So if we perceive a fetus as a person, self defense laws and stand your ground laws should apply right?
Like, if the threat is persistent and reasonably considered to be causing bodily harm, then reasonable escalating force, up to lethal, should be legal correct? Intent and innocence of the perps intentions does not absolve them in court of law... So if we consider the fetus a person and they are causing harm without stopping when prompted the mother should be legally afforded to defend herself, no?
The oil and gas industry is responsible for miscarriages and premature births.
This is the truth. Not even a full grown person, not even your just-born child, no one can compel you to give your blood to save their life much less to keep them alive inside your own body for nine months.
If they think a fetus has the same right to life as any person, they are free to help it survive using their own resources, just get it the fuck out of my body first.
That is a creative usage of the law. I like it
If you think about it, isnt all law about creative and novel ways to twist wording to get around it?
If we couldnt bend the law to our will there would only be one law and it would be: 'dont be a cunt'.
Would you be okay with charging a 5-year-old child with assault if a dad threw the kid at his mom without the kid wanting that? The kid didn't choose to be thrown at his mom, but collided with her regardless. Similarly, the fetus didn't choose to be conceived, but exists nonetheless.
No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we're still forced to live by the rules of society.
That doesn't answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?
The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.
What exactly is the fallacy here? The point is that if the child has done nothing of its own choice to harm its mother, then the fetus cannot be held responsible either.
I don't understand why the five year old would have any charges against it in that scenario, they too were a victim. From the moment they were tossed, any forthcoming damages and assaults are placed on the person chucking said child.
Easy one, next question I like these.
Right, I agree. And so, would you say that a fetus, which did not choose to be conceived or sustained in any way in the mother, should be held responsible for any harm (however you define that) that comes to the mother as a result of the pregnancy? If so, then you should also hold the child responsible because it struck and harmed its mother, even though it didn't do so by choice.
Yes. That's how self defense works. You have a right to defend your own health. Period.
In that case, the child thrown at its mother is guilty of assault because it harmed her by colliding with her. The child would be subject to self-defense rules and could rightly have been shot out of the air like a clay pigeon.
No it isn't. The person throwing the child is guilty of assault. This is nowhere near the same situation.
So if a five-year-old can't be held responsible and killed for hitting its mother by being thrown at her, because it was the dad who threw it, then how can a fetus be held responsible and killed for existing and causing harm to the mother, even though it never chose to exist at all and was conceived by another person?
Because a fetus isn't a person. Until birth it is considered a part of the mother, specifically to prevent stupid and unsustainable rulings like this one. If your mother was killed by cancer, are you going to take her tumor to court and put it in prison? No, you wouldn't, that would be ridiculous. Because a tumor can't choose its actions. Neither can a fetus.
After development and birth, when the child can think and act for itself, sure it's a person. Inside the womb? It is an organ, it acts and thinks like an organ (by which I mean, it doesn't) and can hold no legal responsibility for anything because it is not a thinking being.
Do I find this to be sad? Sure, absolutely. I'd prefer every fetus in the world to be loved and wanted and born without complication into a life of ease. But you and I both know very well that that is not the reality of the world.
The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies. I'm pointing out why "self defense" against a person who has done literally nothing is ridiculous. I was writing my previous posts under the assumption that a fetus is a person, the same as in the original post.
But I also believe that there's no point in drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where a human organism/being/whatever you'd like to call it becomes a person. The minute you do that, it opens the door to whoever is writing the rules this week to decide things like "humans who are in a coma aren't people anymore" or "humans without a certain level of intellectual ability aren't people." That isn't a level of authority that I would entrust to any mortal human being. Would you?
Organs are components of an organism that support its life functions. A fetus is not a component of an organism, but is an organism unto itself. If it were an organ, then it would be something a woman is born with and develops naturally as she grows. Women are born with egg cells, true, but they don't become fetuses until they are fertilized and undergo a degree of development.
The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies.
That is certainly one part of the issue here.
Dont get me wrong here, I do absolutely understand your viewpoint here I think. Especially as regards the slope that lawmakers can use to slip down. This is a tricky and nuanced subject, which is why I'm largely in favor of leaving it the fuck alone. That's kind of the context of the entire post that we're debating in the comments of. If a fetus becomes legally declared to be a distinct person then suddenly half our legal code can be used in absurd and self-inconsistent ways. Currently that is not the case but some people very much want it to be that way.
Personally, I say a person becomes a person when they prove themselves an independent thinking being and they retain that status until their death. Babies, generally speaking, become independent thinking beings upon birth. Before that they are still biologically attached to the mother, thus not independent and therefore subject to the will of her person, and after that they move and think on their own and have become their own being. A person who is in an unresponsive coma is still considered a person because they attained personhood and have not yet died, but even today there are legal loopholes for family to decline further care for the comatose person. That probably won't change. If your family has hope for you you'll stay alive and if they don't then they can order your death, I don't really see how you get around that in a world where comas still happen.
Right now we have a shaky, but stable enough legal framework around this sort of thing that's been put together over a couple hundred years of people thinking about this. But if we go poking at things that are core to the legal code, such as "what is a person", things start falling off of it.
