Casey, which greatly upheld the “central holding” in Roe v Wade. But they replaced the trimester system with the point of the baby’s chance of survival outside of the uterus, whenever it may occur, as defining a state’s right to overturn the woman’s autonomy. Casey lowered the legal standard for which states would be held to in justifying the many restrictions imposed on a woman’s right. Roe v Wade held this to be “strict security” whereas Casey came up with a new standard referring to “uncle burden”, mainly to balance out the state’s and woman’s interest in the case of abortion. As referred to in this paragraph, “strict security” in the Roe v. Wade case was the traditional supreme courts test for impositions upon fundamental constitutional rights. Before the Roe v Wade case, abortion was legal in serval different states of the United States, but that choice infringed a uniform and orderly framework for state legislation on the subject of abortion, and set an essential period during which abortion must be considered legal under greater or lesser degrees or restrictions throughout the pregnancy. Modified in the case Planned Parenthood v Casey, the basic groundwork remains ostensibly in place, although the effective availability of abortion diversifies a great deal from state to state. Many countries have absolutely no abortion …show more content…
No, abortion should not be legal. This opinion is normally associated with the Christian faith or people with a similar religious belief. Putting aside the fact that I am a Christian and I was raised in a Christian home where abortion was frowned upon I believe, for many reasons regardless of any religious belief, that abortion is wrong. It would be foolish to think that everyone has the same opinion. Everyone looks at this subject in different ways. However, regardless of how you look at it you can’t make something that is completely wrong sound right no matter what argument you make. If a woman is murdered while she is pregnant whoever committed this horrible act of violence would be charged with not just one but two counts of murder. If that is the case, then why is it okay for a woman to allow her baby’s life to be taken without being charged for murder? Some may say it’s the woman’s right because it’s her body and her choice. How can a woman justify the murder of another human being, her baby, by saying it’s her body? It may be “her body” but it’s not “her life” that she is taking. The child is another human being with the right to life. Most women that have had abortions claim they have done it because they were too young or they were not financially stable enough to care for a child. This seems like good reasons and they are reasons that are widely accepted. However, just because you’re too young or because you’re not financially