Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[Dill]

(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???

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".

Yow Other Mike!  These are not particularly good analogies.

A "stay at home mom" for a working husband is most certainly contributing to the household if he is raising children, cooking meals and cleaning house. But she is also in a continuous working partnership. The man can earn money because the wife is taking care of the children, etc. freeing up his time.  Are you really saying the "hard work" of impregnating a woman automatically earns a man a say over a woman's body just as a wife's work earns her a say over a household budget??

The right of the general populace to regulate gun ownership, drinking and driving--all things which affect the safety of individuals who do not own guns, drink or drive --does not create a right for one individual to control another individual's body via impregnation, and certainly not a right of the state to control that woman's body on behalf society.  At least not in a liberal democracy.

As for slaves--the issue in 1861 was whether slaves had a right to control/own their own bodies, and that is the proper analogy to a woman's right to choose.  That's why it wasn't "no slaves/no say." 

Were your legal reasoning correct, a man could impregnate a woman by force and then claim an equal right to decide whether she aborts or not. The rapist could argue "equality for both sides" cuz that's the way God created us.