Bad analogy. The father would be charged with assault on the kid and the woman in your scenario. Also, no one reasonable thinks a five year old and a fetus are the same, which is why these laws are fucking ridiculous.
The discussion here is founded upon the assumption that a fetus is a person. The OP's argument is that if that's true, then self defense laws apply and the woman should be able to defend herself from the fetus by whatever means necessary to prevent harm. But the fetus can't choose to do anything, so killing it in self defense would only make sense if you could also kill the five year old who was thrown at its mother.
So I can drive in the HOV lane, I can't be mass arrested, and attempted murder against me is considered attempted genocide?
My tax return is going to be enormous due to how many dependants I have. I'll have enough money to get TF out of this crazy place.
What they'd really hate is not being able to jail pregnant women because the fetus is innocent
Just wait until Texas rules that the fetus was an accomplice, and gives a pregnant woman a double sentence.
Pregnant women kills an abusive husband and Texas tries the mother and fetus for murder...
It's less funny when you think about how they probably wouldn't blink
But what if the fetus told the pregnant woman it would kill her and itself if she doesn’t kill her husband. Afraid of dying and losing her fetus she kills her husband.
Let’s say the fetus gets a death sentence because obviously this person initiated everything. Would they wait for it to be born before killing it? Or would they kill it before birth what would be basically an abortion. But abortions are outlawed…
Big brain
All the college kids get to start legally drinking nine months earlier! And legal weed too!
“Fetal personhood” was always the next shoe to drop after they overturned Roe. I was a little surprised the court didn’t go straight there in Dodd.
All that shit the court said about the states being able to decide about abortion? Lies. These right-wing nutcases are out to ban abortion everywhere. And they will, through fetal personhood. We can’t pass a law to kill a PERSON without due process, can we?
It’ll happen in the next five years unless we reform the court or impeach the six frauds. Based on our current tendency to go from bad to worse, I doubt either of those will happen.
Emigrate now if you can.
How? Where?
None of us have money saved anymore. Groceries and rent have made sure we can't save any money for anything.
...Unless, there is an adopt an American family movement I haven't heard of? Can we start one?!
I'm Sally Struthers, and I'm here to talk to you about the reality of life here in the nation of America. This is a photo of Timmy. Timmy is a 28 year old middle-manager at a large box store. With just $400 a week Timmy can finally afford the new master cylinder in his 2006 Camry and get a new used iPhone 8.
Please give today.
Sad violin music plays and swells, pan over wide eyed, hopeful Americans with light luggage packed, waiting patiently for their new family, an arm waves tentatively, friendly but scared...
🎶 In the arms of an angel
Not the only next step. They are also looking to ban contraceptives. IUDs will be up first because some believe life begins at fertilization.
How the fuck would they even do that. Stopping fertilization isn't killing a 'person' as defined by them either.
Moralizing laws aren't new at all. Look at how many "dry" counties we have, how many places close liquor stores on Sunday, the restrictions on strip clubs, the history of sodomy laws... the Evangelicals have been trying to take over for a long time and this is what happens whej we tolerate even an ounce of religious rule.
I didn't think they let it get to fertilization. The copper ones kill sperm with ions and the others, I thought, were just slow release hormonal BC.
Being a person doesn't give them the right to someone else's body to survive.
Unless we're legalizing forced blood, liver, marrow, and kidney donation?
It would be morbidly funny for a woman to sue a fetus for sexual assault for penetrating them without consent.
I'll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought:
If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?
If not, why?
If so, why?
There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn't thoeretical.
It's easy to bring a baby to a facility and say "I can't do this." There is no punishment for doing so.
It's much more difficult to leave a fetus at a facility and say "I can't do this."
It is also very difficult to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless there are some major health risks involved. During the 1st trimester (when 95% of abortions are performed) the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain.
Yes, because it's trivial to simply leave the baby at a fire station. The important distinction is that it's drastically easier to carry a baby for 10 blocks than 10 months.
Yes because you have an active duty to seek continuation of care when leaving someone helpless. It’s like walking away after trying to help an unconscious stranger when you learn they need cpr. You don’t necessarily need to give them cpr but you should have to at least call 911 for them
She is not and should not get in any trouble. If anything the decision should be celebrated, as long as we’re talking about a safe dropoff at a hospital or other safe haven.
The child will go from a mother who was in a situation so bad she was willing to give up her baby, to most likely a couple that’s been waiting years to adopt and are dying to be parents.
Yes, because that baby is helpless and is her responsibility to take care of. It's also an actual person, not a potential person like a fetus is.
No. A mother/parent/or guardian can abandon a newborn at most hospitals, fire stations, or safe haven deep off stations. In most cases the process is anonymous if you want it to be.
Moving the goalposts. That is not "simply walking away." That's following an established process in place.
Following the established process for what?
Is it for "walking away from parental responsibility?"
I can't see down votes (blahaj user), but I hope you weren't downvoted to oblivion. It's good to ask questions that examine one's beliefs and those of others. It's a great way to grow as a person. I personally believe the more difficult and awkward the question, the more it should be considered.
