Analyse Wilson Abortion Case Brief

This controversial case ruled that a woman’s ability to be able to chose to get an abortion is considered a protected liberty. It also concluded that this

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

Unlawful abortion was defined as “unlawful if performed not to save the life of the mother in question.” (Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003) However, in 1969, the Menhennitt ruling was established in the case R v Davidson. This more liberal interpretation stated that abortion could be ‘lawful’ under strict guidelines and circumstances; establishing that “abortion is lawful if performed to preserve the woman from serious danger. However, the danger must be equal to the dangers imposed by an abortion.” Since the Menhennitt ruling, no new interpretation have been made introduced, nor has any official legislation been introduced, leaving the decision up to the judge, and in some cases, a jury (Cica, 1998). This leaves abortion law hazy and unclear; evidenced by the fact that 14,000 abortions occur every year in Queensland. Stakeholder groups with conflicting views are in uproar over this

Dr. Henry Morgentaler and two other doctors set up a private clinic in Toronto to perform abortions on women. According to the law at that time women were required to obtain a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee that would Asses whether they qualified for an abortion. Morgentaler and his colleagues made public statements question the wisdom of these abortion laws in Canada. They believed that women should have the sole decision on having abortion. The three appellants where charged on the grounds of conspiracy amongst each other between November 1982 and July 1983 with the intent to perform an abortion on women contrary to s.423 (1) (d) and s.251 (1) of the criminal code . This was an appeal from the court of appeal for Ontario.

It is not fair that the child has no say in this because he/she can not communicate with the outside world and even if he/she were to do so, they would never get a chance. The act of an abortion totally contradicts Canada’s legal rights that Everyone has the right to life… not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (canadian charter of rights). An unborn child should not receive any kind of cruel treatment, in this case death. It has life and the law states that everyone should have the right to live, so if abortions do not fall under that category then the law is not benefiting any of us at

To prove that the Charter protects some rights but not all, a court case that involved Dr Henry Morgentaler and the Supreme Court of Canada was successful after trials. Before this case, women were only allowed to have an abortion after proper certification of approval from a hospital's Therapeutic Abortion Committee. Three doctors including Morgentaler set up an abortion clinic that allowed women to have an abortion without a certification of approval. He was later charged with illegal abortion under section 251 of the Criminal Code. Morgentaler argued that women had full right on deciding whether or not they wanted an abortion. This law was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated a woman’s right according to section 7 on the Charter.

The Queen vs. Davis case concerns the murder trial of Arthur Paul Davis and Alice Davis that occurred in 1875. In it, they were tried and convicted of murder for conducting an abortion; the killing of a fetus and subsequently causing death of the victims, Catherine Laing and Jane Vaughn Gilmour. This essay will examine the historical context of the case, what the trial reveals about the nature of women’s lives in Toronto during the 1870s as subordinate women who are deemed as caretakers and how women managed to end unwanted pregnancies. During the late 19th century ending an unwanted pregnancy was an illegal offence because it was considered unethical to kill a fetus. Women were not able to access safer alternatives such as

In the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

In the 19th century, after tremendous progress in surgical processes, abortions were then conducted by surgeons on a wide scale, while medical abortions are used concurrently. However, as abortion technology prospers, legal restrictions came with it. In 1803, a English statute abolished the previously-legal first trimester abortions. The act “condemned the willful, malicious, and unlawful use of any medical substance when used with the intent to induce abortion” (Stern, 1968). In 1821, Connecticut enabled the first statute in the United States regulating abortions. Within 10 years, states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, Alabama, and others enabled abortion restriction statutes, and by 1968, 50 of the 51 jurisdictions in the United States have prohibited abortion except in the case women’s life is endangered (Ibid., at 3). In 1965, Britain, however, legalized abortion for “medical conditions of the mother, for socio-economic reasons, for eugenic considerations, and for pregnancies which resulted from rape or incestuous intercourse”, which is still law today (Ibid, at 4). In Canada, abortion has been legalized since 1969 through Bill C-150 if “a committee of three physicians determined that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's life or health” (Norman, 2012). In 1988, Canadian Supreme Court struck down bill C-150’s provision requiring committee approval to receive an abortion in its decision R v Morgentaler, legalizing abortion across Canada for any reasons (Ibid.).

The Morgentaler case of 1993 and the Smolig and Scott case of 1988 were cases that would have a very impactful ruling. The supreme court of Canada decided that section 287 of the criminal code infringed the rights of section 7 in the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 7 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” (Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982) This declared that abortion could ne longer be considered a criminal offence because it was unconstitutional and violated one’s rights under section 7. The oakes test would be applied to a case such as this. The oakes test is a legal test the courts use to determine whether an

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

The topic of aborting an innocent fetus has been overwhelmingly controversial in the United States. The two sides to this ongoing debate is pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus; whether it is an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Abortions are most often performed during the first twenty-eight weeks of pregnancy and can be performed as a medical or surgical procedure. Medical abortions include two types of abortion pills; while the surgical procedures include vacuum aspiration and dilation and evacuation. Ultimately, I am one of the many “pro-lifers”, and I strongly agree that abortion should be illegal because it negatively affects our people. Women across the nation are becoming impregnated and following a short amount of judgement time, turn to abortion to solve their problems but in the end hurt themselves with this decision. Abortions should be illegal because it is immoral and unconstitutional, causes severe mental and physical issues, and negatively impacts the economy. “During the ancient Roman times it has been supposed that abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as our civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life”

The Morgentaler case is a landmark abortion case in 1988 in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman’s right under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to security of a person. After this case and ruling, there have been no criminal laws which regulate abortion in Canada.

As early as 1550 B.C., Egyptians were performing abortions. Egyptians documented the techniques they used to perform abortions and by the Middle Ages, the concept of abortion had spread globally (PRB). Knowing the idea, of terminating a pregnancy, was being performed in 1550 B.C., the number of babies lost to this horrific death will never truly be known. Since 1969, the CDC started documenting the numbers of legal abortions obtained in the United States. Roe vs. Wade was the infamous court case that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1973, that assisted abortion in becoming completely legal. The United National Library of Medicine published that since that day in 1973 abortion rates peaked but remained continuous through the

On August 11th, Team B and Team C argued on the topic of abortion. The question asked whether or not women should be granted free medical access to an abortion in Canada while in their first trimester of pregnancy. Team B argued yes and for abortions, while Team C argued against it. Our group, Team A, was the audience of that day and after listening to both sides of the debate, we have come to a conclusion that Team C has “won” this debate.