is more fundamental or deserving of respect.