Just click on the little rainbow star and you'll see the score from their instance.
I had no idea! I use Voyager for mobile and it doesn't show the little star, but I see what you're talking about on desktop. Thanks!
So if fetuses are declared people will Republicans start ignoring them like they do children?
The answer to that question, is yes. Republicans will immediately will stop giving a shit. Which is impressive as they barely care about fetuses now expect for a way to control women.
So they count as dependents on taxes, require child support, and allow the mother to drive in the carpool lane?
I was thinking fetal life insurance.
Just get a freezer full of zygotes and you'll never pay taxes again.
If a fetus kills you, do they get tried as a minor?
Manslaughter, they don't have intent.
This is the plot of Baby Driver, right?
Edit: I'm stupid, I was thinking of Fetus Driver
Depends on the skin color and the class of the fetus.
A fetus that comes a from white, upper class. The answer would be as minor.
A black, poor fetus. Definitely being tried as an adult.
Officer: Are you pregnant ma'am?
Ma'am: No there's a homeless person who is living rent free inside my womb against my will.
Officer: Stand back maam!
LMFAO, that is so dark, and so unfortunately believable given today's political landscape in America.
I stopped before the police officer arrested the woman for violating homelessness laws.
I have about a million pre-people in this tissue. Can I get a tax break?
Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten you go to prison for mass murder.
I miss the internet of the era of Domo-kun memes.
Hmmm. Who gets the mass murder charge for all the sperm after sex??
Just kidding, this is America. The woman gets charged.
Fucking mega-Hitler over here asking for a donation.
How do you live with yourself for killing so many millions of people of young age?
Wait til you hear about the Cronus wannabes swallowing them all whole! Despicable.
Life begins at ejaculation!
Just do it on your own time.
On the one hand: ew. Also, how does anyone know enough to put up an actual sign?
On the other: Now they're just advertising this as an option. According to the sign, as long as you're clocked out, you're g2g.
On both hands: Make sure you clock out first.
This was probably written and printed off by an employee as a joke... and it's really funny.
Yes! If your net worth is over $100M, that is.
But are fetuses corporations? If a small business incubator fails, is it an abortion?
Yes, and the customers and employees can be charged with murder.
Careful of what you wish for. I look forward to a future court case that establishes once and for all the definition of a person. Although, with the current Supreme Court, I do admit some hesitation.
I mean, if you want to establish rights for a fetus, what do you do when that fetus belongs to a “Mexican”? What do you do if a pregnant American moves to another country without the permission of the fetus? Not to say these are legit examples, but the courts will fill with bizarre cases like this.
More interestingly, what do you do when science stands up in court and establishes a fact that opposes your belief? Your beliefs have gotten you this far. It’s very plausible that you will lose some of the ground you’ve gained.
What do you do when you put a pregnant woman in jail? What if they get pregnant in jail?
Put the child in a foster home that preaches that this was all for the best. They are only fit caregivers if they share this belief. In 10 years use the child for propaganda about God working in mysterious ways.
It all depends which corporation is paying the most for the ruling.
The US Supreme Court, and specifically several of its members (looking at you Clarence Thomas) are nothing more than corporate shills who’ve made it clear they are out for nothing more than whoever can pay them the most money.
It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?
They're also fighting or have recently been fighting minimum marriage age laws in like 12 States.
I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, "oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks."
And to make sure their wives can't divorce them for it.
The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That's Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.
That is... a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.
The part you are referring to is referred to as "Sota" which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as "sota water," to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, "these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture" . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.
Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won't hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.
Doesn't that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn't Republicans want that to be an exception?
It could be interpreted that way... I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.
The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the 'Nezre'ah Zerah' implies the potion will cause barreness.
Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it's on the moot side of things.
The Christ never addressed it, so it "should" be included in the stuff that still applies.
Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn't forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.
As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.
it's always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they're an adult, divorce doesn't matter because they don't care, you're an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn't care less. it's also about punishment. a man can't be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she's a whore and deserves it.
edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they're treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.
My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will "take the commitment more seriously".
He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.
because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.
Pretty soon they'll be trying to put me in prison for mass-murder every time I jerk off.
Not a chance, you're (presumably) Male.
May still be possible. We don't know what his skin color is.
Only if he’s a white, male landowner.
Don't give them ideas.
Would not surprise me if these same people then try to legalize pedophilia if they win just so they can do everything in their power to legally fuck a fetus. I imagine that's their ultimate goal in life.
These people watched a serbian film and thought: newborn porn? Why didn't i think of that
Come census time there will be pregnancy tests?
fuck religion. prove your god is real or stfu. stop letting conservatives have a say in the government of this country. just put your fucking feet down people. stop letting idiots speak.
Pregnant mothers can drive in the carpool lane!
But people under a certain age are required a child seat, no? So unless those rules are changed, it would be hard for any pregnant woman to legally sit in a moving car.
We're just going to have to also legally classify pregnant people as car seats so they can drive to work.
