• RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
        6
        ·
        5 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
      17
      ·
      5 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.

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 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.

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

          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.

      • Drusas@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 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
          4
          ·
          5 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
            7
            ·
            5 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
              4
              ·
              5 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
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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
          6
          ·
          5 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
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 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
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 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?

                  • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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.

    • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      5 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.