cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605

A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.

  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This girl could have had a legal abortion in the first 5 months of the pregnancy. Abortion is legal where she is, Roe v Wade being repealed changed nothing.

    As for Roe v Wade, even those that are pro-abortion like myself can understand why it was overturned. Abortions aren’t a “privacy” issue like Roe v Wade was used to claim they are.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t know her life so no, you have no way of saying for sure whether she could.

      And of COURSE abortion is a privacy issue, as well as one of bodily autonomy! It’s a medical procedure ffs!

      If you think the privacy argument in Roe was spurious, you should see the quote from a 17th century witch hunter about “quickening” that the majority cited as part of the justification for their miscarriage of justice, pardon the pun. THAT’S some bullshit!

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t need to know her life to know that an abortion was legal for her for the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy.

        Abortion is not a privacy issue. How is it a privacy issue?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’d need to know her life in order to know what was possible for her to do during that time frame. There are myriad reasons why she might not have been able to get an abortion during that time period, not least of which that the entire state of Nebraska has only one place that performs them. That place might be far away from where she lives, she might have to take time off work or be fired etc etc.

          I already told you how it’s a privacy issue: it’s a medical procedure and as such it’s nobody’s business than your own or that of your doctor.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not at all how things work. Just because it’s a medical procedure doesn’t mean that “privacy” means that it should be allowed at a federal level. You don’t just get free reign to medical procedures federally because of “privacy”.

            Also the abortion is taking a tablet or 2 btw - like what she did here. You can DIY your own abortion with a few tablets up to like 8 weeks old.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Free reign? Like it’s a fucking privilege to get doctor-approved medical assistance?

              I’m done with your dumb and probably disingenuous arguments against basic bodily autonomy and medical privacy. Have the day you deserve.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you explain how abortions should be legal at a federal level because of privacy?

                That’s the point I’m making. Abortion isn’t a privacy issue. It’s an elective procedure 99% of the time, and it has nothing to do with privacy whatsoever.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a common and often necessary medical procedure and as such, you have it backwards: you need to supply a compelling argument for banning something medically advantageous and sometimes life-saving.

                  As for privacy, it’s none of the government’s business which medically approved treatment women receive or don’t receive.