Ah, good point. But doesn't that mean that the pregnant woman can't ride in the car at all, since the young "person" inside them doesn't have a way to be put in a seat?
It looks like Florida and West Virginia have no seat laws, so pregnant woman in the carpool lane are good to go there!
Pregnant women votes should be doubled!
I get what you're going for, but young kids can't vote, so this doesn't really work as a joke. :P
Couch boy wants to give parents an extra vote for every child they have. Now, he doesn't say how they are split between the parents so a) probably goes to the father and b) not if the kid has 2 moms or 2 dads.
He only has 3 kids. You'd think he would spend less time fucking couches with that attitude.
Ok, then start issuing them social security numbers as soon as they've confirmed your pregnant so parents can start applying for and receiving benefits before the child is even born.
Not attacking you, but I hate this fucking argument about fetuses being people: if they're people at the moment of conception, then they need to be treated as such. Conservatives can't have it both ways, despite the fact I know in their minds they can.
On an unrelated note: I think it's time we got rid of "under God" and "In God We Trust" from the pledge of allegiance and all of our currency. We're not a Christian nation, I don't believe in a God, and shouldn't have to handle currency that goes against my lack of religious beliefs.
But half our country wants a Christian-Theocratic-Sharia-Law institution as our government, and I'd prefer they just fuck right off.
Did you intend to reply to me to begin with? 'cause I just made a side comment that's not related to the actual controversy at all, lol
Tax returns of 9 months.
Da dummest of fux.
Meanwhile, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy falls over, down a hill, and dies.
Then starts spinning, creating a perfectly cylindrical hole, and catches fire due to friction, and self cremating.
Pushing to have zygotes and blastocysts as people is fucking worse. That's as nonsensical as calling sperm people. There's not even a neural tube for christ sakes. My toenail has as much personhood. This shit isn't even biblical.
::: spoiler Stateline Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Stateline is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
:::
Roe v. Wade came into existence as Biden's career was taking off fifty years ago
it has now been two years since Roe v. Wade fell and if it took fifty years to for it to fall then we may have a long time to wait for our rights to be restored
this will just be some campaign promise for either side to exploit and asks donations on whether to keep things restricted or to restore rights eventually
US citizens need to wake up and realize both side are just empty promises and words we need actual leadership in the Senate, the Congress, The Presidency, and the rest of the government
Cool. Who are you canvassing for?
Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.
Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people's rights.
Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn't mean we can't be critical when assessing if they've met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn't mean this person's urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.
This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.
What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren't going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.
I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you'll get what you want by wishing for it.
No, they don’t understand. They’d rather just sit in their basements and complain on the Internet rather than get out into the light and actually try to effect the change they wish to see.
Lol, I've been a district delegate for the DNC in one of the most conservative states in America..... What have you done?
This is why I asked how canvassing was related to the original claim, as we are now focusing on the strawman argument instead of actually addressing the criticism in question.
Considering he is one of the most active users in this online community, I'm guessing your description of standby basement dweller is more accurate for flyingsquid than anyone else here. Doing memes and drowning out criticism online with flawed rhetoric is not the same as political organizing.
So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?
take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you'll get what you want by wishing for it.
First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn't ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.
Candidates don't just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state's political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don't really have a choice on who you canvas for.
I made no such claim about criticism. All I did was ask who they were canvassing for.
They all sure go to great lengths not to answer that question.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I'm just asking how it's a relevant question..... which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you're not being very honest here.
Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.
So who are you canvassing for?
I'll take a shot from the hip, it's not the convicted felon.
I'll take a shot from the rooftop. Still not a convicted felon.
And how is that relevant to the original claim?
Someone saying that they think both parties need better leadership isn't claiming you're going to vote for a convicted felon.
The original claim was left by the side of the road, several comments ago. We are slinging mud now.
That's the whole point of strawman arguments, to distract from the original claim.
By employing the logical fallacy and defending it, you squash the very possibility of any other discourse.
Discourse? This thread is just people asking "who you wit?"
It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
The problem here is you're trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a question.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question......ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That's a shitty rebuttal, but it's still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
problem here is you're trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
The problem here is that your question isn't relevant to the statement and it's only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
No, the problem is you're trying to argue with a question.
It's called circular logic and can go on endlessly with idiots
Lol, I can't answer a question for someone else. I asked the same question to you and you are unwilling to answer. Why expect anything else from op?
If you were to ask me.... I would say that I don't canvass for national elections as I live in the most conservative state in the Union, but i do get involved for state and municipal elections. As I already said, I have served a term as a district delegate.
So, now that your "question" has been fulfilled, why ask in the first place, and how is it relative to the original statement? And, who are you canvassing for?
Let me guess, the answer is going to be based on another logical fallacy?
Why expect anything else from op?
Because they have spent months and months telling us who not to vote for without giving us any alternatives.
It may possibly be that you don't know the whole story here.
So if we perceive a fetus as a person, self defense laws and stand your ground laws should apply right?
Like, if the threat is persistent and reasonably considered to be causing bodily harm, then reasonable escalating force, up to lethal, should be legal correct? Intent and innocence of the perps intentions does not absolve them in court of law... So if we consider the fetus a person and they are causing harm without stopping when prompted the mother should be legally afforded to defend herself, no?
The oil and gas industry is responsible for miscarriages and premature births.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/29/the-links-between-pollution-and-miscarriage-this-is-the-stuff-nightmares-are-made-of
This is the truth. Not even a full grown person, not even your just-born child, no one can compel you to give your blood to save their life much less to keep them alive inside your own body for nine months.
If they think a fetus has the same right to life as any person, they are free to help it survive using their own resources, just get it the fuck out of my body first.
That is a creative usage of the law. I like it
If you think about it, isnt all law about creative and novel ways to twist wording to get around it?
If we couldnt bend the law to our will there would only be one law and it would be: 'dont be a cunt'.
Would you be okay with charging a 5-year-old child with assault if a dad threw the kid at his mom without the kid wanting that? The kid didn't choose to be thrown at his mom, but collided with her regardless. Similarly, the fetus didn't choose to be conceived, but exists nonetheless.
No one has ever chosen to be conceived and yet we're still forced to live by the rules of society.
That doesn't answer the question. Should a five-year-old be held responsible if their dad throws them at their mom?
The question is useless if it comes from a fallacious argument to begin with.
What exactly is the fallacy here? The point is that if the child has done nothing of its own choice to harm its mother, then the fetus cannot be held responsible either.
I don't understand why the five year old would have any charges against it in that scenario, they too were a victim. From the moment they were tossed, any forthcoming damages and assaults are placed on the person chucking said child.
Easy one, next question I like these.
Right, I agree. And so, would you say that a fetus, which did not choose to be conceived or sustained in any way in the mother, should be held responsible for any harm (however you define that) that comes to the mother as a result of the pregnancy? If so, then you should also hold the child responsible because it struck and harmed its mother, even though it didn't do so by choice.
Yes. That's how self defense works. You have a right to defend your own health. Period.
In that case, the child thrown at its mother is guilty of assault because it harmed her by colliding with her. The child would be subject to self-defense rules and could rightly have been shot out of the air like a clay pigeon.
No it isn't. The person throwing the child is guilty of assault. This is nowhere near the same situation.
So if a five-year-old can't be held responsible and killed for hitting its mother by being thrown at her, because it was the dad who threw it, then how can a fetus be held responsible and killed for existing and causing harm to the mother, even though it never chose to exist at all and was conceived by another person?
Because a fetus isn't a person. Until birth it is considered a part of the mother, specifically to prevent stupid and unsustainable rulings like this one. If your mother was killed by cancer, are you going to take her tumor to court and put it in prison? No, you wouldn't, that would be ridiculous. Because a tumor can't choose its actions. Neither can a fetus.
After development and birth, when the child can think and act for itself, sure it's a person. Inside the womb? It is an organ, it acts and thinks like an organ (by which I mean, it doesn't) and can hold no legal responsibility for anything because it is not a thinking being.
Do I find this to be sad? Sure, absolutely. I'd prefer every fetus in the world to be loved and wanted and born without complication into a life of ease. But you and I both know very well that that is not the reality of the world.
The entire argument here is that if we consider a fetus a person, then we should apply self-defense laws to pregnancies. I'm pointing out why "self defense" against a person who has done literally nothing is ridiculous. I was writing my previous posts under the assumption that a fetus is a person, the same as in the original post.
But I also believe that there's no point in drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where a human organism/being/whatever you'd like to call it becomes a person. The minute you do that, it opens the door to whoever is writing the rules this week to decide things like "humans who are in a coma aren't people anymore" or "humans without a certain level of intellectual ability aren't people." That isn't a level of authority that I would entrust to any mortal human being. Would you?
Organs are components of an organism that support its life functions. A fetus is not a component of an organism, but is an organism unto itself. If it were an organ, then it would be something a woman is born with and develops naturally as she grows. Women are born with egg cells, true, but they don't become fetuses until they are fertilized and undergo a degree of development.
That is certainly one part of the issue here.
Dont get me wrong here, I do absolutely understand your viewpoint here I think. Especially as regards the slope that lawmakers can use to slip down. This is a tricky and nuanced subject, which is why I'm largely in favor of leaving it the fuck alone. That's kind of the context of the entire post that we're debating in the comments of. If a fetus becomes legally declared to be a distinct person then suddenly half our legal code can be used in absurd and self-inconsistent ways. Currently that is not the case but some people very much want it to be that way.
Personally, I say a person becomes a person when they prove themselves an independent thinking being and they retain that status until their death. Babies, generally speaking, become independent thinking beings upon birth. Before that they are still biologically attached to the mother, thus not independent and therefore subject to the will of her person, and after that they move and think on their own and have become their own being. A person who is in an unresponsive coma is still considered a person because they attained personhood and have not yet died, but even today there are legal loopholes for family to decline further care for the comatose person. That probably won't change. If your family has hope for you you'll stay alive and if they don't then they can order your death, I don't really see how you get around that in a world where comas still happen.
