• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      First, those people, although unspecified, actually exist. Creating a hazard for real people is different from taking an action that could hurt a person who does not exist.
      Secondly, creating a device with the intent to hurt someone regardless of circumstance or actual threat is pretty morally different from typical home defense, to say nothing of engaging in behavior that could incidentally harm a fetus.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It seems weird to me that you're trying to create a disconnect when cause and effect is cause and effect.

        I can't work on my own electrical for my home without getting it inspected. If my house burnt down and harmed someone I could be held responsible. Even without harm I could be liable.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.

          I'm not saying fetuses don't turn into people, I'm saying that at most you can look at actual damage done once the person actually exists.

          Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.

          • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.

            I'm an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.

            Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.

            Women "not being houses" is irrelevant to the point I made. We criminalize actions all the time when harm isn't actual, only potential.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So is your point that because we've done something before, we should do it again?
              If not, I'm not sure what "we've done it before" has to do with "we should not do it now".

              Criminalizing otherwise legal behavior because of the impact it might have on a person who might exist in the future is a not good thing to do.

              Considering both of your arguments against not doing that centered around how we regulate houses, it seems like it might have been relevant to point out that women aren't houses, and so maybe we should use a different criteria for judging laws that impact them.