Roe v. Wade | Civil liberties and civil rights | US government and civics | Khan Academy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 เม.ย. 2018
- Courses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
A deep dive into Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court case that extended the right of privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion, while recognizing compelling state interests in potential life and maternal health. In this video, Kim Kutz Elliott discusses the case with AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe and Professor Melissa Murray.
To read more about constitutional law, visit the website of the National Constitution Center. On this site, leading scholars interact and explore the Constitution and its history. For each provision of the Constitution, experts from different political perspectives coauthor interpretive explanations when they agree and write separately when their opinions diverge.
View more lessons or practice this subject at www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help! Donate or volunteer today!
Donate here: www.khanacademy.org/donate?ut...
Volunteer here: www.khanacademy.org/contribut...
![Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [SCOTUSbrief]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mQllmb-0Lnk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
Ethan Barnhart I agree
You were spot on. Its going to be challenged repeatedly.
From NYT today on the Alabama anti-abortion bill: "The bill’s sponsor in the Alabama House, Terri Collins, said that the legislation was designed to produce a legal case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. When asked the purpose of the bill on Tuesday, Clyde Chambliss, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, said, “So that we can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade.” (Highlighting the ignorance behind so much anti-abortion legislation, Mr. Chambliss also seemed to argue repeatedly on Tuesday that women in Alabama would still be able to get abortions - but only before they knew they were pregnant.)"
@@boss-anova "but only before they knew they were pregnant" Is this actually what he said? What kind of argument would that be? Such a joke in my opinion by the senate chambliss
In some cases yes . But the truth and historical fact is that 14th amendment was never properly ratified.
I didn't even know Khan Academy did government/civics videos! This video was factual and unbiased and very well done. Thank you Khan!
woah. He was right. @11:38. They will most likely repeal it later this year.
i learned so much from this than other websites or anything thank you!
Great video. Thank you all
4:25 dam that cuban link doe
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.
fetus ?? you mean ubornbaby
Really?
The issue has nothing to do with the action of procreation?
We know where life begins. That is why we call it conception. Being wilfully ignorant of this does not justify destroying the beginnings of a life.
A spark emits light, a bang may have created the universe, but an expanding group of cells does not construct a person?
Of all the horrific acts humans find purpose for, abortion is the least ambiguous and the most difficult to defend. Certainly there are exceptions that may be applied but we should be mindful of what they are or what they should be.
If a person does not have the discipline, the finances and the emotional fortitude to raise a child than they should at least have enough good sense to use measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy when they choose to have intercourse. Of course abstinence is inexpensive and accessible to everyone.
Contraceptives are safer, less expensive and easier to access and no one has to live with the knowledge they murdered a child. Of course asking people to behave responsibly is offensive but so is justifying a reason to kill an unborn life.
I find it funny how a person can spend their intellect in search of a reason outside all morality to argue for the availability of abortions but somehow they're ignorant of how to avoid needing access to such a barbaric practice.
If Abortion were illegal tomorrow, at best persons may learn to responsibly discipline their behaviors. At worst limiting legal access will reduce the frequency of which such procedures are performed as it is shunned into the shadows.
In any event the "morning after pill" will always be a thing.
1400IntruderVS, I am getting sick of your ignorant comments, so I am just going to respond to two points.
1.Abortion is not at all hard to defend. You just don't accept the defense.
2.Conception IS NOT the beginning of life, or a life, or a human life. it is ONLY the beginning of a new organisms development. Every single cell is alive, include sperm and egg cells. Because 2 cells merge into 1 cell in conception this isn't the beginning of life. If anything this is the negation of life, as 1 is less than 2.
Also, if Abortion were illegal tomorrow, the rate wouldn't change, and it would start increasing as the services that have lowered abortion rates will no longer be trusted as they are government sources, and as a result unwanted pregnancy rates will skyrocket which will lead to more abortions. At best the abortion rate will not increase, and at worst it will increase A LOT, as well as poverty increasing thus crime also increasing, as well as unsafe abortions happening, and mental health deteriorating.
Frank Lace, your outrage and frustration does not excuse your ignorance. Your #2 point should help you understand why defending abortion as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible. We use the word conception to describe the point at which a child is conceived. Human life is created by the merging of two cells. That is the physical reality of events not the spiritual or philosophical.
If you actually believe that exercising a little personal accountability and behaving responsibly are impossibly difficult, therefore every accidental conception must be terminated, than maybe eugenics is a morally acceptable concept?
You should learn how to avoid getting pregnant before expecting an abortion to save you from your own actions.
Seriously Frank, do you actually believe people are too stupid to simply exercise a little personal discipline?
Because that is the worst that could happen if abortion was not legally available for every unwanted pregnancy. People will have to exercise their own cognitive will.
No one is saying there are no extraordinary circumstance that may be considered reasons to terminate a pregnancy and I'm not suggesting a morning after pill is unacceptable either.