Right now we have a shaky, but stable enough legal framework around this sort of thing that's been put together over a couple hundred years of people thinking about this. But if we go poking at things that are core to the legal code, such as "what is a person", things start falling off of it.
Bad analogy. The father would be charged with assault on the kid and the woman in your scenario. Also, no one reasonable thinks a five year old and a fetus are the same, which is why these laws are fucking ridiculous.
The discussion here is founded upon the assumption that a fetus is a person. The OP's argument is that if that's true, then self defense laws apply and the woman should be able to defend herself from the fetus by whatever means necessary to prevent harm. But the fetus can't choose to do anything, so killing it in self defense would only make sense if you could also kill the five year old who was thrown at its mother.
So I can drive in the HOV lane, I can't be mass arrested, and attempted murder against me is considered attempted genocide?
My tax return is going to be enormous due to how many dependants I have. I'll have enough money to get TF out of this crazy place.
What they'd really hate is not being able to jail pregnant women because the fetus is innocent
Just wait until Texas rules that the fetus was an accomplice, and gives a pregnant woman a double sentence.
Pregnant women kills an abusive husband and Texas tries the mother and fetus for murder...
It's less funny when you think about how they probably wouldn't blink
But what if the fetus told the pregnant woman it would kill her and itself if she doesn’t kill her husband. Afraid of dying and losing her fetus she kills her husband.
Let’s say the fetus gets a death sentence because obviously this person initiated everything. Would they wait for it to be born before killing it? Or would they kill it before birth what would be basically an abortion. But abortions are outlawed…
Big brain
All the college kids get to start legally drinking nine months earlier! And legal weed too!
“Fetal personhood” was always the next shoe to drop after they overturned Roe. I was a little surprised the court didn’t go straight there in Dodd.
All that shit the court said about the states being able to decide about abortion? Lies. These right-wing nutcases are out to ban abortion everywhere. And they will, through fetal personhood. We can’t pass a law to kill a PERSON without due process, can we?
It’ll happen in the next five years unless we reform the court or impeach the six frauds. Based on our current tendency to go from bad to worse, I doubt either of those will happen.
Emigrate now if you can.
How? Where? None of us have money saved anymore. Groceries and rent have made sure we can't save any money for anything.
...Unless, there is an adopt an American family movement I haven't heard of? Can we start one?!
I'm Sally Struthers, and I'm here to talk to you about the reality of life here in the nation of America. This is a photo of Timmy. Timmy is a 28 year old middle-manager at a large box store. With just $400 a week Timmy can finally afford the new master cylinder in his 2006 Camry and get a new used iPhone 8.
Please give today.
Sad violin music plays and swells, pan over wide eyed, hopeful Americans with light luggage packed, waiting patiently for their new family, an arm waves tentatively, friendly but scared...
🎶 In the arms of an angel
Not the only next step. They are also looking to ban contraceptives. IUDs will be up first because some believe life begins at fertilization.
How the fuck would they even do that. Stopping fertilization isn't killing a 'person' as defined by them either.
Moralizing laws aren't new at all. Look at how many "dry" counties we have, how many places close liquor stores on Sunday, the restrictions on strip clubs, the history of sodomy laws... the Evangelicals have been trying to take over for a long time and this is what happens whej we tolerate even an ounce of religious rule.
I didn't think they let it get to fertilization. The copper ones kill sperm with ions and the others, I thought, were just slow release hormonal BC.
Being a person doesn't give them the right to someone else's body to survive.
Unless we're legalizing forced blood, liver, marrow, and kidney donation?
It would be morbidly funny for a woman to sue a fetus for sexual assault for penetrating them without consent.
I'll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?
If not, why?
If so, why?
There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn't thoeretical.
It's easy to bring a baby to a facility and say "I can't do this." There is no punishment for doing so.
It's much more difficult to leave a fetus at a facility and say "I can't do this."
It is also very difficult to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless there are some major health risks involved. During the 1st trimester (when 95% of abortions are performed) the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain.
Yes, because it's trivial to simply leave the baby at a fire station. The important distinction is that it's drastically easier to carry a baby for 10 blocks than 10 months.
Yes because you have an active duty to seek continuation of care when leaving someone helpless. It’s like walking away after trying to help an unconscious stranger when you learn they need cpr. You don’t necessarily need to give them cpr but you should have to at least call 911 for them
She is not and should not get in any trouble. If anything the decision should be celebrated, as long as we’re talking about a safe dropoff at a hospital or other safe haven.
The child will go from a mother who was in a situation so bad she was willing to give up her baby, to most likely a couple that’s been waiting years to adopt and are dying to be parents.
Yes, because that baby is helpless and is her responsibility to take care of. It's also an actual person, not a potential person like a fetus is.
No. A mother/parent/or guardian can abandon a newborn at most hospitals, fire stations, or safe haven deep off stations. In most cases the process is anonymous if you want it to be.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/parenting/2019/09/13/safe-haven-laws-things-you-didnt-know-surrendering-newborn/2031516001/
Moving the goalposts. That is not "simply walking away." That's following an established process in place.
