• 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.