Comic Strips

12807 readers

5691 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lawrence

1244

"High Occupancy?" (by Mike Peters) (i.imgur.com)

submitted 3 months ago by TehBamski to c/comicstrips

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nope. They are fetuses. You can tell because they have different names.

[–] Sesudesu 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, this is a bad argument.

‘Baby’ is not a technical term, and people will generally call newborns, infants, and toddlers ‘babies.’ I wouldn’t really call the fetus out of the question as another subcategory. People would not be called strange to say that it was a baby in there at 38 weeks pregnancy. But that’s a fetus.

A newborn would be ‘full term’ at 38 weeks if it needed out; not even a premie. Yet a newborn is undeniably a ‘baby.’ So why is it not a baby still in uterus?

I’m not arguing in favor of them, mind you. That argument is too annoying for me to want to touch anymore than I did here. Just, you aren’t exactly right either.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 6 points 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 2 points 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.