1353
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

The consequences of letting literal illiterates get into power.

[-] yoevli@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Republicans, at least the ones calling the shots, don't give a shit about "the children" and never have. They just care about controlling women. It's sickening.

[-] SirStumps@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The elected Republicans want more control in general. Reproductive rights is just a means to force our population to stabilize but it is increasingly becoming more tyrannical which causes this scenario.

[-] Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Affidavit@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

...it exposes the consequences of the “fetal personhood movement”, which seeks to legally define fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as people. The concept, enshrined in expanding anti-abortion laws, has led to increased surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people, with women punished for the outcomes of their pregnancies or other actions that police claim endangered their fetuses.

The way the detention staff acted in this is frankly disgusting. That being said, I don't think it is entirely fair to equate Alabama's frankly stupid abortion legislation with assigning a certain level of rights to a foetus. If a mother intends to carry to full term and is using drugs, I don't think it is fair to the foetus-soon-to-be-person to ignore this.

Who here would like to try and explain to a victim of foetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal opioid exposure that their suffering is morally acceptable because their mother had the right to choose?

It doesn't always need to be one extreme or another, there is a middle ground.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 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.

I think about the closest thing you could argue for would be that if a person knew they were pregnant, could have aborted but chose not to, and engaged in behavior that demonstrably caused harm once there was a live person, then maybe you could argue some type of negligence. But even that feels really close to a slippery slope to me, and makes me too uncomfortable.
If for no other reason than it could create a situation where someone is prosecuted for knowingly reproducing while having a measurable statistical chance of a heritable birth defect, or just being above the age where down syndrome becomes more likely.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
1353 points (98.4% liked)

News

23367 readers
3061 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS