You must log in or register to comment.

Infernalism t1_j9wxhfw wrote

Fetuses are either people or they're not.



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!


Be-like-water-2203 t1_j9xer67 wrote

gun should be implanted before birth dont be liberal


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.


theLonelyBinary t1_j9zl4i8 wrote



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That wording is how they tried to ban it, but in October last year the actual ban was repealed because Doctors proved to court that the law was too vague of when they could intervene.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.


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.


Masque-Obscura-Photo t1_j9ygccr wrote

> modernized countries

The US is not a modernized country...


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.


whatproblems t1_j9xxa10 wrote

well they can because they don’t care about consistency


MyReddittName t1_j9yanvk wrote

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


Mirrorsponge t1_ja1exqt wrote

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


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.


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.


003E003 t1_j9zgrm9 wrote

but all people don't have the same rights.


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.


FrankDodger t1_j9z2dop wrote

Could be a spectrum?


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"


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)


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.


krackas2 t1_ja0atft wrote

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


[deleted] t1_j9xjvwp wrote



Masque-Obscura-Photo t1_j9ygn46 wrote

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


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


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.


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.


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 🤡


JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zd9jo wrote

So you support abortion a day before birth?


ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9ze12i wrote

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


JoeyGIllustration t1_j9zej11 wrote

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


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.


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


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.


fireky2 t1_j9y90yj wrote

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


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.


ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9z1xni wrote

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

Fuck outta here with that BS.


Voxination t1_j9x24at wrote

The lady was 6 week pregnant when the crime she's accused of took place, if anything that fetus is an accomplice to the crime. /s just in case.


adsfew t1_j9x2ekl wrote

How can we be certain the fetus wasn't controlling her Krang-style?

Free the woman and imprison the fetus!


Baebel t1_j9xxwqb wrote

I now need a muffled audio recording of Krang's voice emitting from her in the courtroom.


bigsoupsteve t1_ja0mey6 wrote

Actually, since the baby was technically sapping the mother's energy, it should receive a reward for assisting in the arrest.


WimpyLimpet t1_j9wxh92 wrote

Here we see the shortsighted slippery slope of claiming a fetus has all the same rights as a person.

I'd love for this case to go to the supreme court. Will they decide to free all convicted pregnant women as not to violate the constitutional rights of the fetus inside of them?


gimmethelulz t1_j9x0ynn wrote

Yes I'd love to see Alito's mental gymnastics on this case.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x5dqk wrote

Easy really. The baby is effectively a ward of the state stuck on life support.

There is no way to remedy the situation, so i would be surprised if the supreme court even tackle that issue. It's rights is not being imposed upon in any tangential way, just like the mother is not illegally detaining the child by keeping it in her belly.

The baby is not incarcerated in any meaningful way. The baby is as free to walk as it can possibly be. The baby also don't have any agency, it is no different than how a comatose person has no agency to walk out of the room they are in, that does not make it a kidnapping.

There is no meaningful freedom available to it, so the government is not impeding on said freedom.

In fact, as the child is effectively on life support, the state is providing for it's rights in an actually tangential way by leaving it in the parent's belly.

Where i do think the lawyer absolutely has a point is in demanding OB Care which the mother was denied, The mother absolutely should have proper access to it because that is a right that meaningfully apply to both the baby and the mother herself.


LogicalAF t1_j9x9vgh wrote

Since the "kid", and let's be clear, fetuses are not kids yet but let's use the term for the sake of getting the point across, has no agency because it's in "life support", it's the right of the mother to decide if she wants him to stay in that place or not. If she decides she doesn't want her kid, who can't speak for himself, to be in prison, then they have to free him. Otherwise it's a violation of his constitutional rights.

If fetuses are people, then they have rights. If they can't talk, then the parents reserve that exclusive right to speak on their behalf.

You can't have it both ways.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xc6px wrote

If a mother was lost on a deserted island, she had what she needed to feed her self and her child. Would you find it acceptable for her to just leave her helpless kid alone, knowing it would starve?

Yes, parents can speak on behalf of the child, but to advance it's health and wellbeing, not to advocate it's detriment and demise.

We would never accept a mother deliberately ending the life of a toddler in her care if no adoption services were available.

The baby or even a fetus past a certain point of development in her womb is in her care, she has a responsibility to ensure it's safety and wellbeing. She is it's caretaker when there are no alternative caretakers to take over.


WimpyLimpet t1_j9xscv1 wrote

> If a mother was lost on a deserted island

Let's be specific to the topic of this post. If a pregnant mother is jailed and her fetus is considered to be a living person. Does the fetus deserve to be locked up if it didn't commit any crimes?


