Roe v. Wade cited Buck v. Bell, a 1927 case upholding forced sterilization. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall comments on Roe's decision, saying: "[T]he Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell. See Roe v. Wade, supra, at 154." In other words, Roe reaffirmed forced sterilization of women. Then in 1978, in a case called Stump v. Sparkman, the Court upheld forced sterilization even of unrepresented women. So the question is would you support Roe v. Wade if you found this out?
2007-10-02 16:18:36 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It is a very interesting situtation, and I don't really mean to cause a hullaballoo here, but forced sterilization of the "feeble" and indigent was one of the hallmark philosophies of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, so it's not really that surprising to me to hear that it was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court. Sadly, it's been a long-standing and well-embraced belief that only wealthy, intelligent people should be allowed to procreate - even if the masses don't outwardly support the notion.
2007-10-02 17:11:34 · answer #1 · answered by RayeKaye 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think Roe v. Wade directly reaffirms forced sterilization of women at all. You are comparing apples, oranges and grapes. (with the case law you mentioned) I happen to think everyone is an "individual fruit" (no two the same). I don't think the Government needs to be in anyone's bedroom, gynecologist office or church. I think it has to be an "individual" ethical decision between patient and doctor and the person's own moral, ethical, and/or religious values. I do not feel it is my place to decide for others or force my beliefs on others.
So I guess I support Roe v. Wade.
PS You know this is an age old issue that will NEVER be agreed on....that is why it has to be in individual's own accountability issue....
2007-10-02 16:40:31 · answer #2 · answered by Steve 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am definitely not in favor of FORCED sterilization of women, just as I am not in favor of FORCING a woman to have an abortion. On the other hand, I am in favor of a woman's right to CHOOSE an abortion, just as I am in favor of a woman's right to CHOOSE to sterilize herself. It is, by the way, possible for a new Supreme Court decision to uphold one part of an old precedent while overturning another part thereof. Why the justices in Roe would have upheld such an anti-choice precedent within the context of a generally pro-choice decision I know not.
2007-10-02 23:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by Theodore H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think this question is worded to be an over simplification of a complicated court decision. there needs to be much more detail concerning these judgments, and how the statements relate within the two cases. There is no way to answer based on the brief wording.
2007-10-02 19:07:36 · answer #4 · answered by K K 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Source please.
No, really...how are the two connected? What was the precedence of the former case?
Obviously, Roe V. Wade did not assert that forced sterilization should be legal.
2007-10-02 17:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by wendy g 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I need to know more background information. What were the reasons for the forced sterilizations and which women were they performed on? I know that some southern states had sterilization programs in place which were mainly used on poor, black women, especially when they were on welfare. It also was common to sterilize handicapped women. These practices were largely discontinued by the early 1970s.
2007-10-02 16:35:06 · answer #6 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'd support women having control over their own bodies..any argument over that is infringing on a persons civil rights..and why
are all these points and rules being debated and decided by MEN? Have they EVER been any good at deciding for a woman what to do with her body...hmmm..strippers...pornography...yeah, of COURSE
rich white gay senators should decide..they've done so well so far!
2007-10-02 18:38:03 · answer #7 · answered by Farmer & Granny Crabtree 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Roe v. Wade is so shaky it's not funny, not the least of which is that Norma McCorvey claimed the pregnancy was a result of rape, when it has now been found to not have been.
McCorvey is also now a pro-life advocate.
It's no wonder feminists are worried it will be overturned.
2007-10-02 16:41:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I certainly wouldn't support that part of it, but the rest can stay. Personally, I'd take the forced sterilization.
2007-10-02 16:21:46 · answer #9 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
before I could answer, I would need to know how many forced sterilizaations this ruling has caused. Show me a link to some stats on that and then I will answer your question.
2007-10-02 16:57:28 · answer #10 · answered by Mike 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