4 ms·

In most of the US, that's legally double homicide. The point is for people making snarky comments such as "can the embryo run for president in 35 years?" and "

In most of the US, that's legally double homicide. The point is for people making snarky comments such as "can the embryo run for president in 35 years?" and "can I claim it on my taxes?" The legal system has different levels of protection all across the US, federally and on a state level, for unborn children/fetuses/however you want to call it. Being granted one legal status does not automatically grant all legal statuses. Pretending otherwise is just willfully ignoring centuries of established legal practices to make a petty point that doesn't actually hold up.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 3y ago
I guess the question being what's the relation to the example case? I.e. what about the case of the murder of a pregnant woman is supposed to be considered that wouldn't be considered in the primary case, outside that you've added the death of a woman to the situation? I'm not saying I disagree with anything I'm just lost why the example invokes anything new to consider in the context.
- COGlory 3y ago
  I'm just saying that fetuses already have some legal protection without breaking the legal system, so we can dispense with "can my embryo be claimed on taxes" jokes. That's all - this post was hit with like 5 of them in 5 minutes, and they don't prove any sort of legal inconsistency.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    I get wanting to say "skip the low effort 'when can my embryo sign for the loan' jokes" but that fetuses already have some legal protection in certain jurisdictions is not proof the stance leads to legal consistency, it is proof similarly debated laws about feticide exist in certain jurisdictions. The people you're telling to consider the jurisdictions which treat feticide as homicide will have the same consistency disagreements with those laws as they do this one and would point you to the jurisdictions that do not consider feticide as homicide as the consistent side of the law. That not all consider them legally consistent is one of the reasons said laws aren't universally held in all states.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zamadatix 3y ago

I guess the question being what's the relation to the example case? I.e. what about the case of the murder of a pregnant woman is supposed to be considered that wouldn't be considered in the primary case, outside that you've added the death of a woman to the situation? I'm not saying I disagree with anything I'm just lost why the example invokes anything new to consider in the context.

COGlory 3y ago
I'm just saying that fetuses already have some legal protection without breaking the legal system, so we can dispense with "can my embryo be claimed on taxes" jokes. That's all - this post was hit with like 5 of them in 5 minutes, and they don't prove any sort of legal inconsistency.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I get wanting to say "skip the low effort 'when can my embryo sign for the loan' jokes" but that fetuses already have some legal protection in certain jurisdictions is not proof the stance leads to legal consistency, it is proof similarly debated laws about feticide exist in certain jurisdictions. The people you're telling to consider the jurisdictions which treat feticide as homicide will have the same consistency disagreements with those laws as they do this one and would point you to the jurisdictions that do not consider feticide as homicide as the consistent side of the law. That not all consider them legally consistent is one of the reasons said laws aren't universally held in all states.