Alabama judge allows teen to sue on behalf of aborted fetus
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A teenager in Alabama is suing an abortion clinic for terminating the life of his unborn child against his wishes. On Tuesday, an Alabama county court recognized the aborted fetus, "Baby Roe," as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, making the case one of the first of its kind, his lawyer said. Ryan Magers, 19, of Madison County, claims his girlfriend got a medicated abortion at the Alabama Women's Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville in February 2017 when she was six weeks pregnant, according to legal documents, even though he urged her not to terminate the pregnancy. Alabama recognizes the personhood of a fetus, so Magers is suing on behalf of the fetus and himself.
“Baby Roe’s innocent life was taken by the profiteering of the Alabama Women’s Center and while no court will be able to bring Baby Roe back to life, we will seek the fullest extent of justice on behalf of Baby Roe and Baby Roe’s father,” Attorney Brent Helms said in a statement. “The time is ripe for consistency in Alabama’s jurisprudence: either we fully acknowledge the personhood of the unborn or we cherry pick which innocents we protect and which ones we trash for profit.” Madison County probate court Judge Frank Barger allowed Magers to name his aborted child as a co-plaintiff in his case against Alabama Women's Center, a move that came just four months after the passage of an amendment that gave fetuses personhood, or the same legal rights as any other person, under the state constitution. Helms believes the case could make it to the Supreme Court.
"I'm here for the men who actually want to have their baby," Magers told WAAY 31. "I believe every child from conception is a baby and deserves to live." But the case has alarmed pro-choice activists. On Twitter, Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called it a "very scary case" that is "asserting woman's rights third in line." Others called it "unlawful and idiotic."
Personhood Alabama spokeswoman Hannah Ford told LifeSiteNews with the recent abortion debates after New York and other states have pushed for lifting restrictions on abortions, this case is a "timely reminder that every single abortion committed is a chilling assault on a precious and innocent human life – an intolerable violation of the most basic, God-given human right, the right to life.”
The abortion clinic has until April 1 to respond to the suit.
Tags
Who is online
242 visitors
I call it just plain stupid. But then, this is Alabama after all. This case should be dismissed by the court. The plaintiff has no grounds for a lawsuit.
Why? cause you disagree with it? Fathers have no rights in their offspring?
The main issue of abortion law has taken a while to get around to but it appears it's finally coming to a head....
WHEN EXACTLY IS A HUMAN LIFE CONCEIVED?
Scientifically, when egg meets sperm.
Legally, who knows? with recent laws passed in NY and proposed in Virginia whatever is born is not a human life until the mother says it is........
AND when that is finally settled......
Do they have the protections afforded every other human life in this country.....
Roe doesn't settle that question, leaves it very ambiguous...... AS current abortion thinking reveals....
A fetus can never have rights that supersede the rights of a woman. When men can get pregnant then they can have a say.
That is one side of the argument, the law allows for both sides though.....
All previous law says the father has rights in his children also, (if he doesn't then why do they jail men for non-support?) as well as the mother....
So under the law, there is a basis for the argument.
All we can do is see how it plays out.... But I see the liberal pro-abortion side more scared of it than the conservative or liberal pro-choice sides....
I bet at one time, someone said "Blacks will never have any rights" or "Women will never be allowed to vote", too.
Things change.
No, they do not! There is no offspring yet. The decision to abort or not is entirely up to the woman! The "father" has no say in the decision.
Abortion law has pretty much been settled. Some just try to come up with way to circumvent the law or exploit loopholes.
Conception is not the determining point of when abortions are allowed. Neither is it the point where personhood is granted or recognized.
That statement shows you do not understand the las in question.
The unborn do not and should not!
Not really. But subsequent abortion cases have only affirmed Roe and expanded on it.
What "thinking?" The only reason it's still an issue is because some people still take issue with abortion, especially when they are not involved or when it's none of their business.
A child has to be born first before the father has rights to it. Before then, the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy or not and no one else can influence or make that choice for her.
That's an issue of child rearing, not child bearing.
Not really. The "father" is not the one getting pregnant. He is not the one who is getting an abortion. And he has no say over the rights of the "mother" or her choice. The medical clinic performed an abortion the "mother" wanted. So he has no say and no valid case.
Anyone concerned for individual rights should be concerned. Any court allowing the case to proceed or rule in favor of the plaintiff sends the message that woman's rights are less important and can be usurped at the behest of the "father." It would also fly in the face of established SCOTUS precedents where abortion is concerned, including Roe.
The difference is, granting them rights does not infringe on anyone else's rights or autonomy.
