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.
No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we’re still forced to live by the rules of society.
That doesn’t answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?
The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.
What exactly is the fallacy here? The point is that if the child has done nothing of its own choice to harm its mother, then the fetus cannot be held responsible either.
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?!
I’m Sally Struthers, and I’m here to talk to you about the reality of life here in the nation of America. This is a photo of Timmy. Timmy is a 28 year old middle-manager at a large box store. With just $400 a week Timmy can finally afford the new master cylinder in his 2006 Camry and get a new used iPhone 8.
Please give today.
Sad violin music plays and swells, pan over wide eyed, hopeful Americans with light luggage packed, waiting patiently for their new family, an arm waves tentatively, friendly but scared…
🎶 In the arms of an angel
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.
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.
It’s easy to bring a baby to a facility and say “I can’t do this.” There is no punishment for doing so.
It’s much more difficult to leave a fetus at a facility and say “I can’t do this.”
It is also very difficult to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless there are some major health risks involved. During the 1st trimester (when 95% of abortions are performed) the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain.
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
She is not and should not get in any trouble. If anything the decision should be celebrated, as long as we’re talking about a safe dropoff at a hospital or other safe haven.
The child will go from a mother who was in a situation so bad she was willing to give up her baby, to most likely a couple that’s been waiting years to adopt and are dying to be parents.
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.
No. A mother/parent/or guardian can abandon a newborn at most hospitals, fire stations, or safe haven deep off stations. In most cases the process is anonymous if you want it to be.
Moving the goalposts. That is not “simply walking away.” That’s following an established process in place.
Following the established process for what?
Is it for “walking away from parental responsibility?”
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?
“What is a woman was raped, then locked up for 9 months until she gave birth, then let free. Would she be at fault if she abandoned the baby?”
- Considering the severe mental trauma involved here: No, I don’t think she would be.
- What the fuck is wrong with you?
Yes, she would be if she left it on the street or in a dumpster or something. If she doesn’t want it, she should surrender it to someone or someplace that will take care of it What the fuck is wrong with YOU that you think it’s acceptable for a baby to be left to die?
She’s been locked in a room and tormented for 9 months. I’m not saying it’s “acceptable”, I’m saying it’s understandable if the first thing she does is run away from the symbol of her torment. Much like how murder isn’t acceptable, but if the first thing she did was murder the person who tortured her there wouldn’t be a jury that would convict her. There is a strong case for temporary insanity.
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.
I can’t see down votes (blahaj user), but I hope you weren’t downvoted to oblivion. It’s good to ask questions that examine one’s beliefs and those of others. It’s a great way to grow as a person. I personally believe the more difficult and awkward the question, the more it should be considered.
Just click on the little rainbow star and you’ll see the score from their instance.
I had no idea! I use Voyager for mobile and it doesn’t show the little star, but I see what you’re talking about on desktop. Thanks!
So if fetuses are declared people will Republicans start ignoring them like they do children?
The answer to that question, is yes. Republicans will immediately will stop giving a shit. Which is impressive as they barely care about fetuses now expect for a way to control women.
So they count as dependents on taxes, require child support, and allow the mother to drive in the carpool lane?
I was thinking fetal life insurance.
Just get a freezer full of zygotes and you’ll never pay taxes again.
If a fetus kills you, do they get tried as a minor?
Manslaughter, they don’t have intent.
Depends on the skin color and the class of the fetus.
A fetus that comes a from white, upper class. The answer would be as minor.
A black, poor fetus. Definitely being tried as an adult.
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.I miss the internet of the era of Domo-kun memes.
Hmmm. Who gets the mass murder charge for all the sperm after sex??
Just kidding, this is America. The woman gets charged.
Fucking mega-Hitler over here asking for a donation.
How do you live with yourself for killing so many millions of people of young age?
Wait til you hear about the Cronus wannabes swallowing them all whole! Despicable.
Life begins at ejaculation!
Just do it on your own time.
On the one hand: ew. Also, how does anyone know enough to put up an actual sign?
On the other: Now they’re just advertising this as an option. According to the sign, as long as you’re clocked out, you’re g2g.
On both hands: Make sure you clock out first.
This was probably written and printed off by an employee as a joke… and it’s really funny.
Yes! If your net worth is over $100M, that is.
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.
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?
They’re also fighting or have recently been fighting minimum marriage age laws in like 12 States.
I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, “oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks.”
And to make sure their wives can’t divorce them for it.
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.
My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will “take the commitment more seriously”.
He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.
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 women votes should be doubled!
I get what you’re going for, but young kids can’t vote, so this doesn’t really work as a joke. :P
Couch boy wants to give parents an extra vote for every child they have. Now, he doesn’t say how they are split between the parents so a) probably goes to the father and b) not if the kid has 2 moms or 2 dads.
He only has 3 kids. You’d think he would spend less time fucking couches with that attitude.
Ok, then start issuing them social security numbers as soon as they’ve confirmed your pregnant so parents can start applying for and receiving benefits before the child is even born.
Not attacking you, but I hate this fucking argument about fetuses being people: if they’re people at the moment of conception, then they need to be treated as such. Conservatives can’t have it both ways, despite the fact I know in their minds they can.
On an unrelated note: I think it’s time we got rid of “under God” and “In God We Trust” from the pledge of allegiance and all of our currency. We’re not a Christian nation, I don’t believe in a God, and shouldn’t have to handle currency that goes against my lack of religious beliefs.
But half our country wants a Christian-Theocratic-Sharia-Law institution as our government, and I’d prefer they just fuck right off.
Did you intend to reply to me to begin with? 'cause I just made a side comment that’s not related to the actual controversy at all, lol
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!
