Annotation
4 Why
can’t I take abortion?
The
date, 22th in January has been seen as a depressing day by anti-abortion people
in U.S, because taking abortion had been legalized in the country since 1973.
It must surprise you, for we all know most of people in United States believe
in Christianity, and the Bible does not allow women to take abortion. But the
country also asks freedom and fairness, how to deal with it if women want to
take abortion? Which one does the law have to protect, the unborn babies or the
right for women to do what they want to do for their bodies?
In 1970,
there was a poor girl named Jane Roe wanting to take abortion in Texas, but the
laws in Texas forbade girls taking abortion. As a result, she brought suit to
prevent the prosecutor from enforcing the state’s antiabortion laws. The
controversial points are whether women’s right of taking abortion should belong
to privacy, whether unborn babies should be protected by the constitution, and
whether the antiabortion laws in Texas violate the constitution.
Because
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court
announced that the antiabortion laws were violations to the constitution.
In the amendment, it said: “The Due Process Clause prohibits state and
local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property
without legislative authorization.” And the unborn babies are not included the
“persons.” The opinion of the court, Blackmun, even noted that “the state
imposed a great burden “upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice,” subjecting
women to potential medical harms, as well as financial and emotional harms.” He
believed that there would be many of women like Roe shouldering the burden
after giving a birth. From
then on, most of states began to make taking abortion legal.
Why taking
abortion is not like removing a tumor? Because people tend to give the
assumption to unborn babies, and that see them as humans. This assumption
restricts women to take abortion and that also makes women stressful. Just like
in the case, during the suit, Roe had no choice but to give birth and still had
to give it up for adoption. Now that a girl still cannot support the child and
has to lose it, why we enforce her to deliver the child? Will it be better to
keep the pregnancy for ten months and endure the pain while delivering but
still lose it? Having an unwanted child makes women more relieved? I suggest
that if the unwanted and unexpected children make those women’ lives
distressful, then the society should not impose the pressure on them and just let them take
abortion!
Document citation:
PAUL FINKELMAN
& MELVIN I. UROFSKY, Roe v. Wade, in LANDMARK DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT (2003), available in CQ ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, CQ Supreme
Court Collection, http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lndmrk03-113-6441-348238
(last visited
September 5, 2005). Document ID: lndmrk03-113-6441-348238.
Here are my suggestions.^ ^
回覆刪除1.I think you can make your words bigger since it will look clearer for readers.
2.Paragraph 1, first sentence:The date, 22th in January. Maybe it can be typed as'' January 22''.
3. Paragraph 1, line 3, you mentioned that the Bible does not allow women to take abortion. I think you can find the original content of Bible to stand for your points.
4.Paragraph 2 line 2, brought *a* suit
5.I am curious about why Roe wanted to take abortion. Maybe you can tell the story with few sentences.
6.Paragraph 3, last line,From then on, most of states began to make taking abortion legal. I think it is not clear enough. Maybe you can say the exact time(then) and give more details.
7.I think your conclusion made weak connection with what you wrote before( the case of Jane Roe). Because at first, you talked about women's rights. But in your conclusion, you talked about mental aspect.(unexpected children make those women’ lives distressful)
8. I am not quite sure whether the citation form is correct or not since the one you gave are not the same as the professor taught in class. And there are too many capital words.