Following the established process for what?
Is it for "walking away from parental responsibility?"
I can't see down votes (blahaj user), but I hope you weren't downvoted to oblivion. It's good to ask questions that examine one's beliefs and those of others. It's a great way to grow as a person. I personally believe the more difficult and awkward the question, the more it should be considered.
Just click on the little rainbow star and you'll see the score from their instance.
I had no idea! I use Voyager for mobile and it doesn't show the little star, but I see what you're talking about on desktop. Thanks!
So if fetuses are declared people will Republicans start ignoring them like they do children?
The answer to that question, is yes. Republicans will immediately will stop giving a shit. Which is impressive as they barely care about fetuses now expect for a way to control women.
So they count as dependents on taxes, require child support, and allow the mother to drive in the carpool lane?
I was thinking fetal life insurance.
Just get a freezer full of zygotes and you'll never pay taxes again.
If a fetus kills you, do they get tried as a minor?
Manslaughter, they don't have intent.
This is the plot of Baby Driver, right?
Edit: I'm stupid, I was thinking of Fetus Driver
Depends on the skin color and the class of the fetus.
A fetus that comes a from white, upper class. The answer would be as minor.
A black, poor fetus. Definitely being tried as an adult.
Officer: Are you pregnant ma'am?
Ma'am: No there's a homeless person who is living rent free inside my womb against my will.
Officer: Stand back maam!
LMFAO, that is so dark, and so unfortunately believable given today's political landscape in America.
I stopped before the police officer arrested the woman for violating homelessness laws.
I have about a million pre-people in this tissue. Can I get a tax break?
Every time you masturbate,
God kills a kittenyou go to prison for mass murder.I miss the internet of the era of Domo-kun memes.
Hmmm. Who gets the mass murder charge for all the sperm after sex??
Just kidding, this is America. The woman gets charged.
Fucking mega-Hitler over here asking for a donation.
How do you live with yourself for killing so many millions of people of young age?
Wait til you hear about the Cronus wannabes swallowing them all whole! Despicable.
Life begins at ejaculation!
Just do it on your own time.
On the one hand: ew. Also, how does anyone know enough to put up an actual sign?
On the other: Now they're just advertising this as an option. According to the sign, as long as you're clocked out, you're g2g.
On both hands: Make sure you clock out first.
This was probably written and printed off by an employee as a joke... and it's really funny.
Yes! If your net worth is over $100M, that is.
But are fetuses corporations? If a small business incubator fails, is it an abortion?
Yes, and the customers and employees can be charged with murder.
Careful of what you wish for. I look forward to a future court case that establishes once and for all the definition of a person. Although, with the current Supreme Court, I do admit some hesitation.
I mean, if you want to establish rights for a fetus, what do you do when that fetus belongs to a “Mexican”? What do you do if a pregnant American moves to another country without the permission of the fetus? Not to say these are legit examples, but the courts will fill with bizarre cases like this.
More interestingly, what do you do when science stands up in court and establishes a fact that opposes your belief? Your beliefs have gotten you this far. It’s very plausible that you will lose some of the ground you’ve gained.
What do you do when you put a pregnant woman in jail? What if they get pregnant in jail?
Put the child in a foster home that preaches that this was all for the best. They are only fit caregivers if they share this belief. In 10 years use the child for propaganda about God working in mysterious ways.
It all depends which corporation is paying the most for the ruling.
The US Supreme Court, and specifically several of its members (looking at you Clarence Thomas) are nothing more than corporate shills who’ve made it clear they are out for nothing more than whoever can pay them the most money.
It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?
They literally are already doing that.
They're also fighting or have recently been fighting minimum marriage age laws in like 12 States.
I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, "oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks."
And to make sure their wives can't divorce them for it.
The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That's Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.
That is... a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.
The part you are referring to is referred to as "Sota" which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as "sota water," to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, "these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture" . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.
Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won't hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.
Doesn't that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn't Republicans want that to be an exception?
It could be interpreted that way... I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.
וְנִזְרֳעָ֥ה זָֽרַע
The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the 'Nezre'ah Zerah' implies the potion will cause barreness.
Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it's on the moot side of things.
The Christ never addressed it, so it "should" be included in the stuff that still applies.
Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn't forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.
As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.
it's always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they're an adult, divorce doesn't matter because they don't care, you're an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn't care less. it's also about punishment. a man can't be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she's a whore and deserves it.
edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they're treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.
My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will "take the commitment more seriously".
He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.
because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.
Pretty soon they'll be trying to put me in prison for mass-murder every time I jerk off.
Not a chance, you're (presumably) Male.
May still be possible. We don't know what his skin color is.
Only if he’s a white, male landowner.
Don't give them ideas.
Would not surprise me if these same people then try to legalize pedophilia if they win just so they can do everything in their power to legally fuck a fetus. I imagine that's their ultimate goal in life.
These people watched a serbian film and thought: newborn porn? Why didn't i think of that
Come census time there will be pregnancy tests?
fuck religion. prove your god is real or stfu. stop letting conservatives have a say in the government of this country. just put your fucking feet down people. stop letting idiots speak.
