Roe v. Wade | Civil liberties and civil rights | US government and civics | Khan Academy


Comments 22

  • Omaha, Nebraska

  • Can you do rose vs lundy court case please

  • Women can choose when to have children without resorting to abortion.

  • What does abortion have to do with when a woman joins the workforce? Typical left wing manipulation.
    I am not a hardcore pro lifer though I know their arguments are correct.
    We need to find a compromise (I am aware that it's a disgusting MORAL compromise) I think abortion should be minimized as much as possible. If it is as easy to do (as it is currently) it diminishes peoples personal responsibility and therefore results in even more abortions. A reasonable limitation is no abortion after first trimester.

  • The issue of abortion really comes down to whether or not a fetus is considered an actual human being. If it’s not a human being then you can treat it like snot and dispose of it whenever you want. If it is a human being then you cannot murder it, even if that means a girl won’t be able to enter the workforce for a while.

  • Good news. i hear the timeline, abortion should be illegal by the end of the year.

  • Safe accessible legal abortion > illegal dangerous at home performances

  • this is probably the most factual and least politicized presentation of the case that I could find in video form. I see this being a huge topic of political animosity in the near future, and I'm glad I could rely on you guys to explain the essence of the case without any spin on it.

  • I don't believe your "right to choose" is more valuable than a "human's right to life." For anyone to think otherwise, is intrinsically selfish.
    Fundamentally, there is nothing in the universe more valuable then one's right to it's own existence.

  • 4:25 dam that cuban link doe

  • i learned so much from this than other websites or anything thank you!

  • I remember something from 9 th grade civics… the Federal government can make laws and the state can add to those laws making them more restrictive but the stare can’t relax the laws and make them less restrictive. Is this correct of not

  • this is from 14th amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Now you might argue that the baby is not born in the United States so it isn’t a citizen of the United States so it’s privileges and immunities aren’t protected, but it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Regardless of whether you are a citizen or not, your life liberty and property are protected, unless you want to argue that the baby is the Mom’s property, and then well you’ll be going along the lines of the justification of slavery, last I checked no human being is property, or are you Democrats going back to the views you used to share. Every human being should be offered equal protection, the mom and the baby should be protected equally. And as for the argument that baby is a pack of cells not a human being so therefore not a person who’s life should be protected, at week 8 the fetuses heart is developed and beating, a packs of cells don’t have heart beats, a heart is not an organelle, packs of cells come together to form the heart. The fetus is a human being who’s packs of cells are developing major organs,

  • Sooo … where do women stand with natural abortion: as in when they have a miscarriage?

  • Is being secure in one's person not a right to privacy?

  • we as a society just need to decide where life begins

  • "All men are created equal with fundamental rights the right to life…" Except if a woman wants to have some privacy… Then you got to make it out of the womb irst

  • Extending the right to privacy that far is absurd

  • If you can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes and if you can't put a fetus on medicaid, then it's not a human

  • And my bet those cases are exceptions not the rule.
    Problem with it being law is that the state had to fund it and it pretty much obliterates everyone's rights by saying it was condoned by everyone.
    Idc if it was decriminalized and people do it and gets away with it.
    I care that tax dollars end up in it.
    I care that government is lying that I condone it.

  • Sounds like a McCorvey was your typical entitled brat.

  • Can you give the other people a mic too next time

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *