So if we perceive a fetus as a person, self defense laws and stand your ground laws should apply right?
Like, if the threat is persistent and reasonably considered to be causing bodily harm, then reasonable escalating force, up to lethal, should be legal correct? Intent and innocence of the perps intentions does not absolve them in court of law… So if we consider the fetus a person and they are causing harm without stopping when prompted the mother should be legally afforded to defend herself, no?
The oil and gas industry is responsible for miscarriages and premature births.
This is the truth. Not even a full grown person, not even your just-born child, no one can compel you to give your blood to save their life much less to keep them alive inside your own body for nine months.
If they think a fetus has the same right to life as any person, they are free to help it survive using their own resources, just get it the fuck out of my body first.
That is a creative usage of the law. I like it
If you think about it, isnt all law about creative and novel ways to twist wording to get around it?
If we couldnt bend the law to our will there would only be one law and it would be: ‘dont be a cunt’.
Would you be okay with charging a 5-year-old child with assault if a dad threw the kid at his mom without the kid wanting that? The kid didn’t choose to be thrown at his mom, but collided with her regardless. Similarly, the fetus didn’t choose to be conceived, but exists nonetheless.
I don’t understand why the five year old would have any charges against it in that scenario, they too were a victim. From the moment they were tossed, any forthcoming damages and assaults are placed on the person chucking said child.
Easy one, next question I like these.
Right, I agree. And so, would you say that a fetus, which did not choose to be conceived or sustained in any way in the mother, should be held responsible for any harm (however you define that) that comes to the mother as a result of the pregnancy? If so, then you should also hold the child responsible because it struck and harmed its mother, even though it didn’t do so by choice.
Yes. That’s how self defense works. You have a right to defend your own health. Period.
In that case, the child thrown at its mother is guilty of assault because it harmed her by colliding with her. The child would be subject to self-defense rules and could rightly have been shot out of the air like a clay pigeon.
No it isn’t. The person throwing the child is guilty of assault. This is nowhere near the same situation.
So if a five-year-old can’t be held responsible and killed for hitting its mother by being thrown at her, because it was the dad who threw it, then how can a fetus be held responsible and killed for existing and causing harm to the mother, even though it never chose to exist at all and was conceived by another person?
Bad analogy. The father would be charged with assault on the kid and the woman in your scenario. Also, no one reasonable thinks a five year old and a fetus are the same, which is why these laws are fucking ridiculous.
The discussion here is founded upon the assumption that a fetus is a person. The OP’s argument is that if that’s true, then self defense laws apply and the woman should be able to defend herself from the fetus by whatever means necessary to prevent harm. But the fetus can’t choose to do anything, so killing it in self defense would only make sense if you could also kill the five year old who was thrown at its mother.
“Fetal personhood” was always the next shoe to drop after they overturned Roe. I was a little surprised the court didn’t go straight there in Dodd.
All that shit the court said about the states being able to decide about abortion? Lies. These right-wing nutcases are out to ban abortion everywhere. And they will, through fetal personhood. We can’t pass a law to kill a PERSON without due process, can we?
It’ll happen in the next five years unless we reform the court or impeach the six frauds. Based on our current tendency to go from bad to worse, I doubt either of those will happen.
Emigrate now if you can.
How? Where? None of us have money saved anymore. Groceries and rent have made sure we can’t save any money for anything.
…Unless, there is an adopt an American family movement I haven’t heard of? Can we start one?!
Not the only next step. They are also looking to ban contraceptives. IUDs will be up first because some believe life begins at fertilization.
How the fuck would they even do that. Stopping fertilization isn’t killing a ‘person’ as defined by them either.
Moralizing laws aren’t new at all. Look at how many “dry” counties we have, how many places close liquor stores on Sunday, the restrictions on strip clubs, the history of sodomy laws… the Evangelicals have been trying to take over for a long time and this is what happens whej we tolerate even an ounce of religious rule.
The evangelicals have been terrorizing normal people and forcing their bigotry on everyone for centuries. Enough is fucking enough.
My ancestors came to the conclusion that it starts when they get annoying. Its just that we cant take counter terror actions we once did because of things like forensics and police, just let us burn them in their churches damnit. Also we usually ignored the more humanist ones, atleast yoh could have reasoned debate with men like John Brown so long as it wasnt something like slavery.
I didn’t think they let it get to fertilization. The copper ones kill sperm with ions and the others, I thought, were just slow release hormonal BC.
So I can drive in the HOV lane, I can’t be mass arrested, and attempted murder against me is considered attempted genocide?
My tax return is going to be enormous due to how many dependants I have. I’ll have enough money to get TF out of this crazy place.
What they’d really hate is not being able to jail pregnant women because the fetus is innocent
Just wait until Texas rules that the fetus was an accomplice, and gives a pregnant woman a double sentence.
Pregnant women kills an abusive husband and Texas tries the mother and fetus for murder…
It’s less funny when you think about how they probably wouldn’t blink
Big brain
All the college kids get to start legally drinking nine months earlier! And legal weed too!
Being a person doesn’t give them the right to someone else’s body to survive.
Unless we’re legalizing forced blood, liver, marrow, and kidney donation?
It would be morbidly funny for a woman to sue a fetus for sexual assault for penetrating them without consent.
I’ll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?
If not, why?
If so, why?
There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn’t thoeretical.
Yes, because it’s trivial to simply leave the baby at a fire station. The important distinction is that it’s drastically easier to carry a baby for 10 blocks than 10 months.
Yes because you have an active duty to seek continuation of care when leaving someone helpless. It’s like walking away after trying to help an unconscious stranger when you learn they need cpr. You don’t necessarily need to give them cpr but you should have to at least call 911 for them
Yes, because that baby is helpless and is her responsibility to take care of. It’s also an actual person, not a potential person like a fetus is.
What if she was impregnated against her will? What if she was forced to birth the child against her will? Is it still her responsibility?
It is her responsibility to make sure the baby isn’t just being left to die somewhere, yes. If she wants to take it somewhere where others will take care of it, so be it. But it is NEVER right to “simply walk away.”
Yeah, there’s no excuse for dumpster babies when it is so easy to leave them with responsible people who will ensure the child grows up safe, in a loving home.
While it’s not easy to find safe, loving homes, at least give the kid a chance at life rather than dooming it to a horrible death.
If a fetus kills you, do they get tried as a minor?
Manslaughter, they don’t have intent.
This is the plot of Baby Driver, right?
Edit: I’m stupid, I was thinking of Fetus Driver
Officer: Are you pregnant ma’am?
Ma’am: No there’s a homeless person who is living rent free inside my womb against my will.
Officer: Stand back maam!
LMFAO, that is so dark, and so unfortunately believable given today’s political landscape in America.
I stopped before the police officer arrested the woman for violating homelessness laws.
I have about a million pre-people in this tissue. Can I get a tax break?
Every time you masturbate,
God kills a kittenyou go to prison for mass murder.Hmmm. Who gets the mass murder charge for all the sperm after sex??
Just kidding, this is America. The woman gets charged.
But are fetuses corporations? If a small business incubator fails, is it an abortion?
Yes, and the customers and employees can be charged with murder.
Careful of what you wish for. I look forward to a future court case that establishes once and for all the definition of a person. Although, with the current Supreme Court, I do admit some hesitation.
I mean, if you want to establish rights for a fetus, what do you do when that fetus belongs to a “Mexican”? What do you do if a pregnant American moves to another country without the permission of the fetus? Not to say these are legit examples, but the courts will fill with bizarre cases like this.
More interestingly, what do you do when science stands up in court and establishes a fact that opposes your belief? Your beliefs have gotten you this far. It’s very plausible that you will lose some of the ground you’ve gained.
What do you do when you put a pregnant woman in jail? What if they get pregnant in jail?
Put the child in a foster home that preaches that this was all for the best. They are only fit caregivers if they share this belief. In 10 years use the child for propaganda about God working in mysterious ways.
It all depends which corporation is paying the most for the ruling.
The US Supreme Court, and specifically several of its members (looking at you Clarence Thomas) are nothing more than corporate shills who’ve made it clear they are out for nothing more than whoever can pay them the most money.
Pretty soon they’ll be trying to put me in prison for mass-murder every time I jerk off.
Not a chance, you’re (presumably) Male.
May still be possible. We don’t know what his skin color is.
Only if he’s a white, male landowner.
It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?
The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That’s Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.
That is… a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.
The part you are referring to is referred to as “Sota” which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as “sota water,” to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, “these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture” . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.
Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won’t hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.
Doesn’t that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn’t Republicans want that to be an exception?
It could be interpreted that way… I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.
The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the ‘Nezre’ah Zerah’ implies the potion will cause barreness.
Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it’s on the moot side of things.
The Christ never addressed it, so it “should” be included in the stuff that still applies.
Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn’t forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.
As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.
it’s always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they’re an adult, divorce doesn’t matter because they don’t care, you’re an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn’t care less. it’s also about punishment. a man can’t be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she’s a whore and deserves it.
edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they’re treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.
because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.
Would not surprise me if these same people then try to legalize pedophilia if they win just so they can do everything in their power to legally fuck a fetus. I imagine that’s their ultimate goal in life.
These people watched a serbian film and thought: newborn porn? Why didn’t i think of that
Come census time there will be pregnancy tests?
fuck religion. prove your god is real or stfu. stop letting conservatives have a say in the government of this country. just put your fucking feet down people. stop letting idiots speak.
Pregnant mothers can drive in the carpool lane!
But people under a certain age are required a child seat, no? So unless those rules are changed, it would be hard for any pregnant woman to legally sit in a moving car.
We’re just going to have to also legally classify pregnant people as car seats so they can drive to work.
Ah, good point. But doesn’t that mean that the pregnant woman can’t ride in the car at all, since the young “person” inside them doesn’t have a way to be put in a seat?
It looks like Florida and West Virginia have no seat laws, so pregnant woman in the carpool lane are good to go there!
