• mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The general use isn’t relevant in the context of the law. Ketchup can be a vegetable if the law says it is, but this law, which may or may not even exist, was likely passed before Alabama law turned fetuses into “people,” and as such is likely not as extreme.

    It would be very hard to argue that a law intended to make sure a baby/toddler/child was safely out of the driver seat would apply to a fetus. A fetus cannot be strapped into a car seat or seatbelt, as it can not exist outside of a woman and be a live fetus. If the fetus is viable, then it would become a baby at that point, and the law would apply, but then the argument the woman is making would not.

    Pragmatically and literally, i can’t see a way for this safety law to apply to a fetus, so I don’t expect a judge would find the argument novel or noteworthy either.

    • Sesudesu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ah, now that’s a good argument. I guess I don’t know what I expected when I made that comment, but you stepped up to the plate either way. (I fear this will be taken as condescending, but I assure you I mean it honestly.)

    • cokeslutgarbage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I just had a horrible thought after reading your last paragraph. The safety law regarding the back seat could be applied to fetuses via a law banning pregnant women from driving or sitting in the front seat, taking away even more autonomy.