Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 05:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was going to post about Georgia's new (crazy) abortion ban, but this is more interesting.

A Twitter account for an anti-abortion movie (@UnplannedMovie) was promoted earlier today by the official account of the Vice President of the United States (@VP)

The account is now tweeting out slogans for the lunatic Qanon conspiracy theory (WWG1WGA) pic.twitter.com/je2GXykh6b

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 1, 2019

 


There's a whole thread there.

Apparently, I'm missing something. 

[GMDino]

(04-01-2019, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Apparently, I'm missing something. 

There's an anti-abortion movie out.  VP Pence used his official Twitter account to promote the account for the movie and included a tweet that had a Qanon reference in it.

Then the movie account started tweeting a bunch of Q stuff...until someone said something about it and they deleted them.

tl;dr Pence forwarded a crazy conspiracy tweet in the name of being anti abortion.

[jj22]

Already fear in Alabama of women getting sued for miscarriages.

This will force women to take better care of health while pregnant is what's argued. The father can sue to determine if she "purposely" caused the miscarriage.

Sure is a slippery slope, but they already don't like contraceptives and they got an inch and are looking to stretch it for a mile.

[fredtoast]

Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus has the right to own a gun.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus has the right to own a gun.

PnR has ruled Fred can troll without restraint. 

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2019, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: PnR has ruled Fred can troll without restraint. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: PnR has ruled Fred can troll without restraint. 

(04-02-2019, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

See?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.  

(03-11-2019, 01:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Let's expand on your thinking here.

Oh so if a woman is a stay at home mom and contributes zero $ to the finances, then she should have No Pay/No Say over how the money is spent right???

Should someone that has never owned a gun before, shot one or been injured by one have a say in restrictions of Gun Laws? They are not impacted by restrictions placed on guys as they don't have one to begin with so No Gun/No Say.

Let's take things back to No Property/No Say? Back to when women couldn't vote? But hey, I'm sure you understand that women were given the right to vote .... by men.

Let's look at the Civil War, the North was not impacted by the freeing of Slaves, as was the South.  So why wasn't it No Slaves/No Say??


In all of these instances, It's all about Equality for both sides. You can harp all you want about how unfair it is that the mother sacrifices her body, but the truth is, that's how we were created so take it up with whoever created us.

The problem with the whole abortion thing, is it's used for "ooops" and that's not what it should be used for. We have all kinds of population control methods. Use them appropriately and don't have to worry about "ooops".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-11-2019, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course none of that is getting pregnant on her own. The male sperm is required. But I think we both knew we weren't talking about abortions of children that are the result of artificial insemination.

The man gifted the sperm to the woman "fully knowing the consequences" as you're fond of stating. If he gifted her a car, he does not have right to tell her what she can or cannot do with it after the fact.

But, if Alabama is going to legislate Biblical values from the bench then let's reference what the Bible has to say: Deuteronomy 22:13-21. She clearly isn't a virgin so she should be stoned to death. If the fetus is viable it will survive. If not, it's all part of god's plan.

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let's expand on your thinking here.

Oh so if a woman is a stay at home mom and contributes zero $ to the finances, then she should have No Pay/No Say over how the money is spent right???

A stay at home mom contributes to the family finances by providing care for the children.  Do you realize how much child care costs?

Typical cave man mentality.

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Should someone that has never owned a gun before, shot one or been injured by one have a say in restrictions of Gun Laws? They are not impacted by restrictions placed on guys as they don't have one to begin with so No Gun/No Say.

The safety of the entire population is impacted by gun control laws.  Just like non-drinkers are impacted by DUI laws.

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let's take things back to No Property/No Say? Back to when women couldn't vote? But hey, I'm sure you understand that women were given the right to vote .... by men.

I have no idea what your point is here.

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let's look at the Civil War, the North was not impacted by the freeing of Slaves, as was the South.  So why wasn't it No Slaves/No Say??

Because it was not "the north" that voted to end slavery.  It was the United States.  There was only one country and they were all bound by the same rules.

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In all of these instances, It's all about Equality for both sides. You can harp all you want about how unfair it is that the mother sacrifices her body, but the truth is, that's how we were created so take it up with whoever created us.

Sorry, but it seems that you want men to carry babies then you are the one who has to take it up with the creator, not me. 


But, as I have often said, eventually technology will make it possible for a fetus to develop outside the woman's body.  At that time the law should change. 

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The problem with the whole abortion thing, is it's used for "ooops" and that's not what it should be used for. We have all kinds of population control methods. Use them appropriately and don't have to worry about "ooops".

