Lawmakers in several Republican-led states have introduced legislation promoting “fetal personhood,” the idea that fetuses and embryos are entitled to the same rights as people. But critics say fetal personhood laws create legal chaos and have ripple effects beyond abortion, from contraception access to fertility treatments, tax credits to the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we’re still forced to live by the rules of society.
That doesn’t answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?
The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.
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.
Easy one, next question I like these.
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.
Yes. That’s how self defense works. You have a right to defend your own health. Period.
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.
No it isn’t. The person throwing the child is guilty of assault. This is nowhere near the same situation.
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.
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.