• RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    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?

    • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      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.

      • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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’.

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      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
        10
        ·
        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
          3
          ·
          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
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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
        4
        ·
        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
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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.

  • ZhaoYadang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    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
      38
      ·
      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
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

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

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        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
          17
          ·
          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
            8
            ·
            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
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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.

  • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    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
        18
        ·
        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
        15
        ·
        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
        8
        ·
        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

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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
            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?

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.”

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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
              1
              ·
              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?

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

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

      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.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    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
      7
      ·
      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.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 months ago

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

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    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!

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

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

        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!

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago
    Stateline Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Stateline is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Left
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/stateline-bias-and-credibility/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.