I'm pretty sure that he will have to prove that he has 'standing' to sue and I doubt that he can even prove that he was the sperm donor...
We will see, won't we?
Very true. He would need to prove he's the father. Can't do that without a DNA test.
Another point to consider is this from the article: "an amendment that gave fetuses personhood." At six weeks gestation, the unborn is still in the embryonic stage, and not yet a fetus. So legally, this amendment (which is also unconstitutional) doesn't even cover this situation. This case should be tossed on that basis alone.
Yet until the 14th Amendment changes, a fetus is NOT a person.
Given the facts of the case and established legal precedent, I can see this case will not (and should not) get too far.
Great catch Gordy.
Thank you
That is a little naïve.
Until Roe abortion wasn't a right.
Actually, I think it's a known fact that acknowledging that Blacks and women have rights didn't infringe on anyone else's rights or autonomy.
It might not get far. We don't know yet.
Legal precedents are made whenever a court somewhere sees things differently than a prior court.
Until Roe, abortion wasn't a right. That court saw things differently than prior courts.
It does happen, which is all I am saying.
That will NEVER change. You will NEVER take away a woman's right no matter how much you wish you could
That's a LOT irrelevant.
A fetus wasn't a PERSON before Roe either...
Well there is one little fact about precedent that most on the pro abortion side fail to realize......
Precedent is only precedental when the Supreme Court says it is....
Precedent is NOT written in stone as many characterize it and it doesn't apply to those that create it, which is the Supreme Court........
For all courts below the Supreme Court, barring reversal or modification Roe is precedental. But not at the court itself....
That is what the people on your side ALWAYS fail to accept.... the one exception to this general rule is that two sides which have precedent on each of their sides.
How does a precedent get challenged unless someone makes an argument? The argument has merit is what the judge decided based upon other precedents and the case at hand..... the conflict moves up the chain.... until it is decided and the Supreme Court decides to hear it or not....
Not arguing one way or the other, but Roe has been argued back and forth since it was decided. history shows that when an issue is argued back and forth as much as one like Roe has, the issue is far from actually settled....
Law, science and society has yet to come to a consensus on abortion. It's a lot closer than anyone realizes at this point, but the absolutist extremes on both sides will not relent into a common workable situation.
Hence it keeps going back to the courts....
The latest laws passed, no matter how one side or the other wishes to characterize them, fly in the face of already established precedent also. They allow late term and post birth abortions under a much looser standard that previous SC rulings allow....
That's not my opinion that is fact. As we heard the legislator who tried to get the same package of laws passed in Virginia as was passed in NY admitted to in testimony......
The absolutists from both sides want it all and are unwilling to let it develop into something reasonable that both sides can stand on......
The fight will rage on until rationality catches up with those that really are blind........
And the war on women continues.
An embryo, zygote, fetus WILL never have rights that would turn women into human incubators that are FORCED to give birth.
Many have said somethings will never change and have been proven wrong time and time again.
I don't wish to take away any woman's rights. WTF are you talking that shit for?
And the SCOTUS has established a woman has the right to an abortion.
What precedent does a man have that allows him to override the choice of the woman, much less seek punitive damages as a result? Especially one that doesn't contradict established precedents regarding abortion?
An argument also needs to be valid. The "father" of this case has no such argument.
And it's only been reaffirmed and expanded on each time.
The law says elective abortions are allowed until the point of viability. The law also does not recognize a fetus as a person or having rights. Science has established what the point of viability is. And the majority of society support abortion rights.
Not at all. You just have to be able to think with an open mind.
Courts have made decisions completely unfathomable to some in the public since courts have been making decisions. I recognize that things don't always stay the same, and that a court may decide somethings I don't always agree with.
And what about the women that agree with our side? they are warring against their own interests?
That carries absolutely zero credibility with me. Just a made-up bunch of crap by people who want to be victims.
Phhhhttt.
[deleted]
Did you miss this? @ 1.1.18
It is obvious that there is no consensus yet, but it is close. You argue that science is the only arbiter, the other side argues there are other considerations also which is an argument your side has consistently failed to defeat.....
That is the definition of no consensus.....
Like I said, it shouldn't get far. This lawsuit is frivolous.
Not true. Abortion was generally allowed up until the early-mid 19th century. At that point, states started passing various anti-abortion laws. Such laws were eventually challenged and struck down being deemed unconstitutional, the most famous example being Roe.
Miss what? I provided what is factual about the various sides of the abortion discussion.
Consensus is irrelevant. Rights and laws are not a popularity contest.