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xzu7o wrote

It is no more locked up than the mother is locking it up.

It has not been deprived of a single experience, nor deprived of a single right that is not outweighed by the fact it is alive.


WimpyLimpet t1_j9y00ud wrote

> It has not been deprived of a single experience

Interesting way to put it. Would you say this also applies in the case of abortion?


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9y3rel wrote

Yes? not being deprived of a single experience speaks in favor of maintaining the status quo in this temporary situation.


LogicalAF t1_ja12hss wrote

Listen, they don't trial cases based on hypotheticals, but on concrete facts. Fact 1: mother and fetus are locked in jail. Only one of them committed a crime (if we are to believe a fetus is a person). Fact 2: the mother was put in there as a punishment, but she did not put the fetus inside of her, therefore she's not imprisoning him...otherwise she could be forced to "free" him.


Zeustitandog t1_j9z83rl wrote

So to be clear

You think pregnant women


Their baby’s?

You better be mentally I’ll and not a idiot


Batbuckleyourpants t1_ja2mn8d wrote

Literally not what i said. I was mocking the idea that the baby was locked up.


[deleted] t1_j9x8a0h wrote



Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9x9uoh wrote

Absolute nonsense. If there was a magical way to transport the baby into a pod where it grew to maturity that would be awesome. Likewise there is no objection to inducing an early birth once the baby is considered viable.

It is about accepting that at a certain point, the baby has rights and should be afforded the most basic of protection, IE that we protect it from being killed.

I am fine with abortion prior to 12 weeks or when the health of the mother is physically threatend. After that it is a separate human being with a functional central nervous system and a heartbeat.

What is the alternative to killing a separate human being? I would love to hear of one.


[deleted] t1_j9xchd7 wrote



Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xi3fl wrote

>Yes fantastical wishful thinking but that's not how it is, which is why it's so fucked up that Republicans pretend mothers should only have the rights of a vessel rather than a human being.

If i am 10 minutes from giving birth, do i have the right to have someone reach in there and kill the t-10 minutes from being a born baby child?

>So you support having a choice about your own capability of having a child... "Prior to" what exactly? Where do you feel your own rights as a human being end?

I support reproductive rights. I support abortion rights up to 12 weeks. At which point it is not just your rights in the equation. You accepted a dependent.

If you go three months without resolving the issue, you made a choice. no matter how hard a choice it was.

>Do you support other human beings having a choice, or do you demand they make the same choice you would?

If i didn't want a child, i would get an abortion before the moral issue even came up. I would have had 3 months to make that choice.

Past that, it is a question of me claiming the right to end a life that i, regardless of the situation, through neglect or indecision put in the position. I don't think i should have that right in a temporary situation. Kid never did anything wrong.


[deleted] t1_j9xid1j wrote



Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xj41m wrote

It is a question that has been deliberately and consistently avoided, as you do.

Yes or no, does a woman's bodily autonomy trump the right of the child at 10 minutes before birth?

If one of a pair of twins has been delivered, can the mother morally demand an abortion of the second twin?

You refuse to answer the question because the chain of logic means you have to look back to decide when it is OK to end the life.

It is not some gotcha question.


ArcticISAF t1_j9xjwgv wrote

Probably because you're in the 'all or nothing' mindset here. If it's in the third trimester, it's going to be restricted to medical issues only. I.E. the baby will kill or likely kill the mother, or the baby is already dead, etc.

10 minutes before birth, if the doctors (and you can add multiple approvals here like they mandate some places) agree it's likely to kill the mother on birth, then yeah, it should be up to the mother if she wants to give her life for this baby or not. To be clear, in this situation yes the mother's autonomy trumps the baby's.

If it's like 'Nah I don't want it anymore', then too bad, that should be done earlier, 12 weeks or 16 weeks or whatever.


Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xkklm wrote

>Probably because you're in the 'all or nothing' mindset here. If it's in the third trimester, it's going to be restricted to medical issues only. I.E. the baby will kill or likely kill the mother, or the baby is already dead, etc.

So all abortions ever should be subject to a review to see if the fetus is endangering the physical health of the mother?

It's not an all or nothing thing when i ask you where you draw the line. You are painting an all or all image here. Reductions like this is helpful in discovering your position on the matter.

>10 minutes before birth, if the doctors (and you can add multiple approvals here like they mandate some places) agree it's likely to kill the mother on birth, then yeah, it should be up to the mother if she wants to give her life for this baby or not. To be clear, in this situation yes the mother's autonomy trumps the baby's.

So abortion is not OK unless a doctor show it is directly endangering the mother's life?

