Published November 4, 2026
In U.S. Politics, Ethical Dilemmas, & Philosophical Questions:
A little girl holds her baby in her arms, shaking as she sits on the hospital bed—red blood seeps into the pristine sheets that rest below her, a nurse at her side, instructing the child on how to do skin-to-skin—this wasn’t the nurse’s first (nor last) time teaching kids how to care for their babies. This story, despite being a fictional situation, is one similar to those whom many face on the daily. Girls and women alike tell stories of being raped and impregnated before being forced to give birth, left without the ability to terminate the pregnancy. The fault of these women's suffering lies but in the hands of those who overturned Roe v. Wade. No person, let alone a child, deserves to go through that. Henceforth we can conclude one thing: the Supreme Court's ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson was unconstitutional. The ruling not only disregarded the autonomy of every one person’s (specifically women's & uterus having people’s) body, mind, and will but also ignored the deeply rooted sexism and bias the jury had.
First and foremost, before we can address the idea of why taking away abortion rights is unconstitutional, we must consider why an abortion is considered morally right. While many believe that having abortions is actively taking the lives of those that are living beings that can feel pain/think, science has evidence to counter this argument. “The formation of functional synapses can be demonstrated by synaptophysin immunoreactivity in the receptive sensory layers of fetal cerebral cortex at around 25 weeks' gestation, but immunoreactivity is not uniformly intense until after 35 weeks. In vivo, fetal functional magnetic resonance imaging confirms immunocytochemical results by showing complex, interconnected brain networks developing at similar gestational ages. Fetal magnetoencephalography detects magnetic fields from fetal brain activity and demonstrates second-order rule learning in fetuses over 35 weeks' gestation. The neural pathways required for the emotional and evaluative aspects of pain processing in the brain are still incomplete in term newborns” (Graf et al.). Effectively, fetuses are (with what we know currently) unable to feel much pain (or, at the very least, pain in the same way an adult would) up until ~35 weeks (from there they begin to develop some receptors but, still, are unable to feel pain in the same ways that a young child or toddler can). Therefore, we must ask ourselves: to “kill” something that (a) cannot feel pain and (b) is, by definition, a parasite (of which cannot live without its host [the mother/pregnant individual])—is that truly “unconstitutional,” like many pro-lifers believe?—to simply rid yourself of something that you wish not (or, more often than not, cannot) care for?—something that is not fully human yet (for how are humans any different from animals [or the dead] without our sense of empathy, emotion, and feeling of pain?). If we are willing to kill flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice, and other pests alike—of which have been proven to feel pain (and are living creatures, must I add)—why can women not abort the fetus that clings to their insides?
Now, to consider the idea of how abortions affect women. Women & womb-having civilians who are at high risk of birth complications may need to have an abortion to save their lives—how might removing their right to abortion affect their safety?—change their lives? “Women who lived in states that ban abortion were significantly more likely to die during pregnancy, while giving birth, or soon after the birth of their child, compared to those who lived in states where abortion care was legal and accessible, our analysis shows. A mother’s risk of dying was nearly twice as high in the banned states. In some states, the risk was even higher. Mothers in Louisiana, for example, were three times as likely as mothers in supportive states to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or soon after giving birth” (“Maternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion Bans”). Birth complications, postpartum disorders, and the pain of giving birth in general is extremely difficult to deal with… Why must we let these women suffer, knowing that they cannot safely give birth to their children—knowing that their bodies will give out or fail if they try. Why must these women lose their bodily autonomy? Can they not choose to save their life in return for aborting their fetuses? What about the women who’ve been raped—those who’ve been impregnated unwillfully—forced to keep the child (bred, dare I say)? How is it fair to these women to disregard the Fourteenth Amendment just to “preserve future lives"? This isn't just a "small" issue, either; nearly one in four women, by age 45, will have gotten an abortion (pre-Dobbs) ("Abortion in the United States"). “The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year… A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion” (Holmes et al.). Almost half of the women who are raped rely on their right to get an abortion so that they can live (semi-)normally after a traumatic event. One half of the women worldwide. How many of those women were from the U.S.—how many couldn’t access an abortion because of the restrictions state officials put in place? We cannot yet think about the future of a fetus without thinking of the present for their mothers.
Now that we understand why abortions are constitutional and how taking them away goes against women’s rights, it’s important to consider how taking these rights away can benefit higher-ups, why they would want to do so, and how the intentions behind these actions are, too, actively going out of their way to give more power to government officials (and allowing those who are in power to abuse the powers they have). “This is not the first period in U.S. history when white men have exercised control over women's right to bear – or not bear – children, including during slavery. Then, it was a matter of numbers. The more people they enslaved, the more money white male enslavers could earn either from selling the enslaved or from the forced labor of the enslaved. White men controlled people's reproductive rights during the 20th century, too, with the American eugenics movement” (Rodney). Men, for centuries, have been trying to control women and their bodies—control over our bodies means control over birth rates—control over birth rates means you can increase the population—increasing the population gives you more people to control and, therefore, more power. Those who are in power wish to keep their powers since it benefits them heavily. The more power you have, the more money you have; the more money you have, the more you can get away with. Removing women’s rights doesn’t just disregard the constitution, but it also allows for the government to gain more power—to do more and, later on, ignore more.
