Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
theverge.com
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.
You are viewing a single comment
Wait what the heck is an illegal abortion? You mean getting one from unlicensed practioners? Some do it time to time to save money or don't know any better.
In Nebraska or most other red states, could be having an abortion at all. Did you miss SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade using, I kid you not, quotes from the 1600s in their reasoning?
Not American, the most I hear are when new presidents are elected or the occasional riots.
I'm not American either, but since my country catches a cold when the US sneezes, I keep tabs on what's happening over there..
Well put, and we're (some of us at least are) sorry about that cold you caught.
It's ok, I know that the ones with the decency to feel bad about it aren't the ones constantly getting us sick 😉
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 Abortion is legal where she is, Roe v Wade being repealed changed nothing.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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This will be referring to recently introduced laws essentially banning all/any abortion to be carried out (in some states even in extreme cases like rape/incest, or to save the life of the mother), but outside of that an illegal abortion might be due to it being done later in the pregancy than is legal, or without following required processes e.g. requirements to get scans first, alert the father, or have a consultation (most of which are often just traumatising anti-choice measures). Also as you say, using an unlicensed practitioner or unsafe method, yeah. Which aside from money, is sometimes due to fears of repercussion from their community or partner about either the pregancy or getting an abortion, so they seek back-door options or try to do it themselves without proper care.
She took something that aborted the baby in the third trimester(28 weeks), well after Nebraska's 20 week window for legal abortions. 6.5 months into a 9 month process.
The baby could have survived if delivered, with specialized care, which puts it well outside of the "clump of cells" argument.
And yet, it's still many weeks before the "her body her choice" argument ends.
An argument that, at 6.5mo of gestation, is well outside the moral limits of the vast majority.
That's a bunch of bull, I know it, you know it, everybodys knows it. Vast majority my butt. If people cared that much about babies they wouldn't die by the truck load all around the world because they can't get the care they need.
That's not really a relevant argument. It isn't about whether people care about babies or not. Rather, this is a question of ethics: is it morally wrong to kill a baby if it's still in your body but could live outside your body? If not, why not, assuming that it is morally wrong to kill another human?
If they don't care about babies their opinion doesn't matter about an unborn baby. Period.
Excepting the opinion of the imaginary person you've invented, the question still remains.
Edit: and I would like to add that I do not align myself with conservative politics. I just question the morality of killing a being that would have likely lived if it had been removed from the mother.
I find this argumentation very weird. It is still in her body, it's a part of her body. No one should have these kinds of rights over another person's body. A person who actually is already alive, btw (the woman is also a living person).
Do you think people should be forced to donate organs? I feel this is a better analogy where men are actually included and can't just stand by an watch how others are forced into stuff.
She chose to kill a baby that would have been alive had she given birth to it right there and then - that's what makes this case different to someone getting an abortion at 8 weeks.
By having your carbon footprint, you're causing the death of billions of humans who would be alive in the future.
You're not going to get anywhere making dumb arguments like that.
You're not going to get anywhere making zero arguments.