Still more caveman mentality.

Birth control is not 100% effective.

Sometimes women get pregnant with a man and then the man leaves.

Sometimes women get raped.

Sometimes a woman gets pregnant and some other issue in her life changes.

And, finally, would you favor a law that makes every automobile accident a crime?  If you damage someone else's car you have to go to jail for vandalism.  Or if someone is injured you can be charged with assault or even murder?

I guess you must be friends with Jesus since you are perfect and have never made a mistake in your life, especially when you were a teenager, but everyone else on earth has made mistakes, and it happens A LOT with teenagers.  So we have to make our laws to deal with people in the real world and not perfect people like you.

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 03:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The man gifted the sperm to the woman "fully knowing the consequences" as you're fond of stating. If he gifted her a car, he does not have right to tell her what she can or cannot do with it after the fact.

But, if Alabama is going to legislate Biblical values from the bench then let's reference what the Bible has to say: Deuteronomy 22:13-21. She clearly isn't a virgin so she should be stoned to death. If the fetus is viable it will survive. If not, it's all part of god's plan.

I've never strayed from the opinion that they both must be aware of the consequences and responsible for the outcome. Why can't the gift be the womb?

Not sure what the Bible Verse you quoted has to do with abortion, but I totally on board with giving the fetus a chance to survive unmolested.

[fredtoast]

(05-03-2019, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure what the Bible Verse you quoted has to do with abortion, 

If you kill all the unmarried pregnant women then you are going to be killing all the innocent fetus as well.

So how is that "Pro Life"?

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you kill all the unmarried pregnant women then you are going to be killing all the innocent fetus as well.

So how is that "Pro Life"?

***The verse in not about unmarried pregnant women.




***DISCLAIMER: bfine is not in favor of stoning women virgin, non-virgin, married, unmarried.


There I think the disclaimer allowed me to dodge the strawman.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2019, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've never strayed from the opinion that they both must be aware of the consequences and responsible for the outcome. Why can't the gift be the womb?

Because the "womb" is the uterus. Is the man in question walking around in possession of the woman's uterus? No. That's why the womb can't be the gift.

Quote:Not sure what the Bible Verse you quoted has to do with abortion, but I totally on board with giving the fetus a chance to survive unmolested.

What does religion have to do with abortion? That's your answer answer to what that Bible verse has to do with abortion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ***The verse in not about unmarried pregnant women.




***DISCLAIMER: bfine is not in favor of stoning women virgin, non-virgin, married, unmarried.


There I think the disclaimer allowed me to dodge the strawman.

Are unmarried pregnant women virgins? No. The verse is about non virgins thus it applies to this situation.

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 05:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because the "womb" is the uterus. Is the man in question walking around in possession of the woman's uterus?  No. That's why the womb can't be the gift.

What does religion have to do with abortion? That's your answer answer to what that Bible verse has to do with abortion.

You don't have to posses a gift for it to be given. 

I guess you could have quoted the story of Noah's Ark and said "see religion" but that doesn't make it any more germane to the topic of discussion. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 05:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are unmarried pregnant women virgins? No. The verse is about non virgins thus it applies to this situation.

uuuuhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....OK?


FWIW there was this girl named Mary.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2019, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't have to posses a gift for it to be given. 

I guess you could have quoted the story of Noah's Ark and said "see religion" but that doesn't make it any more germane to the topic of discussion. 

So your argument is the uterus is a gift without a transfer, but the sperm wasn't a gift despite a transfer?

Still can't make the connection between religion and abortion in the Bible Belt, huh?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2019, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....OK?


FWIW there was this girl named Mary.

There was also a girl named Jiang Yuan, Coatlicue, Devaki, and possibly Isis that had virgin births. I guess it depends upon which mythology you subscribe to.

[*bfine32*]

(05-03-2019, 08:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So your argument is the uterus is a gift without a transfer, but the sperm wasn't a gift despite a transfer?

Still can't make the connection between religion and abortion in the Bible Belt, huh?

I didn't say the sperm wasn't a gift; I simply asked why couldn't the female be the one providing the gift.

Sure I can make the connection but it's not been the foundation of my stance. Mine is more concerned about equal rights to the man and women.

Perhaps you should combat the religious angle to someone that is using it. But it still wouldn't make your cited example any more relevant.

oncemoreintothe breech Wrote:There was also a girl named Jiang Yuan, Coatlicue, Devaki, and possibly Isis that had virgin births. I guess it depends upon which mythology you subscribe to.

You are providing other examples to prove yourself wrong.