>If it's like 'Nah I don't want it anymore', then too bad, that should be done earlier, 12 weeks or 16 weeks or whatever.

Then we completely agree. Elective abortion past that point strikes me as murder.


[deleted] t1_j9xjcpa wrote



Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xl5tg wrote

>No one is advocating for getting abortions 10 minutes before birth, this is a scenario right wingers lie about in order to get their base to vote against women's rights, and clearly their propaganda works or you wouldn't be here arguing for their BS.

Ignoring the fact that there are people advocating "total bodily autonomy" for women. this is the natural consequence of the bodily autonomy argument at it's core, and the left consistently refuse to even engage in the discussion because it forces you to decide how far back you are willing to accept terminating a human life.

>What's the question?

Yes or no, does a woman's bodily autonomy trump the right of the child at 10 minutes before birth?

At what point would you limit her autonomy, or do you not believe in women's autonomy at this point?


Is the question: "Do women deserve to have a right over their own body?"
If so, I say the answer is yes. What is your answer?

So a woman should have the right to kill a baby mid birth if she changes her mind?


[deleted] t1_j9xlfvu wrote



Batbuckleyourpants t1_j9xnhry wrote

I was making a hypothetical question that you avoided just like i said you would. The left will consistently refuse to engage on this...

You agree 100% that there is a limit to a woman's autonomy then? that was my point... Or do you support abortion 10 minutes before birth?

Yes or No?


[deleted] t1_j9yere4 wrote



AutoModerator t1_j9yerg4 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


UnadvertisedAndroid t1_j9x0bfh wrote

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the whole point


OhThatsRich88 t1_j9x3ekp wrote

It is the whole point. Lawyers don't make theoretical arguments in court. They're trying to get their clients out. I wouldn't be surprised if pro choice orgs are supporting it to show how absurd a "life begins at conception" legal theory is in practice


WimpyLimpet t1_j9x48kz wrote

You're right. I think this is the whole point of the lawyer's argument.


fireky2 t1_j9y96jp wrote

I'm just waiting for them to give corporations the death penalty.


BoomWasTaken t1_j9yj5jh wrote

They would be more likely to charge the mothers with child endangerment :/.


PetePensieve t1_j9y2cly wrote

>Will they decide to free all convicted pregnant women as not to violate the constitutional rights of the fetus inside of them?

Yes. Free the mom on parole and send the fetus to juvie.


Radthereptile t1_j9zqh78 wrote

They’ll make some BS thing like “The fetus isn’t in jail it’s in a womb so it’s different.”


Pugs1985 t1_j9xfe5q wrote

>Will they decide to free all convicted pregnant women as not to violate the constitutional rights of the fetus inside of them?

Who said they have constitutional rights? Those aren't granted until you're born on US soil.


Tomoko_Lovecraft t1_j9xj92t wrote

The whole point of the pro-life movement is that fetuses have rights. This lawsuit is showing the logical result when that stance is encoded into law. If the fetus has the same rights as any other person, then they get all the rights not some stupid selective bullshit.


Pugs1985 t1_j9xjl7f wrote

>The whole point of the pro-life movement is that fetuses have rights.

No, it's not. It's about not killing babies. That's it.


heyimjason t1_j9xqypr wrote

A fetus is not a baby. It’s a fetus.


Pugs1985 t1_j9xr2sr wrote

Then this lawsuit has no merit


heyimjason t1_j9xr9tu wrote

Then they have to get rid of the anti-abortion laws. Can’t have it both ways.


Pugs1985 t1_j9xrfaq wrote

Not really how it works, but ok.


heyimjason t1_j9xrhw8 wrote

That’s exactly how it works. A fetus is a person, or it is not. The law needs to be clear in this.


Pugs1985 t1_j9xrqnm wrote

>That’s exactly how it works.

Except it's not.

>A fetus is a person, or it is not.

There are plenty of "people" who aren't granted rights under the US Constitution

>The law needs to be clear in this.

It is.


Mod_Accountability t1_j9yl2ju wrote

This is pathetic, it is beyond clear that you're doing nothing but deflecting.

>There are plenty of "people" who aren't granted rights under the US Constitution

What the fuck does this even mean?


Pugs1985 t1_j9z2c7w wrote

What part of it don't you understand?


Mod_Accountability t1_j9yky4v wrote

You can't kill a baby because it's a person, right?

So why can you imprison a baby, a person, for not committing a crime?


Pugs1985 t1_j9z3oau wrote

Umm, because it's not born yet, you moron.


Tomoko_Lovecraft t1_j9xk5ph wrote

If they really cared about the life and safety of the baby then they would also support social programs that ensure the parents have everything they need to keep them safe and healthy. As the saying goes, if you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked.


gbursson t1_ja7es94 wrote

If you're preschool, and within vicinity of a priest, you are truly and literally fucked.


