3 ms·
>Are they aiming to make a point about how fetal-personhood doesn't work with many aspects of the law? Possibly. But the point has already been raised many ti
by dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Are they aiming to make a point about how fetal-personhood doesn't work with many aspects of the law?
Possibly. But the point has already been raised many times with regard to child-personhood and the courts have generally solved that by tailoring their precedents so narrowly as to not preclude future case by case decision making.
- RC_ITR 4y agoSure, but this is a very specific case where you cannot really do that without being completely disingenuous (which to be clear, may be the outcome that happens). You can very easily not send a child to jail (because they have full legal personhood), but right now this fetus is considered 'part of the mother' as it relates to incarceration. Hard to argue that a fetus has some constitutional rights, but isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment. Like I said, a judge will make the argument that the fetus' environment is the womb and by that definition, their circumstances have not changed by being in jail, but that feels thin?
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago> Like I said, a judge will make the argument that the fetus' environment is the womb But then, a lawyer could argue that the mother's imprisonment affects the womb environment (bad food, bad medical care, constant high levels of stress). IANAL but that argument doesn't immediately seem ridiculous to me.