The bottom line is, you are arguing for one practice that is ethically debatable when there are no less than three preventive measures outside of abstinence. that are safer, less expensive and more readily available that may negate the need for that which you are defending. So don't go pretending as if you calling someone else ignorant some how dispels your own inability comprehend the weight of this discussion.
Persons who haven't learned how to behave like adults should not do adult things. It's not as if we don't know how babies are made...
Can you do rose vs lundy court case please
Haha Forsythe was right on the money about it being overturned
Can you give the other people a mic too next time
This dude predicted it 4 years ago
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
It's more like if something is not addressed in a Federal law, then the states can choose.
Yes. Even though the founding fathers intended law to be more state based.
Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey before her death she said that her anti-abortion activism was "all an act" and that she was paid by anti-abortion groups. Why not include that in this video?
Got any proof
@@sbeerman1919 She actually did a whole documentary saying this. It's called "AKA Jane Roe."
@@sbeerman1919 Unfortunately, I saw the documentary and the interview also.
Actually back then Hawaii did have laws against abortion, They however were the first to legalize it after the case a year later
Women can choose when to have children without resorting to abortion.
I find it funny how a person can spend their intellect in search of a reason outside all morality to argue for the availability of abortions but somehow their ignorant of how to avoid needing access to such a barbaric practice.
@@1400IntruderVS Well no, people know how to avoid it quite often. Things happen - Condom breaks for example. Sometimes a person pretends to wear a condom. Sometimes they practice unsafe sex.
@@ibealgoody8524 Every example you gave is a known risk when choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. If a person is not prepared to accept every possible outcome from their actions then they should discipline their behavior to avoid those possibilities. If persons simply did not participate in sexual intercourse without being prepared for the possibility of having to raise a child (because that is what we all know human biology is designed to do) than they'll never have to worry about justifying subscribing to some moral ambiguity to justify depriving their own child of their right to life.
Your rebuttal actually supports nearly every anti-abortion argument.
Trust must be inclusive to sexual behavior. Every person is responsible for the outcome of their actions. When those actions are biologically intended to produce a life, persons should be prepared for that outcome. If that is really difficult for anyone to understand, I will argue that is another reason they should not be performing sexual intercourse.
Truth.
@@1400IntruderVS Its lucky that Roe vs Wade happened the way it did because it prevents random people like you to decide who has to take what responsibility and allows people that choice in regard to their own life and health.
@@ibealgoody8524 You mean it allows people to behave irresponsibly?
Just because people can have legal abortions doesn't change that they shouldn't.
That is what you're advocating. Irresponsible behavior.
.
If you actually believe that was the determination of Roe V Wade than you need to go back to law school. It is the most misrepresented decision by American media.
Abortion remains against law in many municipalities throughout the U.S..
Laws tend to represent the cultural will of their respective jurisdictions.
It is sickening to know there so many people out there happily clinging to their ability to destroy life because they do not have enough power to exercise their ability to avoid putting themselves in such a position.
Based on today's decision, will the state get to decide if they would legalize or criminalize abortion?
I watch this when I go to sleep, because oml does it put you to sleep XD
I know right
Is being secure in one's person not a right to privacy?
No. That's simply not privacy. You could say right to life, but not privacy cause by definition by being inside someone you're kinda invading their privacy.
@@johnlocke4251 except that a fetus which is not viable outside the womb is not a person, but a fetus. Therefore, a fetus has no rights.
@@boss-anova
What is a person?
@@boss-anova There were other groups who denied humans personhood, wonder how that went 🤔🤔🤔
@@kalechips5972 a fetus cant form social groups idiot. It cant even live outside the womb. Its not a viable lifeform until the third trimester.
Extending the right to privacy that far is absurd
I want you to go right now and donate a kidney. Or explain why your right to privacy goes so much further than a woman's.
You could try making sense. I know it’s hard but please do try.
John privacy = bodily autonomy. Aka we don’t want the government deciding what to do with our bodies for any and every medical or otherwise physical possibility.
@@MartialArtsCat101 That is exactly why abortion should be illegal. No one should be able to decide to destroy the body of the unborn child.
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.
we as a society just need to decide where life begins
Alcaeus89 You don’t decide how photosynthesis happens, you don’t decide how plants grow, you don’t decide how gravity works. These are laws and the ways of life that can’t be changed or decided on, life begins at conception, it is a scientific fact, you literally can’t change it or decide it.
Please don’t take this in an offensive way, sometimes people read replies that were sent to them and just assume that the person is saying it to be rude, so I want to clarify that I’m not, to some degree I agree with you, we should at least have a healthy conversation about it, instead of the yelling and arguing like we’ve been doing.
We have decided. It’s at viability. Read the majority opinion in Casey v. Planned parenthood
Life begins when the women carrying the child says so. It's her body.
@@ladyd104
So if she says that her 9 month old baby is not a life then it's not a life? You are a complete moron.
