Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2019, 12:15 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: married men should have to get permission from their spouses to yank one off.

And married women should get permission from their spouses to menstruate!

[fredtoast]

(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.

It is not obvious to me.

How do you "split" the rights to a child in a woman's body?  Sounds to me like what you want is to give the man the power to force a woman to go through a pregnancy she does not want to.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-11-2019, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And married women should get permission from their spouses to menstruate!

yours doesn't?  i have a TPS report and process my old lady needs to go through before I allow for such nonsense.  

(03-11-2019, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not obvious to me.

How do you "split" the rights to a child in a woman's body?  Sounds to me like what you want is to give the man the power to force a woman to go through a pregnancy she does not want to.

It wouldn't hurt to put some makeup on TOO!

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

And a female cannot get pregnant without sperm.

IMO you absolutely can split the rights of an unborn child between the 2 that created it.

It's simply a matter of opinion As abhorrent (and whimsical) as you and others think giving the father prenatal rights to his child is; it think it's equally abhorrent that he has none.

Why can't he just walk away if he doesn't want the child?  

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why can't he just walk away if he doesn't want the child?  

Er...doesn't this happen all the time?

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not obvious to me.

How do you "split" the rights to a child in a woman's body?  Sounds to me like what you want is to give the man the power to force a woman to go through a pregnancy she does not want to.

As I said I often fail to appreciate the comprehension level of a few on these boards. If you truly read what I wrote and did not realize I was talking about parental rights (whether you agree with them or not); then I may be required to start drawing pictures in future dialog.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Er...doesn't this happen all the time?

Not legally; sorta like abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why can't he just walk away if he doesn't want the child?  

Same reason the mother can't.  Parents are responsible to support their children.

[Benton]

(03-08-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if I have Alzheimer's

Then you won't remember you were killed.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not legally; sorta like abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

I've never tried to raise a kid, but I'm not sure if child support really covers as many bases as the deadbeats in this country assume it does. Super quick and half-assed calculations on my part, but Child Support can be 25% of a non-custodial parent's income and the median wage in the USA is $865 weekly. That means for the trouble of raising a kid I'd be getting $216.25 a week, which would be $5.40 if it were a 40 hour workweek. I assume raising a kid takes more than 40 hours per week, but who knows how easy it is now that you can plop them in front of netflix, and all.

Bottom line...Ladies, don't get knocked up by losers. And men, don't knock up a lady who seems like the type to get an abortion. As usual, we can't keep ourselves in check and need the government to sort things out for it. Alas.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Same reason the mother can't.  Parents are responsible to support their children.

Of course she can walk away from the pregnancy; however, he cannot.  Seems fair.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's simply a matter of opinion As abhorrent (and whimsical) as you and others think giving the father prenatal rights to his child is; it think it's equally abhorrent that he has none. 

The problem is that what you think is "fair" is giving the man a power over the woman's body.  I don't think that is fair at all.

Right now a woman is the only one who can carry a fetus to full development.  I don't think that is "abhorrent".  I just accept it as the facts right now.  When science has advanced to the point that a man can take a fetus for his own and raise it to full development then I absolutely agree that he should be allowed to take the child.  But right now that is impossible.  And giving the man power over the woman's body is not the "fair" answer to the problem.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she can walk away from the pregnancy; however, he cannot.  Seems fair.

He has no pregnancy to walk away from. Men don't get pregnant.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she can walk away from the pregnancy; however, he cannot.  Seems fair.

When you impregnate a woman you do yield some aspect of power and control to her, yes.  As sad as it is to see women have this advantage over men it is voluntary, really. 

Hell, if having kids didn't require me getting along with and trusting a woman I might actually have kids.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that what you think is "fair" is giving the man a power over the woman's body.  I don't think that is fair at all.

Right now a woman is the only one who can carry a fetus to full development.  I don't think that is "abhorrent".  I just accept it as the facts right now.  When science has advanced to the point that a man can take a fetus for his own and raise it to full development then I absolutely agree that he should be allowed to take the child.  But right now that is impossible.  And giving the man power over the woman's body is not the "fair" answer to the problem.

And the problem is right now a woman cannot get pregnant without the male's sperm. I don't that that is "abhorrent". I just accept it as the facts right now

(03-11-2019, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He has no pregnancy to walk away from. Men don't get pregnant.

So the man can legally abandon the mother and child before birth? This is good to know counselor.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: When you impregnate a woman you do yield some aspect of power and control to her, yes.  As sad as it is to see women have this advantage over men it is voluntary, really. 

Hell, if having kids didn't require me getting along with and trusting a woman I might actually have kids.

Why isn't she required to yield some aspect of power and control? We're all about equal..

[Benton]

(03-11-2019, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He has no pregnancy to walk away from. Men don't get pregnant.

There's not an easy answer when it comes to this, but, currently, in most states and under RvW, men accept 50-100% of the liability of a child but have 0% of the say as to whether the child is born. That's not really fair.

And I realize, the law isn't always fair. Sometimes it's just what is an acceptable result of circumstance. 

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And the problem is right now a woman cannot get pregnant without the male's sperm.

And I can't drive my car without gas, but I don't see how that gives the gas company any control over what I do with my car.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why isn't she required to yield some aspect of power and control? We're all about equal..

We are not equal.  It is 100% her body going through the pregnancy.

The man is not asked to give up any control over his own body, why should the woman?

[Vas Deferens]

maybe all these hyper-sensitive incels could develop a womb to carry their unappealing seed if they weren't hell bent on religious fundamentalism in direct opposition of scientific progress.