Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Infernalism t1_j9wxhfw wrote

Fetuses are either people or they're not.

Choose.

473

Killahflex t1_j9xejhy wrote

There are legal professionals who predicted that these cases would arise after foetal personhood legislation was passed.

In addition, should the infant's right to own a gun be restricted because it is not a criminal and is being imprisoned without legal authority? No! The newborn should have access to a firearm!

101

Be-like-water-2203 t1_j9xer67 wrote

gun should be implanted before birth dont be liberal

56

FawksyBoxes t1_j9y7chk wrote

Yep, Georgia lost court cases and now pregnant women can start claiming a fetus as a dependant and other benefits starting at 6 weeks now.

14

theLonelyBinary t1_j9zl4i8 wrote

Seriously?

3

FawksyBoxes t1_j9zmac8 wrote

Yep, ACLU took them to court and because of how they worded the law the court ruled that the state has defined any fetus of 6 weeks with a detectable 'heartbeat' as a 'person'.

That wording is how they tried to ban it, but in October last year the actual ban was repealed because Doctors proved to court that the law was too vague of when they could intervene. Along with the fact that when the law was passed Roe vs Wade was still in effect and thus the law was null and void due to being unconstitutional at the time of passing.

5

heyimjason t1_j9xqsfv wrote

The right-wingers don’t care about legal professionals or the laws themselves. Just whatever they think should be how things go. Facts don’t matter. That’s why the US is far behind the rest of the modernized countries in all but military strength.

12

Masque-Obscura-Photo t1_j9ygccr wrote

> modernized countries

The US is not a modernized country...

−4

Truecrowe t1_j9xejux wrote

You can't have it both ways; some people believe it to be a person. I must set the prisoner free.

69

whatproblems t1_j9xxa10 wrote

well they can because they don’t care about consistency

26

MyReddittName t1_j9yanvk wrote

It would likely be freed and given to family members after birth

12

003E003 t1_j9zgorg wrote

Why can't you have different sets of rights for different people?

18 year olds have more rights than 10 year olds. 21 yr olds have different rights than 18 yr olds. There are all kinds of delineations of rights between people. Prisoners have fewer rights than non prisoners. Citizens of a place have more rights than non. Very common.

They will just carve out an exception for this and this lawsuit will end up being a nothing burger.

−13

Woffingshire t1_j9zor8j wrote

You can, but in this case, the decision to make foetus' legally people was so hastily and poorly thought out that they didn't make any of those provisions. There absolutely could be exceptions in cases like this since the foetus cannot be separated from its mother and the like, but there aren't, and so legally it can be treated as if the foetus is the same a born child.

10

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j9x9cc4 wrote

Exactly. And conjoined twins should immune to all criminal penalties, unless it can be proven that both of them committed the crime. Preferably using DNA evidence.

I'm not sure there is any case law on this. Say if one conjoined twin snitched on the other, in exchange for a reduced sentence.

24

VoDoka t1_j9y5i87 wrote

I know this post is not that serious, but there have been cases where an identical twin walked free because the DNA evidence couldn't determine which of the two committed the crime.

5

Mirrorsponge t1_ja1exqt wrote

What if one twin consumes its sibling in the womb? Tried for murder?

1

Theicebag t1_j9xk59l wrote

The "unborn" is being imprisoned without a trial or reason if it is a baby with full rights. If it isn't a baby, the entire anti-abortion movement is nonsense. No way to have it both ways.

14

sabrinaa_xox t1_j9xi1f5 wrote

I agree that under the current theory that a foetus has rights, it is required to endure poor nutrition and an unfavourable environment for growth.

The rights of the foetus were never really at issue, but the right wing sure does love their cruelty.

It had to do with control over women.

9

003E003 t1_j9zgrm9 wrote

but all people don't have the same rights.

3

Factual_Statistician t1_ja13myf wrote

"White is right"

My late RNC republican grandpa watching fox news.

They are totally not the racists. ( eyeroll)

To clarify this is in agreement with you.

1

FrankDodger t1_j9z2dop wrote

Could be a spectrum?