@@ladyd104 Your illogical
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,
J'Nay Vann the second part is not continual of the first. The first talks about citizens, the second says any person. The first part is this “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;” this refers to just citizens, but this second parts refers to all people “; 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.” I think you are trying to say that it is referring to any person who is born, because you believe that is what the first part was talking about, but no it isn’t,, the first part said born in the United States not just born, so you can’t say that is continual to the second when it wasn’t even in the first, the 14 amendment said nothing about being born, but rather about being born IN the United States.
@@honestfriend767 Basic english..."nor" is a conjunction which is a word used to connect clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause (eg and, but, or, nor). Schoolhouse Rock is your friend
J'Nay Vann ok, but the subject changed to those born in the United States to any person.
@@honestfriend767 Yeah but...that does not apply to the fetus because it's not even born yet
J'Nay Vann so you are going to dehumanize it and say it’s not a human being so therefor not a person, but the only thing you need to qualify as a human being is human DNA which the fetus has, because technically the definition of a human being is a being with human DNA
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.*
@@connordkrauss I find it disgusting that pro choice advocates would classify a baby in her mother's womb as an extension of the mother, and not as an individual life. So they can justify terminating the unborn child without fear of guilt or accountability. There are more African-American babies aborted then are born. Humanity has fallen.
Roe v wade is unconstitutional, abortion is cruel and unusual punishment for innocent life that didn’t commit a crime.
@@honestfriend767 all yall better be vegan then huh
It's the woman's body, not yours or anyone else's. It's her choice and hers alone, and anyone trying to take that choice away is actively going against the fourteenth amendment. Like it or not, abortion is staying.
@@honestfriend767 Actually, attempting to remove a woman's right to abortion is unconstitutional
I am opposed to abortion. I have only had sex with my wife after we were married. I have two wonderful children. I am thankful I have been able to provide for them. I try to understand others. I try to imagine being a pregnant woman without a husband. I try to live my life as a good Catholic.
That is wonderful. God bless you and your family.
Great! However I hope you don't want to restrict the abortion Rights of others!
Life first, then liberty.
No one has the right to conspire to murder someone. Appeals to “privacy” rights to justify murdering a small human because they’re small and dependent is malevolently ridiculous.
Sooo ... where do women stand with natural abortion: as in when they have a miscarriage?
I am pro life, thank you for having the honest balanced discussion.
@Strawberry Milk How do you define “human”?
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi
I do agree that this should be a religious decision and the government should stay out of it for the most part. I also believe that people should not force “their” religious beliefs on others.
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi
If you believe that life begins at conception, or even before conception and every man that spills his seed is killing billions of potential lives, you have every right to believe that and I support your rights to believe that. What I don't support is people forcing those beliefs on others.
If your religion wants to forbid contraception or pre-marital sex or abortion, then they should be allowed to do that as long as they don't force those restrictions on others outside of that religion.
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi
Good for you, do you want a cookie?
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi
I don’t care if you believe that we are all living in the Matrix and we noting more than human batteries, as long as you don’t force “your” beliefs on others.
My point from the very beginning is that I respect your right to believe whatever you want as long as your respect other’s right to believe whatever they want. Abortion is a religions topic that has been politicized and my belief is that government should stay away from it, for the most part.
"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
Black Hole Guy that argument presupposes that fetuses have rights. They don’t in the constitution.
Those monsters better repent or else theyll be damned just like they deserve!
Sorry if you're seeing this a few years from now.
Let's not forget ~how~ the choice is made "when" to have the baby ~after~ getting pregnant: the only way to stop the baby from being born alive is to stop the life cycle that's already begun. What do you think that does to the tiny one? Yeah, you can choose when to have ~a~ baby by choosing what happens to ~the~ baby you've already started to make. Either way you tip the equation, ~the~ baby's life hangs in the balance of your decision of "now or later." Make the decision of now or later ~before~ you get pregnant so you don't end up stuck with the horrible choice of what happens to ~this~ baby--the one that's already begun?
Abstinence solves all this silly discussion points. Why is women in the work force being dragged into this?
Safe accessible legal abortion > illegal dangerous at home performances
killing babies is never OK.
@@sirdickusmaximus8685 they're non sentient fetuses, it's not killing, get over it.
Playing stupid games will win you stupid prizes.
Contraceptives are safer, less expensive and easier to access and no one has to live with the knowledge they murdered a child. Of course asking people to behave responsibly is offensive but so is justifying a reason to kill an unborn life.
I find it funny how a person can spend their intellect in search of a reason outside all morality to argue for the availability of abortions but somehow the're ignorant of how to avoid needing access to such a barbaric practice.
I agree, this is also why i believe hitmen should be legal. If i'm required to kill someone on my own, its much more dangerous than hiring a trained professional to do it.
Good news. i hear the timeline, abortion should be illegal by the end of the year.
Good news for morons
I heard the world should have ended in 2012
Abortions being illegal doesn't prevent abortions.
@@shakky1512
If you will get on an electric chair when having an abortion, abortion for sure will decrease.
Monkey D. Luffy the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.
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
So the government determines whether or not a fetus is a person? Hmmmm.
Science proves you wrong. The are members of our species. That makes them human beings.
So paperwork makes you human? That's so...sad.