Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the man can legally abandon the mother and child before birth? This is good to know counselor.

A man is not responsible for child support before the child is born if that is what you are trying to say.

Sometimes the strawmen you try to create from my actual words are kind of hard to understand.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

Because she entered into an agreement knowing full well the possible outcome, just as the man did.

So you're still rolling with the man has no pregnancy to walk away from?  

[*Nately120*]

(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..

I'd say carrying a fetus/baby/miracle to term would require a forfeiture of some amount of control.  Since I'm a man and don't have to worry about it though, I suppose I could delude myself into thinking that it would be a pretty easy thing.

At rate, isn't stuff like this all the more reason to cut this "god/biology" thing out of it and amp up our investment in getting the development of a fetus out of the hands/wombs of idiot humans and into a sterile laboratory where the human element can be eliminated and fairness can be achieved?

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: 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. 

No one forces you to engage in the unfairness of reproduction.  Casinos aren't fair.  As soon as you go in there and put your money down the odds are against you.  Spending money at a casino requires you to accept unfair circumstances, yet every day a baffling number of people in this country choose to accept this unfair situation.  Think of knocking up a chick as being the same thing.  It's unfair and you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

I know people of both genders who lament their pregnancy partners, and I know people who GASP actually had kids with someone who didn't run out on them and/or didn't have the fetus/baby/miracle destroyed.  Quit begging the government to control your lives for your own good and worry about how your own actions impact your life.

The guy in this case shouldn't have knocked up an abortion-lover, and he also shouldn't wear a wool hat indoors. Who is he, Mike Nesmith?

[GMDino]

(03-11-2019, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because she entered into an agreement knowing full well the possible outcome, just as the man did.

So you're still rolling with the man has no pregnancy to walk away from?  

Are you still saying the man should have a "right" to tell the woman to carry to full term or not?

You want the man to be able to tell a woman to get an abortion as he would have "equal rights" to the baby and he doesn't want it.

Seems legit.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-11-2019, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: 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. 

ive suspected for some time my ding dong has volition unto its own, but it never filled the correct paperwork to become autonomous.  ***** thing's been steppin out all on its ownsome.  

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:36 PM)Benton Wrote: 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. 

If you will notice, not one guy who cries about how "unfair" it is ever complains about not being able to get pregnant and go through a pregnancy himself.  Instead all they want is the power to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

There have been thousands of post devoted to this argument over the years here, and not once has a guy cried about the lack of research on how to allow men to get pregnant or be able to develop a fetus outside of the woman's body.

These men don't really want "fair".  Instead they want a power over the woman's body without any diminution their current rights or responsibilities. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A man is not responsible for child support before the child is born if that is what you are trying to say.

Sometimes the strawmen you try to create from my actual words are kind of hard to understand.

So it's your position that the father is responsible for no expenses until the birth of the child? Because your actual word were "He has no pregnancy to walk away from".

Me and my silly straw men.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because she entered into an agreement knowing full well the possible outcome, just as the man did.

So you're still rolling with the man has no pregnancy to walk away from?  

She knew she could get pregnant.  The man knew it was impossible for him to get pregnant.  Yes, I am still saying the man has no pregnancy to walk away from.

BTW Funny how the "pro life" crowd gets upset because a man can't force an abortion.

[*Nately120*]

Dealing with this pregnancy unfairness is the leading reason so many men choose to be gay these days. It's just so much easier to get your rocks off without having to deal with all this nonsense. As soon as women started getting more rights, men started getting gayer.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So it's your position that the father is responsible for no expenses until the birth of the child? Because your actual word were "He has no pregnancy to walk away from".

Me and my silly straw men.

I am saying that a man does not owe any child support until the child is born?  If a woman chooses to have an abortion she has no legal authority to force the father to pay for it.  If a woman "walks away" from a pregnancy it does not effect the man in any way.  If the woman has the child then she is just as responsible as the man for support of the child.

So instead of twisting up silly straw men why don't you just clearly say what you mean.  I think my point that a man can't get pregnant is pretty clear.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She new she could get pregnant.  The man knew it was impossible for him to get pregnant.  Yes, I am still saying the man has no pregnancy to walk away from.

BTW Funny how the "pro life" crowd gets upset because a man can't force an abortion.

No one with an ounce of rationality thinks a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion; and you have the audacity to assert I'm creating a Straw Man.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that a man does not owe any child support until the child is born?  If a woman chooses to have an abortion she has no legal authority to force the father to pay for it.  If a woman "walks away" from a pregnancy it does not effect the man in any way.  If the woman has the child then she is just as responsible as the man for support of the child.

So instead of twisting up silly straw men why don't you just clearly say what you mean.  I think my point that a man can't get pregnant is pretty clear.

Who the hell was talking about child support? You're the one that brought that up, not me. I simply asked does the man have any responsibilities prenatal (aka a pregnancy to walk away from). No one asked you can a man get pregnant. There's definitely a strawman going on her, but I'm not the one employing it and hopefully everyone reading can figure out who is.

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 01:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: No one forces you to engage in the unfairness of reproduction.  Casinos aren't fair.  As soon as you go in there and put your money down the odds are against you.  Spending money at a casino requires you to accept unfair circumstances, yet every day a baffling number of people in this country choose to accept this unfair situation.  Think of knocking up a chick as being the same thing.  It's unfair and you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

I know people of both genders who lament their pregnancy partners, and I know people who GASP actually had kids with someone who didn't run out on them and/or didn't have the fetus/baby/miracle destroyed.  Quit begging the government to control your lives for your own good and worry about how your own actions impact your life.

The guy in this case shouldn't have knocked up an abortion-lover, and he also shouldn't wear a wool hat indoors.  Who is he, Mike Nesmith?

I suppose the question remains: Why should the man be the one forced to accept the unfair situation (aka government control); when nature does not.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the question remains: Why should the man be the one forced to accept the unfair situation (aka government control); when nature does not.

No man is forced to impregnate a woman. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 02:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: No man is forced to impregnate a woman. 

He's not. It's an act they agree to, but only one can legally dismiss the consequences. I thought liberals were for equal rights.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2019, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one with an ounce of rationality thinks a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion; and you have the audacity to assert I'm creating a Straw Man.

So the man (with "equal rights") couldn't say say she SHOULD have the abortion only that she should NOT.

Got it.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He's not. It's an act they agree to, but only one can legally dismiss the consequences. I thought liberals were for equal rights.

If the game haint fair, don't play ball.  I'm all about freedom, but not freedom from consequences of voluntary actions. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-11-2019, 02:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If the game haint fair, don't play ball.  I'm all about freedom, but not freedom from consequences of voluntary actions. 

I do appreciate you accepting the fact that the current state is not fair/equal.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2019, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do appreciate you accepting the fact that the current state is not fair/equal.

It won't be equal until men find a way to get pregnant.  And then it still won't be equal because men won't want to get pregnant.