Pugs1985 t1_j9xkgog wrote

What does this have to do with the article? I'm not about to get into an argument about abortion.


Mod_Accountability t1_j9yl5vi wrote

How do you not know you're already in an argument about abortion?


Pugs1985 t1_j9z2odn wrote

Because the article has nothing to do with abortion.


Blitzsturm t1_j9x4emz wrote

I mean for those that lack a concept of nuance either fetuses are people with full inalienable rights or they aren't and you can't change that depending on how you feel that day.


Eldassi t1_j9x32qz wrote

Wow, this is a hornet's nest. Either Florida has to release every pregnant prisoner no matter what the crime or they have to rule against fetal personhood. If they rule for it, it's a dangerous precedent.


coberh t1_j9wz6lg wrote

It's almost like all the pro-life reasons are bullshit.


RagingHeretic t1_j9x5y66 wrote

This almost certainly could make it to SCOTUS and those imbeciles will need to further clarify their already incoherent reasoning in Dobbs. Should be fun.


fireky2 t1_j9y99c9 wrote

I mean they can just refuse to hear it and send it back down to relitigate for half a decade


Joessandwich t1_j9yuj2r wrote

Or just stall a few months and then dismiss the case as moot since she gave birth.


TomCatInTheHouse t1_j9zm0xf wrote

This is what they'll do.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jabor66 wrote

Lawyer can still file suit. Just because you stopped unlawfully detaining someone doesn't mean you didn't unlawfully detain them.


goliathfasa t1_j9xg0vz wrote

Illegally detained… by the woman.

+20 years to sentence


Mindbender444 t1_j9x1eg0 wrote

I guess we'll have to wait and see if the judge rules in favor of the fetus and grants it bail.


MercAlert t1_j9zcqsa wrote

If the fetus is a person, it would be considered innocent of any crime and could not legally be detained pending bail. That's the whole point of the filing: If the fetus is a person, it must be released immediately without bail.


warrant2k t1_j9z9ttd wrote

If we're gonna qualify a fetus as a person, let's go all in. Also add carpool lanes, life insurance, and child support.


BedWilling4093 t1_j9x1ixs wrote

Let the foetus free but not the mother. Maybe the father can step up and help


BarryZZZ t1_j9yf5np wrote

This is the logical extension of "personhood" laws for fetuses. They are intended to stop abortions but the law doesn't always work the way you think it will when you write it.


lilyintx t1_ja085zj wrote

If they’re going to treat fetuses as protected people then hell yeah this is a good argument. The fetus can’t control what the mom does it deserves to be set free. You can’t have it both ways


Yatta99 t1_j9yyuvm wrote

IF the fetus is a person then it can be charged with Felony Murder, having been party to a crime that resulted in death. Gives new meaning to the term 'bad seed'.


foreverjen t1_ja670ei wrote

No. If I murder someone by running them over and my toddler is in the car with me, they certainly aren’t an accomplice.


Ahandlin t1_j9yzl84 wrote

If the fetus is a life, and a human, it's absolutely illegal detainment.


Woffingshire t1_j9znqdp wrote

When you legally decree that foetus's are human beings, this is the kind of shenanigans it can cause.
If that foetus is legally a human being, then by being sent to jail along with it's mother it's functionally no different than if the child was born, and if the child was born then this wouldn't be allowed.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jabov7i wrote

They used to just straight-up put small children - both still suckling and not - in prison with their mothers when their mothers were convicted of crimes so the mother would still have to take care of them, so, that's not so unthinkable.

It would, however, be tantamount to unlawful detention under United States Law, which would be unconstitutional.


KingJTheG t1_ja03f85 wrote

This headline definitely sounds like The Onion lol


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jabow1x wrote

I'm like, 85% confident the Onion did make this kind of headline like, ten years ago.


anengineerandacat t1_ja0vg0q wrote

All fun and games until they have to do a forced C-section to separate the criminally held child and give it to the state.

This is a giant can of worms that I am sure a lot of people want to just put away and not rule either way on it.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jaboy8a wrote

No, no... Let's see where this goes. Hopefully this will result in some half-assed, half-baked laws being thrown the fuck out. Also increased medical care in American detention centers.


