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.

  • chitak166@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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.