To conclude, Roe V. Wade’s overturning was completely unconstitutional. The case undermined women’s rights and ignored the Fourteenth Amendment. On top of that, the case allowed for the government to gain more power and, possibly, in the future, more control over women and groups who are discriminated against.
____________________
Work Cited:
“Abortion in the United States.” Guttmacher Institute, 24 March 2026, https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states. Accessed 3 November 2026.
Coates, Rodney. “White Men Have Controlled Women's Reproductive Rights throughout American History—the Post-Dobbs Era Is No Different.” Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Gale, 2026, https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Viewpoints&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&retrievalId=0f31aab9-177d-4825-9d32-47e10b0aa85b&hitCount=9>mSearchId=5e0eb29a-d67a-475a-af28-1c73636c30eb&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPositio. Accessed 1 November 2026.
Holmes, M. M., et al. “Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women - PubMed.” PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/. Accessed 3 November 2026.
“Maternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion Bans.” Gender Equity Policy Institute, https://thegepi.org/maternal-mortality-abortion-bans/. Accessed 3 November 2026.
W. D. Graf, T. M. Crombleholme, L. G. Epstein, et al., “ Fetal Pain Perception: Legislative Assertions and Developmental Neuroscience,” Annals of the Child Neurology Society 4 (2026): 15-28, https://doi.org/10.1002/cns3.70057.
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
142,455 Literary Works • 677,848 Reviews
Hello whist, I've read through this essay every bit of it, heard your points and the facts presented, allow me to argue your Dobbs v. Jackson:
I find the central argument of this essay problematic, particularly its treatment of constitutional rights, fetal development, and personal responsibility.
First, You repeatedly argue that overturning Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this overlooks the actual constitutional question addressed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment and returned the authority to regulate abortion to elected representatives. One may disagree with that interpretation, but disagreeing with a judicial decision does not establish that it is unconstitutional. You need to demonstrate why abortion must be constitutionally protected, rather than assume that it is.
Secondly, I find the argument concerning fetal consciousness insufficient. The inability to experience pain, or the absence of fully developed neurological functions, does not independently establish an absence of moral worth. If consciousness or the capacity to experience pain determines the right to life, what happens to individuals who temporarily lose consciousness or possess severe neurological impairments? Are their rights diminished? Neurological development and moral personhood are separate questions. Furthermore, describing a fetus as a parasite is biologically misleading. Pregnancy involves biological dependence, but dependence does not make an organism parasitic be aware of what you say.
I also believe bodily autonomy must be considered alongside personal responsibility. Freedom comes with consequences, and consent to an action cannot be entirely separated from its foreseeable outcomes. Consensual intercourse carries the possibility of pregnancy, even when contraception is used. My position is that abortion should be available to victims of rape, because pregnancy resulting from sexual violence is fundamentally different from pregnancy following a voluntary act. The distinction is consent: one is an imposed violation, the other follows a mutually chosen activity. I do not believe that an unintended consequence automatically absolves individuals of responsibility for their voluntary decisions.
This does not mean that pregnancy is without complications or that women's suffering should be dismissed. Life-threatening medical circumstances deserve serious consideration. Nevertheless, the existence of difficult circumstances does not, by itself, establish that abortion should be unrestricted. Bodily autonomy is an important consideration, but the moral status of the developing human life must also be addressed. Neither consideration should simply erase the other.
Your historical argument is equally inconclusive. Historical abuses of reproductive control, including slavery and eugenics, are important, but they do not establish that every contemporary advocate of abortion restrictions shares those motivations. Someone can oppose abortion because they believe unborn human life deserves protection. To dismiss that position as an attempt by men to accumulate power is to attack presumed motives instead of engaging with the argument itself.
Finally, Your essay relies heavily on the emotional circumstances surrounding unwanted pregnancies, rape, and childbirth. These circumstances deserve empathy, but emotional force is not a substitute for philosophical reasoning. The statistic concerning rape-related pregnancies, for instance, is also misrepresented: the cited 50% refers to the proportion of pregnancies resulting from rape in the particular study that ended in abortion, not half of rape victims worldwide.
Ultimately, I believe the discussion should move beyond treating bodily autonomy as an unquestionable answer to every moral dilemma. We must ask what constitutes human life, what gives it moral consideration, and where individual freedom meets responsibility.
My position is that voluntary actions carry foreseeable consequences, and that the circumstances of conception matter morally. I would make an exception for victims of rape, whose pregnancies result from an act they never consented to. But I cannot accept that the right to bodily autonomy automatically settles every question concerning the life developing within another human being.
Freedom without responsibility is an incomplete understanding of liberty, just as the preservation of life without consideration for the circumstances of those carrying it is an incomplete understanding of humanity.
Thank you.