I2eB6L t1_j9yeqg8 wrote

This cant be the first time this has happened. We should have a procedure for this


soilhalo_27 t1_ja09fo3 wrote

If it's considered a person it's illegally imprisoned. I think what this all comes down to is she isn't getting the prenatal care she should be getting.


foreverjen t1_ja67aeq wrote

Yeah. And the liability for anything that comes as a result of the very subpar prenatal treatment should increase - now that a fetus is a person. Murder investigations for any “person” that doesn’t survive pregnancy


vainbetrayal t1_ja0zusr wrote

I mean, you could use the exact same logic to argue the fetus as an accomplice.

I don’t think that argument is going to hold the water the lawyer thinks it will.


equinoxEmpowered t1_j9ymeaw wrote

Also her access to prenatal care is heavily restricted in prison, and having to give birth while being chained to a bed is deadly to both parties

ffs just let her go


gokogt386 t1_ja0p61p wrote

She’s in prison for shooting her Uber driver dude


equinoxEmpowered t1_ja0tpep wrote

It actually looks like she's accused of shooting someone who'd been with her friend group that night

Doesn't make it right in the slightest, at least as far as I can tell

I'm firmly of the opinion that US prisons in particular are barbaric, inhumane institutions, though. As it stands, she's been held without bail awaiting trial for over half a year. I don't think that'd be appropriate, even if she was kept prisoner in safe and comfortable conditions.


himitsuuu t1_ja1dyah wrote

If the fetus is a person separate from the mother what's stopping the courts from doing something bat shit deranged like ordering the mother to give birth?


AssociateJaded3931 t1_ja4wgm1 wrote

You claim that fetuses have rights? Then give them ALL of the rights.


darkest_irish_lass t1_j9ybfho wrote

I love it. Fetus is a person, end of story.

She won't be the first person to try this. Let's get the legal ramifications sorted out right now.


Koffeekage t1_j9x8cfc wrote

Its just a fetus.


Liquidwombat t1_j9yy33a wrote

That’s just it though. This kind of shenanigans is done specifically to challenge and call out the stupidity of certain laws that grant personhood to things that are not people.


lazarus78 t1_j9zuodr wrote

Well, the carpool lane lady wasnt doing it to call out the hypocrisy. They believe in pro life and honestly thought they were in the right.


svenvbins t1_j9xtq1c wrote

Either way, they're already "imprisoned" for ~9 months in the womb - does it really matter whether the mother is imprisoned?

Of course, that assumes that mom gets all required medical care in prison, which seems to not be the case here, so either way something needs to change.


JimC29 t1_j9x86uw wrote

As I commented yesterday and the day before why is this being posted here every fucking day?


KittenKoder t1_j9xdcga wrote

Because we love LAMF. Don't you love LAMF? Tell me, what do you think of LAMF?


Cheezyrock t1_j9ymwgx wrote

Even if you believe that a fetus is a person, this is dumb. The conditions of how a fetus receives food/shelter doesn’t change when the mother is in jail/prison. The fetus has no concept of the detainment, and is therefore not party to that punishment.

If this were to change, then pregnant woman could also be charged with kidnapping for leaving an abusive man… which should definitely not be the case. A fetus simply cannot be a separate legal entity while dependent on a mother’s body.

The danger in this is that it also opens up a new can of worms. If the fetus would be deemed viable and the mother imprisoned, could the state force the woman to induce labor so that the fetus wouldn’t be illegaly detained?

Further (and this is a slippery slope argument, but law sometimes works like this), even doctors have differing opinions on post-natal care when itncomes to breast milk vs formula. If it is a matter of the child’s rights, then one could make the argument that the mother shouldn’t be detained as long as she is breastfeeding for the wellbeing of the child.

Its like some lawyers don’t think through the implications of their arguments before making them.


ErectionDenier2024 t1_j9z315v wrote

No, the State of Florida's government didn't think it through. This lawyer is doing a great job.

It's literally this simple: If the fetus is a human being, it gets the rights of said human beings and that INCLUDES not being detained in a prison. Since the mother is there, the fetus, with the rights granted to it by the State of Florida, is currently illegally detained as it has committed no crime.

If it's not a human being and doesn't have those rights, then the laws passed by the State of Florida are invalid.


BeABetterHumanBeing t1_j9zdjem wrote

Pro-abortion people: kills their unborn children

Anti-abortion people: thinks that's bad, so bans the practice because they consider unborn children to be people

Pro-abortion people: decides to roll with it, and starts taking it to its logical conclusion to show how absurd this is <- YOU ARE HERE

Anti-abortion people: :)


fluffybottom t1_j9x262j wrote

Good thing the fetus isn’t aware of its imprisonment.


LogicalAF t1_j9xhwgf wrote

But since fetuses are persons in Florida, it's a violation of their rights.


Mod_Accountability t1_j9yla6w wrote

A fetus wouldn't be aware of being aborted either, would it?

Think it through next time.