• RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

      • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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’.

    • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Drusas@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we’re still forced to live by the rules of society.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That doesn’t answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?

          • Drusas@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.

            • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

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

        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.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

                • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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?

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      What they’d really hate is not being able to jail pregnant women because the fetus is innocent

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

        • abcd@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          But what if the fetus told the pregnant woman it would kill her and itself if she doesn’t kill her husband. Afraid of dying and losing her fetus she kills her husband.

          Let’s say the fetus gets a death sentence because obviously this person initiated everything. Would they wait for it to be born before killing it? Or would they kill it before birth what would be basically an abortion. But abortions are outlawed…

  • ZhaoYadang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    “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.

    • Trubble@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?!

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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 Tim can finally afford the new master cylinder in his 2006 Camry and get a new used iPhone 8.

        Please give today.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not the only next step. They are also looking to ban contraceptives. IUDs will be up first because sobre believe life begins at fertilization.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        How the fuck would they even do that. Stopping fertilization isn’t killing a ‘person’ as defined by them either.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The evangelicals have been terrorizing normal people and forcing their bigotry on everyone for centuries. Enough is fucking enough.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

      • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • p3n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Moving the goalposts. That is not “simply walking away.” That’s following an established process in place.

        • notjustlurking@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            “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?”

            1. Considering the severe mental trauma involved here: No, I don’t think she would be.
            2. What the fuck is wrong with you?
            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              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?

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.”

            • P00ptart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 months ago

    So they count as dependents on taxes, require child support, and allow the mother to drive in the carpool lane?

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    So if fetuses are declared people will Republicans start ignoring them like they do children?

    • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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!

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      LMFAO, that is so dark, and so unfortunately believable given today’s political landscape in America.

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • Erasmus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.