3 ms·

Do you support the idea of giving fetuses legal rights and using this to sue the mother?* After all, once we give human legal rights to rivers quite a lot of th

by yyyk 7y ago

Do you support the idea of giving fetuses legal rights and using this to sue the mother?* After all, once we give human legal rights to rivers quite a lot of the typical arguments become irrelevant in the other context. Ultimately, people support this absurd idea because they like the results, but the abuse of the legal system is going to reverberate. I don't think you'd like the results of not having a functioning legal system. * Don't think merely of the typical pro-life/pro-choice wrangling. Think of suing the mother for bad lifestyle decisions which may or may not affect the child once born. So many opportunities for a creative lawyer.

wpietri 7y ago
I am familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" argument, but I don't really see it as applying here. Passing laws to give rivers corporate personhood won't automatically create rights for imaginary babies (which is how anti-abortion types typically perceive embryos). And patriarchal types are already working to subjugate women just fine without waiting for this.
- yyyk 7y ago
  I intentionally took a radical (but possible) example. A more related likely result is NIMBYs using the precedent to give all other ecosystems 'personhood' and strangling housing development in lawsuits. Now that I consider this, judges could use other creative readings of corporate law to actually weaken environmental law (can we use eminent domain on the river? Does it have a natural monopoly on water supply and we need to apply anti-trust?). Ultimately this is an improper hack, suborning the law for political ends. There are some evils that can justify even a take-no-prisoners approach. But better protection of river ecosystems? Are there really no better ways to achieve that?
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Again, I'm familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" line of argument. But here you're not even really making it other than to handwave at the possibility. I get that you don't like this. But all law is a political fiction for political ends, so your horror is not something I share. If you do have a better way to solve it, I encourage you to give it a try. Let me know how it goes.

by yyyk 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

I am familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" argument, but I don't really see it as applying here. Passing laws to give rivers corporate personhood won't automatically create rights for imaginary babies (which is how anti-abortion types typically perceive embryos). And patriarchal types are already working to subjugate women just fine without waiting for this.

yyyk 7y ago
I intentionally took a radical (but possible) example. A more related likely result is NIMBYs using the precedent to give all other ecosystems 'personhood' and strangling housing development in lawsuits. Now that I consider this, judges could use other creative readings of corporate law to actually weaken environmental law (can we use eminent domain on the river? Does it have a natural monopoly on water supply and we need to apply anti-trust?). Ultimately this is an improper hack, suborning the law for political ends. There are some evils that can justify even a take-no-prisoners approach. But better protection of river ecosystems? Are there really no better ways to achieve that?
- wpietri 7y ago
  Again, I'm familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" line of argument. But here you're not even really making it other than to handwave at the possibility. I get that you don't like this. But all law is a political fiction for political ends, so your horror is not something I share. If you do have a better way to solve it, I encourage you to give it a try. Let me know how it goes.