Pregnant mothers can drive in the carpool lane!
But people under a certain age are required a child seat, no? So unless those rules are changed, it would be hard for any pregnant woman to legally sit in a moving car.
We're just going to have to also legally classify pregnant people as car seats so they can drive to work.
Ah, good point. But doesn't that mean that the pregnant woman can't ride in the car at all, since the young "person" inside them doesn't have a way to be put in a seat?
It looks like Florida and West Virginia have no seat laws, so pregnant woman in the carpool lane are good to go there!
Pregnant women votes should be doubled!
I get what you're going for, but young kids can't vote, so this doesn't really work as a joke. :P
Couch boy wants to give parents an extra vote for every child they have. Now, he doesn't say how they are split between the parents so a) probably goes to the father and b) not if the kid has 2 moms or 2 dads.
He only has 3 kids. You'd think he would spend less time fucking couches with that attitude.
Ok, then start issuing them social security numbers as soon as they've confirmed your pregnant so parents can start applying for and receiving benefits before the child is even born.
Not attacking you, but I hate this fucking argument about fetuses being people: if they're people at the moment of conception, then they need to be treated as such. Conservatives can't have it both ways, despite the fact I know in their minds they can.
On an unrelated note: I think it's time we got rid of "under God" and "In God We Trust" from the pledge of allegiance and all of our currency. We're not a Christian nation, I don't believe in a God, and shouldn't have to handle currency that goes against my lack of religious beliefs.
But half our country wants a Christian-Theocratic-Sharia-Law institution as our government, and I'd prefer they just fuck right off.
Did you intend to reply to me to begin with? 'cause I just made a side comment that's not related to the actual controversy at all, lol
Tax returns of 9 months.
Da dummest of fux.
Meanwhile, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy falls over, down a hill, and dies.
Then starts spinning, creating a perfectly cylindrical hole, and catches fire due to friction, and self cremating.
Pushing to have zygotes and blastocysts as people is fucking worse. That's as nonsensical as calling sperm people. There's not even a neural tube for christ sakes. My toenail has as much personhood. This shit isn't even biblical.
::: spoiler Stateline Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Stateline is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community. :::
Roe v. Wade came into existence as Biden's career was taking off fifty years ago
it has now been two years since Roe v. Wade fell and if it took fifty years to for it to fall then we may have a long time to wait for our rights to be restored
this will just be some campaign promise for either side to exploit and asks donations on whether to keep things restricted or to restore rights eventually
US citizens need to wake up and realize both side are just empty promises and words we need actual leadership in the Senate, the Congress, The Presidency, and the rest of the government
Cool. Who are you canvassing for?
Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.
Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people's rights.
Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn't mean we can't be critical when assessing if they've met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn't mean this person's urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.
This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.
What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren't going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.
I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you'll get what you want by wishing for it.
No, they don’t understand. They’d rather just sit in their basements and complain on the Internet rather than get out into the light and actually try to effect the change they wish to see.
Lol, I've been a district delegate for the DNC in one of the most conservative states in America..... What have you done?
This is why I asked how canvassing was related to the original claim, as we are now focusing on the strawman argument instead of actually addressing the criticism in question.
Considering he is one of the most active users in this online community, I'm guessing your description of standby basement dweller is more accurate for flyingsquid than anyone else here. Doing memes and drowning out criticism online with flawed rhetoric is not the same as political organizing.
So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?
First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn't ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.
Candidates don't just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state's political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don't really have a choice on who you canvas for.
I made no such claim about criticism. All I did was ask who they were canvassing for.
They all sure go to great lengths not to answer that question.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I'm just asking how it's a relevant question..... which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you're not being very honest here.
Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.
So who are you canvassing for?
I'll take a shot from the hip, it's not the convicted felon.
I'll take a shot from the rooftop. Still not a convicted felon.
And how is that relevant to the original claim?
Someone saying that they think both parties need better leadership isn't claiming you're going to vote for a convicted felon.
The original claim was left by the side of the road, several comments ago. We are slinging mud now.
That's the whole point of strawman arguments, to distract from the original claim.
By employing the logical fallacy and defending it, you squash the very possibility of any other discourse.
Discourse? This thread is just people asking "who you wit?"
It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
The problem here is you're trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question......ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That's a shitty rebuttal, but it's still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
The problem here is that your question isn't relevant to the statement and it's only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
No, the problem is you're trying to argue with a question.
It's called circular logic and can go on endlessly with idiots
Lol, I can't answer a question for someone else. I asked the same question to you and you are unwilling to answer. Why expect anything else from op?
If you were to ask me.... I would say that I don't canvass for national elections as I live in the most conservative state in the Union, but i do get involved for state and municipal elections. As I already said, I have served a term as a district delegate.
So, now that your "question" has been fulfilled, why ask in the first place, and how is it relative to the original statement? And, who are you canvassing for?
Let me guess, the answer is going to be based on another logical fallacy?
Because they have spent months and months telling us who not to vote for without giving us any alternatives.
It may possibly be that you don't know the whole story here.