this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
79 points (100.0% liked)

News

19 readers
12 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Absolutely insane that this shit is happening in America in 2023. We really need to get young folks voting these "christian" fascists out of office

[–] Gutotito@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If a zygote qualifies as a "body," then anyone who has had a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't think they're not marching toward that.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

@Gutotito

@Snorf

To be clear, this wasn't a zygote, which would be a fertilized cell. This was a fetus at week 23, which is later than most abortions are performed without fetal abnormalities. Less than 1% of abortions are performed that late. A fetus may be considered viable around that point as well (this would be on the extreme end though). Many pro-choice people base their justification around fetal viability and don't necessarily feel great about abortions performed after that much development.

I'm not trying to justify these charges, but let's steer away front hyperbole. Prior to Dobbs, a state could have restricted access to abortion in this same way. Saying "zygote" implies this could happen to anyone who gets an abortion, which simply isn't implied by this decision.

[–] BadEngineering@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I agree with you in general, it's important to note that in this particular case, the girl was 23 weeks pregnant. At that stage the fetus has an 80% survival chance outside of the womb. Even in civilized states that don't try to ban abortion, the procedures are generally only done that late in a pregnancy if there is a serious medical risk to the mother or child.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

23 weeks is 17 weeks early. Definitely not 80% chance of viability, but I'm even surprised at the 25% given with a quick Google.

[–] 52fighters@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You'd have to prove some sort of neglect that is without a reasonable doubt responsible for the death of the person.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait a second wait a second - if it's a "person," and they're living in your house without your permission, can't you have it removed from the premises for trespassing?

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are we about to start getting into squatter's rights for fetuses? Because I hate that.

[–] apemint@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Hey, a loophole is a loophole!

[–] 52fighters@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In most states you'd have to send the person certified mail and provide a 30 day notice. But if you brought them back into the house by yourself re-entering, then the clock starts over. You cannot forcibly evict anyone but you can ask a judge to execute an order to vacate that that would normally give you access to the sheriff who would enforce the order. Do note that it is still considered an abuse of force for a sheriff to execute someone who is not willing to vacate a rental property but that person may be arrested if non-cooperative.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

You're talking about eviction, I'm talking about trespassing.

Another tack might be sexual assault. Was consent given for this person to be inside your body?

[–] Rayspekt@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Dem darn fetuses keep trespassing into our American bellies, go get dem illegal immigrants!

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

The tree of liberty is thirsty

[–] Kittybeer@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hope this teenager grows up to be an activist and somehow gets this bullshit overturned. I hate what this country has become.