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?
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because a fetus isn’t a person. Until birth it is considered a part of the mother, specifically to prevent stupid and unsustainable rulings like this one. If your mother was killed by cancer, are you going to take her tumor to court and put it in prison? No, you wouldn’t, that would be ridiculous. Because a tumor can’t choose its actions. Neither can a fetus.
After development and birth, when the child can think and act for itself, sure it’s a person. Inside the womb? It is an organ, it acts and thinks like an organ (by which I mean, it doesn’t) and can hold no legal responsibility for anything because it is not a thinking being.
Do I find this to be sad? Sure, absolutely. I’d prefer every fetus in the world to be loved and wanted and born without complication into a life of ease. But you and I both know very well that that is not the reality of the world.
The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies. I’m pointing out why “self defense” against a person who has done literally nothing is ridiculous. I was writing my previous posts under the assumption that a fetus is a person, the same as in the original post.
But I also believe that there’s no point in drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where a human organism/being/whatever you’d like to call it becomes a person. The minute you do that, it opens the door to whoever is writing the rules this week to decide things like “humans who are in a coma aren’t people anymore” or “humans without a certain level of intellectual ability aren’t people.” That isn’t a level of authority that I would entrust to any mortal human being. Would you?
Organs are components of an organism that support its life functions. A fetus is not a component of an organism, but is an organism unto itself. If it were an organ, then it would be something a woman is born with and develops naturally as she grows. Women are born with egg cells, true, but they don’t become fetuses until they are fertilized and undergo a degree of development.
The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies.
That is certainly one part of the issue here.
Dont get me wrong here, I do absolutely understand your viewpoint here I think. Especially as regards the slope that lawmakers can use to slip down. This is a tricky and nuanced subject, which is why I’m largely in favor of leaving it the fuck alone. That’s kind of the context of the entire post that we’re debating in the comments of. If a fetus becomes legally declared to be a distinct person then suddenly half our legal code can be used in absurd and self-inconsistent ways. Currently that is not the case but some people very much want it to be that way.
Personally, I say a person becomes a person when they prove themselves an independent thinking being and they retain that status until their death. Babies, generally speaking, become independent thinking beings upon birth. Before that they are still biologically attached to the mother, thus not independent and therefore subject to the will of her person, and after that they move and think on their own and have become their own being. A person who is in an unresponsive coma is still considered a person because they attained personhood and have not yet died, but even today there are legal loopholes for family to decline further care for the comatose person. That probably won’t change. If your family has hope for you you’ll stay alive and if they don’t then they can order your death, I don’t really see how you get around that in a world where comas still happen.
Right now we have a shaky, but stable enough legal framework around this sort of thing that’s been put together over a couple hundred years of people thinking about this. But if we go poking at things that are core to the legal code, such as “what is a person”, things start falling off of it.
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.
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…
“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.
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.
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…
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.
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’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, 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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Surely there are fully offline and open source solutions to this right?
Edit: Yes there are. I dont menstruate and dont know enough details to check if this is a good app, but it looks very well made and clean. Its also available on all platforms and from Fdroid.
If you use a sufficiently good passphrase on your degoogled phone, they cant bruteforce their way in, even with NSO group tools. Trying to come up with your own code is just foolish.
Yeah, I generally agree. Offline encryption with a PIN is the way to go if you’re worried (and you probably should be). If they try to make you unlock it, you can forget the pin, biometrics don’t have that advantage.
Unfortunately I don’t have the links any more, but I did some research and there are some good privacy-focused apps for this. I recall seeing some with features specifically to prevent unauthorized access and with emergency data shredding functionality. I think I saw one that would cleverly create random realistic data if accessed incorrectly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn’t about speech. This is about location. I can see why this would be considered a safety issue. Medians weren’t designed for people to stand in them. They’re designed to separate traffic and facilitate signage, light poles, etc.
I’m against the criminalization of homelessness, but this isn’t that.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“People think homeless people are lazy, and they are not lazy. This is hard work.”
It probably is hard being out there in all sorts of weather. But it’s not a productive endeavor, it contributes nothing to society. I can also see it is dangerous and distracting to have people hanging out and moving around so close to traffic. Cars and pedestrians don’t mix well.
“Not a productive endeavor” could be a classification for thousands of businesses that exist and make money. That just seems like a weak justification for attacking a marginalized group.
Safety issues are a concern but for example in my city, firefighters often have a “fill the boot” fundraiser where they run around cars at stoplights trying to get people to put money into a boot that they’re carrying around. This is no different than pan handling, except one group is viewed more favorably than the other and safety doesn’t seem to be such an issue with the favored group.
There needs to be some useful and productive way for homeless to make money, ideally open schemes in which anyone regardless of status can participate without restrictive conditions and expectations.
stateline.org
Top