1

HappyLittleRadishes t1_j9z7ijk wrote

Sounds a lot like "it's a person when we want it to be, and it isn't a person when we want it to be"

6

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zqb0q wrote

Yes, that's what both sides consider "objectivity". Objectivity to them means they're right no matter what evidence you provide that directly refutes their logic, because they're not using logic to form beliefs. They truly "feel" like their "feelings" ,based on their emotions, deserve to be honored by reality, no matter how unrealistic they are. Both sides do this all day, every day, and it's why we make no progress towards fighting elitism. Everyone hates "the elite" yet still wants to be one. The American dream is still inequality for all, and nothing will ever get any more sane, or less irrational, until the American dream becomes existing happily, in peace, and with true equality for all (humans on the entire planet, not just the US)

2

fingerpaintx t1_ja1k9dj wrote

There are exceptions. I don't believe a fetus is a person but if someone murders a pregnant woman it should count as a double homicide. That's having it both ways.

1

krackas2 t1_ja0atft wrote

They are people. Baby is free to leave the prison at any time.

−1

[deleted] t1_j9xjvwp wrote

[deleted]

−22

Masque-Obscura-Photo t1_j9ygn46 wrote

That was some rambling. I have no idea what point you wanted to make.

4

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9yi75o wrote

Both "pro life" and "pro choice" are bad platforms I don't want to share with any of the people on those platforms. Same as republicans & democrats. I have no interest in involving myself in the never ending battle of hypocrites, who do not use logic to form their beliefs

−5

ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9z1q7d wrote

No, you're trying to make it a "both sides" issue and it objectively isn't.

You either respect women's rights to body autonomy, or you don't.

6

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9z5y4c wrote

You don't grasp the concept of what objectivity is. If it was only about a woman's bodily autonomy, then abortion would be totally fine, until after birth. So you are objectively wrong, if you don't support late term abortions. A woman is unique in that she can have a body with its own autonomy inside of her own body with autonomy. You won't argue in good faith, just like the others you hate, which only serves to further prove my point of why I find it difficult to engage this subject, as everyone is using feelings, instead of facts.

−6

ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9z6782 wrote

I support a woman's right to abort her parasite whenever the fuck SHE wants. I don't give a fuck if she wants to flush a clump of cells down the toilet or not.

Tell me again how you know about me 🤡

5

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zd9jo wrote

So you support abortion a day before birth?

0

ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9ze12i wrote

Yes I do. Shit happens, still hasn't been born.

2

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zej11 wrote

Not objective, proving my point, but too dumb to understand. Go drink your koolaid lil buddy

0

ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9zlheb wrote

Sure it is, just as objective as you trying to both sides shit.

Here I'll do us both a favor. Since it's obvious you're arguing in bad faith, and frankly I don't have a single good thing to say to you, we'll cease talking.

1

JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zeam1 wrote

You don't argue in good faith. You are equal to any trumper with that logic, and inability to be objective with FACTS.

You don't understand how life is created, and you don't respect the process of creating life. Parasites don't grow into human beings. So again reinforce your non objective nonsensical ramblings. Say fuck a few more time, as if that indicates anything other than your frustration at knowing you're arguing in bad faith. Again, thanks for proving my exact point

0

Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x5tgy wrote

The child is effectively on temporary lifesupport, unable to express agency, and is currently a ward of the state.

Keeping the baby in the mother is the best care they can provide, anything else would actively endanger the child. Where the mother is makes no tangible difference in this case.

−39

fireky2 t1_j9y90yj wrote

This take is so dumb I'm surprised you haven't applied for the supreme court

8

YomiKuzuki t1_j9z2vwv wrote

> The child is effectively on temporary lifesupport, unable to express agency, and is currently a ward of the state.

> Keeping the baby in the mother is the best care they can provide, anything else would actively endanger the child. Where the mother is makes no tangible difference in this case.

So you agree the mother is then being forcibly used to keep another person alive, until such time the other person no longer requires life support. Which is illegal. Hmmm.

8

ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9z1xni wrote

Any crazy ass statement to maintain control over the bodies of women right?

Fuck outta here with that BS.

3