• Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If you look at the ruling, the judge went in HARD:

    *Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.

    And:

    For these women, the liberty of privacy means that they alone should choose whether they serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability. It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

    Source

    • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      … any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

      This fact is why abortion restrictions are unethical period. In no other situation do we allow the government to force a person to give up parts of their body to keep someone else alive, even their own child. But most people aren’t ready to hear that.

    • Spiritsong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is very powerful. I mean the entire phrasing. The judge certainly did not muck around! (BTW, non American here, but I like the choice of words and phrases he used in his sentencing)