• the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Drusas@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we’re still forced to live by the rules of society.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        That doesn’t answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?

        • Drusas@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

    • griefreeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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?

                • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    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.

    • littlewonder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      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_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.