Unborn babies can wait! Look what may be in the running for 'legal personhood status'

https://twitter.com/hboulware/status/761674592284835840

Today, in “What Happens When Environmentalist Idiots Have Too Much Time on Their Hands”:

The U.S. movement to imbue land and rivers with legal personhood status is gaining ground: https://t.co/5RQIaVl6tQ pic.twitter.com/aqjLDrkaDJ

— Outside Magazine (@outsidemagazine) August 5, 2016

Gaining ground, eh?

Wait. What? https://t.co/ND9lS4Mtav

— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) August 5, 2016

Sigh – I'm a liberal, but do you know how stupid this sounds?

— Dave (@RetireInReutte) August 5, 2016

You think it sounds stupid? Can you imagine how unborn babies must feel?

I'm thinking a river shouldn't achieve personhood status before a human unborn child. Just me.

— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) August 5, 2016

Definitely not just you, Kathleen.

How about rivers still in the fetal stage? https://t.co/mbO19hPSxt

— Jason (@jasonelevation) August 5, 2016

https://twitter.com/kcherrick/status/761675056502099968

As long as we don’t apply this principle to the unborn. https://t.co/xFN5KuHWzN

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 5, 2016

We could start with, I don't know, actual people in the womb. https://t.co/90pLCGdqyC

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 5, 2016

@outsidemagazine So a river is a person….but a baby in the womb is not. Okay….

— Zor-El (@Adam4004) August 5, 2016

Things with legal personhood: rocks
Things lacking legal personhood: tiny persons https://t.co/vq9kh9Uk5b

— PoliMath (@politicalmath) August 5, 2016

Rivers – yes.
Fetuses – no.

Makes a ton of sense. https://t.co/dp6jguIHGD

— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) August 5, 2016

How did we get here?

https://twitter.com/GlomarResponder/status/761674687109824512