A Kentucky woman Friday filed an emergency class-action lawsuit, asking a Jefferson County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. It’s the first lawsuit of its kind in Kentucky since the state banned nearly all abortions in 2022 and one of the only times nationwide since before Roe v. Wade in 1973 that an adult woman has asked a court to intervene on her behalf and allow her to get an abortion.

  • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    Seriously! Remember how when they wrote the 2nd ammendmen, they absolutely had modern firearms in mind, right? How is bodily autonomy a “weak stance”?

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The other side argues that the unborn child has rights and that the 14th amendment does not protect abortion.

      You’re trying to tie abortion to ‘bodily autonomy’ because you want abortion to be protected by the constitution. That way, states don’t get to decide for themselves.

      Abortion would have better protections with its own amendment, but you know how difficult (impossible?) that will be, so it’s imperative that you find a way to tie it to existing amendments.

      • You’re trying to tie abortion to ‘bodily autonomy’ because you want abortion to be protected by the constitution. That way, states don’t get to decide for themselves.

        In what universe are they not tied together? There’s no good-faith argument against this.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          In the universe where people believe an unborn child has rights.

          Should expectant mothers be allowed to engage in activities that harm their children?

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            What about in the universe where a pregnant woman has a non-viable pregnancy that will cause her lasting medical harm if she doesn’t get treatment?

            Should governments be allowed to engage in activities that strictly harm their citizens?

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              I think the mother gets precedent over the child. Even if the pregnancy is viable and there is no elevated risk of harm to the mother, she should still be allowed to have an abortion.

              Some people disagree with me though for the reasons I have mentioned.

          • Bodily autonomy means only you have the absolute right to do with your body what you want. The “unborn child” has no right to claim your body for its own use. Removing it from the body is always done as safely as possible; before 24 weeks this means an abortion, as the fetus is non-viable still. After 24 weeks, it’s called an induced birth and the baby gets to survive.

            This without question ties the right to abortion to the right to bodily autonomy. The “rights of the unborn child” are respected by not killing it after 24 weeks.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s fair, I totally agree with you. An unborn child is just a collection of cells with no sense of self. I mean, it really calls into question what is a conscious being, imo, which they clearly are not. They’re far, far from developing the facilities to manifest consciousness.

              That said, a lot of people cannot understand this. I think it’s unfair to misrepresent their argument and therefor misunderstand them. It’s not conducive to discussion. Even if they’re wrong, I think it’s important to acknowledge what their stance is, for what it is.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        And yet the other side is calling for a federal ban.

        The ‘states’ rights’ crowd waffles between arguing for state or federal control depending on which is more convenient to a particular conversation.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes. Both sides are happy to cry ‘slippery slope’ and then engage in it when it is favorable to them.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            The difference is one side isn’t trying to force anything, they’re just saying “you have the choice”.

            The other side is trying to force their choice on everyone?

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well, not exactly. If people want to live in a state where they don’t have the choice for an abortion, then making it federally mandatory takes that choice away from them.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                If you don’t want an abortion you are under no obligation to have one. The only right they lost was the right to kill woman for the Christian blood god

                • chitak166@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Typical, willful misunderstanding of state’s rights.

                  Even if you disagree with the rights, you can’t deny that people think they should exist.

                  Do you think, for example, that Thailand is justified in executing drug users? That’s the right of their state. Should there be a world constitution that stops them from doing that? I personally think, yes. But it doesn’t exist, so drug users in Thailand must suffer execution.

                  It’s an unfortunate world we live in, but bad faith arguments do not make it better.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    bad faith arguments do not make it better.

                    Then stop putting forward bad faith arguments

                    Typical, willful misunderstanding of state’s rights.

                    Nobody actually believes this is about states rights, evidenced by the fact the the states trying to ban abortions are trying to prevent them happening in other states where it is legal.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Typically willful misunderstanding of the right to be left alone and the “right” of the skydaddy followers to impose their will on us.

                    Thanks for muddling theocracy with democracy today

              • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You’re deliberately misunderstanding. You are conflating choice with people wanting the law to be a specific way. You don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. That has nothing to do with me. My potential abortion has nothing to do with you. Once you decide to make it illegal for me to have an abortion, that is taking away all choice. The law allowing for either/or is not making a choice on your ability to not have an abortion; that doesn’t take away from you. You still get to decide to not have one.

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Most 12 year old rape victims didn’t get to choose the state in which they were born. Most people living in poverty don’t have the luxury of just moving somewhere else. And what about the disabled or women with court orders preventing them from leaving the state for whatever reason? There are many, many situations where that isn’t feasible.

                That view of the situation is pretty myopic and privileged.

      • Exatron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        And what’s wrong with that? It’s something, especially compared to your plan of doing essentially nothing until an amendment is ratified.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        that the 14th amendment does not protect abortion

        This is completely irrelevant. The 9th Amendment says a right does not need to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected, nor are other rights lesser to those that are explicit.

        SCOTUS has been spitting on the Constitution for a long time.