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.
Huh. So it was more divided then but it is less likely that we can amend the constitution now due to how divided we are? That doesn’t make much sense.
What part of having a civil war determining the fate of slavery do you not understand?
We’re not discussing a civil war to add abortion protections to the constitution. We’re talking about passing it using measures that would not have worked when trying to outlaw slavery.
You’re conflating two marginally related causes as though they are identical. Try to stay on topic and you’ll be less confused.
Sure, two causes that involved the rights of states over the rights of people’s bodily autonomy are only “marginally related.” Got it.
Why are you mentioning the likelihood of them being added to the constitution while ignoring that one took a civil war to happen?
You’re saying you’re confused about why slavery was outlawed but abortion wasn’t when the nation was more divided during slavery. It’s because they had a civil war over it! That’s the only reason the constitution was amended to ban slavery, because of who won that war.
It’s possible that even if the nation is less divided than it was during the Civil War, it’s still too divided to amend the constitution to protect abortion.
So you think the nation wasn’t still significantly divided after the Civil War?
It was, but concessions had to be made by the losing side; as is typical among wars.
So you’re saying that literally the only way for one side to make concessions when it comes to amending the constitution over a very divisive issue is to fight a war over it.
Weird, because I don’t remember the war that was fought over giving women the right to vote despite a huge amount of political opposition.
The nation wasn’t as divided during the early 20th century as it is now.
Common sense and decency was still valued, to an extent.
I have a question for you. Is there any way. Any way at all. That you can address my points with arguments of your own instead of replacing what I’m saying with what’s easier to argue against?
This whole discussion has been nothing but, “You mean this right?” “No, I don’t mean that.”
Between that and your analogies, it seems like you’re incapable of staying on topic.
Please present evidence that the nation was less divided over the right of women to vote than they are now over abortion. The only reason I think you could possibly say that is if you were totally ignorant of the subject. Women were literally tortured over it.
Suggesting I am incapable of staying on topic when you were the one who brought up the idea that we’re too divided to codify abortion is silly. I am showing you examples of times when America was far more divided and the Constitution was still amended. Your ignorance of history is behind your argument and I am trying to show you why.