Speak about natural law and science were speaking about the laws of thermodynamics of planetary motion electromagnetist gravity strong foresweat force doggereled it be laws of physics, the chemical properties that or their natural laws inherent in things like morality is there a standard is there a law that governs all of you speak of things like rape, torture, corruption beavery murder do we all agree that there is a moral law a natural law at the moral level that applies to all of us. I'll take murder, for example the definition of murder would be the unjustified killing of another human being. And I think we would all agree every single one of us the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong that where we differ is in the definitions.
What is justified and what is a human being. If you look at things throughout history. That's where we differ not understand or the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong but on the definitions. So for instance if I kill in self-defense I'm just a thought because there was a reasonable apprehension of fear for my life in which I acted out just war theory right and the war and kill others because we are justified under a theory of just war offers different types of mitigation circumstances etc. on the other hand human being argument Hitler and the nauseas felt that they could kill Jews and Gypsies because while they were human beings. There were pigs and dogs out pigs and monkeys are off of the reality of it is that we all agreed that the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong. We just get caught up in the justification and rationalization of that definition of murder.
I wanted you an example and really you can understand how difficult this can be a definitional level Mr. Roe V Wade Mrs. US constitutional law 1973 and, of course Roe V Wade was where the US Supreme Court said that abortion is a legal procedure in the United States of America. That's not what I wanted to hear is is a reasonably quickly from the actual case okay and in the actual case I read the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy in the line of decisions we recognize the right of personal privacy exists under the Constitution and they basically go on to say that this right of privacy whether confoundment working commitments concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action as we feel it is or the district court determined in the night amendments resurrection rights of people is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
So basically the set of the U.S. Constitution there's this right of privacy that is the justification for killing human life) bahai your justification already on the?State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying mischoice altogether is apparent specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved maternity or to additional osprey misfortuned on the woman distrest like future psychological harm may be imminent mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare is also the distrest rock concerns associated with the unwanted child a problem of bringing a child my family already unable, psychologically or otherwise to care for it and it goes on talking about the stigma of unwed mother, etc. again my point is is that there's a justification that is higher than human life. In this case okay now if you go on you can find very quickly that the partial-birth abortion act that was just upheld 2007. That at some level the justification doesn't work anymore. Cymrite partial-birth abortion which is a very late stage in pregnancy we read a moral, medical, ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing partial-birth abortion and abortion which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remained inside the womb functors caback misvouch isls: sharp instrument and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery the infant is a gruesome and inhumane procedure is never medically necessary and should be prohibited again you can see what were doing your under US constitutional law were setting the justification only go so far. At one point the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong.
The justification does not hold up under stuff let's take this now to federal role criminal. I just told you constitutional law not to go to criminal law to remember Lacey and Conner Peterson remember the woman Lacey Peterson was killed as she was carrying a child Connor and in connection with that case. She actually was killed her fetus was killed and that Scott Peterson was tried and convicted of double homicide in connection with that case there was the the unborn victims of violence act, which is also known as the Lacey and Conner's Law which basically says that if you kill someone who was carrying a child and you are otherwise guilty of homicide, murder is the fundamental law, you are guilty of double homicide. It doesn't even matter if you knew who this person was once during the trial you are convicted of double double homicide under federal criminal law that he seemed interesting disconnect there under US constitutional law, said Haider might be a medical procedure where we can abort a fetus but under federal criminal law we were going to give this fetus the protection of under the law. Interest not to take you onto several law. This would be where we can.
The different states we have civil standards of law. So in this case let's say that I am driving recklessly in Chicago, Illinois I crash I kilolumen who is pregnant, I can be sure who were double wrongful death under Illinois law. Under Illinois law they actually protect the be the unborn fetus. In this case the wrong wrongful death act of 1980 inopulent the state of gestational development of a human being when injuries caused woman's retakes that were dashel not for close maintenance of any cause of action under law the state arising from the death of a human being caused by Rob Black neglector bergfall to understand what you're saying there was a be see value in this human life so you can sue the surviving family were double wrongful death you consume and say that that that not only did the woman died, but she was. Childward intrigant superbug wrongful death, what's my point was whole exercise. But when this whole exercise is that we all agree on a universal standard. The natural law standard of the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong. Where we disagree sometimes used at the definitional level of what is justification and what is human life. The reason I use these cases under constitutional law, criminal law and civil law to show you that not everybody has this figured out a lot of tension here, specially in the case of the person with the rights of a human being that is being carried in your right 888. A fetus is a baby and so if they have figured out across all these different lines along United States. You can see that we guardless of my moral, religious standpoint on on the case of abortion you can see that it's a slippery slope we start to try and justify around under different areas of law that the unjustified killing of another human being is wrong
By Jun-Jie Wang
Please correct my essay for me, thks