• trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There's some legal murkiness I could see coming from that, but in principle it seems like something you would have to prosecute after the individual was born.

    If a fetus isn't a person, then there's no victim. The potential of a victim isn't the same as a victim. The intention for there to be a victim doesn't even create a victim.

    We don't wait for drunk drivers to hurt someone to prosecute them for drunk driving.

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

      Because the act of driving drunk is, itself, illegal. Drunk driving isn't framed as vehicular manslaughter of a non-person. If a person is hurt, that's a separate offense.
      There's a difference between the potential to hurt an unspecified individual, and the potential to hurt a specific entity that may or may not exist in the future.

      What was being discussed was not "drinking while pregnant", but "engaging in risky behavior while intending to carry to term". Closer to "drinking while intending to drive".

      In any case, I'm still not sure I'm in favor of it. One can't unknowingly get drunk and drive a car, but one can unknowingly become pregnant and have a drink.