1425
An Alabama woman was imprisoned for ‘endangering’ her fetus. She gave birth in a jail shower
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
1425 points (98.5% liked)
News
23014 readers
6 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.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Except this is precisely the opposite of the logic used if some third party causes the harm. If, say, a pregnant woman gets shot in a mugging gone wrong and her fetus dies as a consequence, were more than willing to count that as a homicide and for some reason this line of reasoning vanishes.
It's either a person or not, not whichever is more convenient to the mother in whatever situation occurs.
Personally, I wouldn't be in favor of classifying that as a homicide, but would rather it be an aggravating factor attached to the crime of shooting the actual person.
There is a cost, morally and emotionally, to a fetus dying, but it's not a crime against the fetus but the mother.
The existence of a law written in a way I disagree with doesn't obligate me to agree with another one I disagree with.
Yeah, no. You know nothing about law. There is no requirement that personhood be a property of an entity for criminal harm. Things like vandalising public property or damaging national parks are easily prosecutable because this "principle" you invented has never existed.
The reality is that a society can outlaw whatever it wants. In the US, you have constitutional restrictions on what the state can outlaw, but that's it.
I can't boobietrap my own home because there's the potential of a firefighter, or someone innocent hurting themselves.
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.
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.
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.
I'm an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.
Women "not being houses" is irrelevant to the point I made. We criminalize actions all the time when harm isn't actual, only potential.
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.