Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[GMDino]

Of course it's Alabama.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/abortion-court-sue-fetus-rights-alabama-804213/

Quote:When Ryan Magers’ ex-girlfriend got an abortion against his wishes in February 2017, he was upset — so upset, in fact, that nearly two years later, he decided to sue the clinic where she’d had the procedure, the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives. Magers then petitioned a Madison County, AL probate court — which typically deals with the property and debts of deceased adults — to allow him to represent the estate of his ex-girlfriend’s aborted fetus in his case against the clinic.



Shockingly, the probate court judge granted Magers’ petition, reportedly making Magers’ aborted fetus the first fetus to be granted full legal rights in the United States.


“We have already had a victory, and it was the first one of its kind, ever,” Magers’ attorney, Brent Helms, crowed to local TV news station WAAY31.


Needless to say, the decision has been hailed as a victory for the anti-abortion camp, infuriating reproductive rights activists across the country.

Quote:
[/url]Mona Eltahawy

@monaeltahawy




This is the USA in the year 2019: a man AND a fetus are suing an abortion clinic.

The woman?

When the fetus becomes a person as per Alabama “personhood law,” a woman is rendered a walking incubator with less rights than a fetus and the man. https://www.waaytv.com/content/news/Madison-Co-probate-court-recognizes-aborted-fetus-as-person-with-legal-rights-506690421.html …

159
1:30 PM - Mar 5, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Madison Co. probate court recognizes aborted fetus as person with legal rights
A father is suing the abortion clinic where his girlfriend terminated her pregnancy, even though he wanted her to have the baby.
waaytv.com

The decision appears to be one of the first major decisions following Alabama’s “personhood law,” or Amendment 2, which passed during last year’s midterm election. The [url=https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/11/07/in-alabama-fertilized-eggs-are-now-people/]amendment provides constitutional rights to fertilized eggs and fetuses, effectively making both a mother and a fetus equal in the eyes of state law. It also declares that Alabamans do not have any legal right to an abortion under the Alabama constitution.


The amendment was introduced by Rep. Matt Fridy (R-AL) in order to ensure that abortion care would be banned in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned: “We don’t know from generation to generation what the composition of the Alabama Supreme Court is going to be,” Fridy told AL.com last year. “Things change quickly, and you can look at a lot of issues, even recently, to see significant change, judicial change, that’s come about much faster than anybody had ever anticipated.” Nearly 59 percent of Alabamans supported the amendment in the midterm election.


Despite Helms’ claim that this marks the first time a fetus has ever won legal rights in the United States, a 2014 Alabama law dictated that minors seeking abortions would have to obtain permission from a court and undergo a trial, which would involve a fetus having legal representation “for the interests of the unborn child.” The law was struck down by a federal judge in 2017 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Alabama now says no one in the state has a constitutional right to an abortion and if the woman gets one the fetus has a legal right to sue (with representation, of course).  Seems they just have to have a group of people to oppress down there.

[fredtoast]

Giving the fetus the right to sue is crazy, but it still does not say it has a legitimate right to any damages.

It can sue, but I don't see what it could win.

[Au165]

Oh look another waste of taxpayer money that will inevitably end up being struck down.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2019, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Giving the fetus the right to sue is crazy, but it still does not say it has a legitimate right to any damages.

It can sue, but I don't see what it could win.

That was one of the questions I had.  What is the "estate" of the fetus?  Who will pay if/when the fetus loses?

[Dill]

(03-08-2019, 01:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: That was one of the questions I had.  What is the "estate" of the fetus?  Who will pay if/when the fetus loses?

In my view the fetus should.  Obviously this one can't.

But in future cases, when the fetus becomes a person and is born, that is when you get them.

Born in debt. Starting with court costs, and maybe damages too.  First life lesson.

In this particular case, where the father is taking responsibility for the aborted fetuses personhood, then he should also pay its debts.
Of course, if such a father were to win damages then he would have to pay his own damage claim.

[fredtoast]

Since he was not marrid to the mother he is not the "legal father" of this fetus. So if the fetus wins any damages the mother should get all of the money as the benficiary of the estate.

[*Nately120*]

So Alabama just rewarded a man for knocking up a woman he wasn't married to? Way to send mixed messages, Bible belt!

[*bfine32*]

I read it more as giving rights to the father of the child. This is something I've been advocating for some time know. I hope this is the first steps in recognizing the rights of both parents.

[jj22]

I'm sure if he married her like a good Christian instead of knocking her up and then dumping her, she may have made a different decision.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2019, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I read it more as giving rights to the father of the child. This is something I've been advocating for some time know. I hope this is the first steps in recognizing the rights of both parents.

The mother and father already have equal rights over their own bodies.  And neither is entitled to rights over the other's body.  Everything is already as equal as you can make it.

The father is entitled to parental rights as soon as the fetus is no longer part of the mother's body.

[treee]

Personally I believe person-hood is established once you can form memories and recall them.

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2019, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The mother and father already have equal rights over their own bodies.  And neither is entitled to rights over the other's body.  Everything is already as equal as you can make it.

The father is entitled to parental rights as soon as the fetus is no longer part of the mother's body.

It's not like we've never kicked this can down the road before and my view is unchanged. When a woman can get pregnant by herself then she has 100% say over the outcome of the child. Outside of that it's a joint endeavor. This ruling just supports my stance. It's about time the man has some rights over his unborn child

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2019, 06:15 PM)treee Wrote: Personally I believe person-hood is established once you can form memories and recall them.

What if I have Alzheimer's

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2019, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  When a woman can get pregnant by herself then she has 100% say over the outcome of the child. 

When a man can grow a fetus without controlling another persons body then he can have rights over that fetus.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2019, 09:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a man can grow a fetus without controlling another persons body then he can have rights over that fetus.  

Sure can, but right now they have to split it. 

[GMDino]

(03-08-2019, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure can, but right now they have to split it. 

Split what?  Does the man carry it in his body for half the time? Or do they each grow a half? 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Split what?  Does the man carry it in his body for half the time? Or do they each grow a half? 

The rights to the child.

I thought it was obvious; however, I often fail to appreciate the comprehension level of a few in this forum.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2019, 11:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The rights to the child.

I thought it was obvious; however, I often fail to appreciate the comprehension level of a few in this forum.

Oh!  So like ownership.  I see.

I feel your pain when someone wants to take away rights from women because...men.

[Vas Deferens]

married men should have to get permission from their spouses to yank one off.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2019, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure can, but right now they have to split it. 

Split what?  I don't understand what this means.  You can't "split" the rights a person has over his own body.

Right now women are the only ones who can carry a fetus to development.  Men may think that is not fair, but that does not entitle them to take control of the rights a woman has over her own body.  The only way men can get what they want is to create a way to carry a fetus to full development outside of a woman's body.