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.
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.
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.
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.
We don’t wait for drunk drivers to hurt someone to prosecute them for drunk driving.
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.
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.
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 an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We don’t wait for drunk drivers to hurt someone to prosecute them for drunk driving.
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.
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.