Where did I make such an argument or statement.
I addressed the scientific, legal, and social points regarding abortion. My "side" happens to be pro-choice, which has largely succeeded where the legal, scientific, and social aspects are concerned.
Yeah, pretty much.
That's what you took away from lady's statement?
Totally.
So have minds so open that they can't keep the bullshit from dribbling out...
Yes, Tex. It is within the realm of possibility that the SCOTUS will void the 14th Amendment.
How's your Unicorn doing?
Hard to do DNA test if subject of test no longer exists. He will not be able to prove his standing
I am sorry you can't see any possibility existing except the one you want.
We're done here.
[deleted]
Exactly.
You are presenting your opinion and giving no credence or respect to any other opinion.
You will find that consensus is MOST important to the law, much more important than any will allow.
Where did you make such statement? right here, one part of a three part statement...
The law is based upon that supposed establishment, and I agreed with the third part, the disagreement is in how far they should be allowed... given the NY law recently passed far exceeds the guidelines the SC has established based upon current scientific opinions...
So yeah your only real basis is science has established...... ergo sum science is the only arbiter.... all else (law & society) must suborn to it... (but the NY law flies in the face of that doesn't it?)
Right so any woman that disagrees with you isn't really a woman..... Got it....
And that's EXACTLY what I took from it, cause that is EXACTLY how she characterized it.... (words do mean things and how you put them together does also)
Oh I can see many possibilities, I just don't see the fantasies as viable.
Bye.
What insult?
Sheesh, don't take shit so seriously Tex.
Absolutely they are warring against their own interests. And other women's interests. Nobody forces a woman to have or consider an abortion. Its you and others like you that want to control that choice. Women will still have abortions, they have since the dawn of time. They will just die now like they did in the past. It is a war on women's RIGHTS (texan). The RIGHT to choose her future.
I don't take you seriously.
My darling boy, please spend the next 5 minutes spanking yourself. No one on this site is pro abortion. NO ONE.
Ditto.
That's what comes from conflating the world to black and white...all nuance is lost and with that goes opportunity for empathy.
The entire medical community use that 'convenient' term Wally, and so do many laws...
Nope, still a fetus.
Those laws will be challenged.
BTW, I can't help but notice that you characterized 'it' as an 'it'.
Ahhhh there you are mistaken dear, I DON'T want to control anyone's choices, I'm a libertarian girl, EVERYONE should have their own choices....
Good bad or indifferent.....
No such thing as a libertarian who is anti choice....
I think I spoke last week about how I got where I'm at on choice. Don't ever mistake me for one who doesn't believe in a woman's choice... (or her right to make such)
The difference here is the absolutism. With rights come responsibilities and consequences......
But then from your perspective I'm a man so I have no valid opinion do I?
Self flagellation does nothing for me sis..... there may not be anyone on this site that is pro abortion, but there are pro abortionists. the problem is pro choice rhetoric and pro abortionist rhetoric are not the same. And when I hear pro abortionist rhetoric used it tends to rankle me.... and defending that NY law is a pro abortionist stance..... not a pro choice one.... That law which is touted to codify Roe vs Wade actually goes way beyond R v W and the limits placed on abortions by subsequent laws.... I believe what the proponents of that package of laws were saying about it when explaining it... and why it was squashed in Virginia.......
Now, as far as flagellation goes, not too much into it myself, but if it is really something needed we can discuss it.....
Love ya sis....
My mother died from a self-induced abortion in 1957 before I could walk. She, my sister and I were ALL victims of a society that viewed women as male possessions, and little more than incubators for a male's sperm.
The women who have died from self-induced and back alley abortions were victims.
I do not understand the mindset of anyone who believes that they should have the power to legislate women's reproductive lives. I doubt that the forced birthers would tolerate strangers making their financial, emotional and health decisions for any reason.
Lest we forget why we marched in the 70's.....
100% agreement
I would never ever want to have to live in or re-live any decade (of my life) of the past century. Nor do I truly understand the mindset of anyone who does.
That point is called viability. But even at that point, it is still a fetus and not a child. Unborn child is an oxymoron. And no, a fetus does not have rights, and certainly none which override's the rights of the woman in question. States that try to establish fetal rights is in violation of established legal precedent and the constitution.
These lies again?
It will not go anywhere.
Nobody takes you seriously.
You marched in the 70's?
I am sorry for your loss, but that was a long time ago, and abortion has been safe and legal for decades now.
I think that should raise a legitimate question as to a father's obligation to pay child support or contribute to the support of a child. If a potential father has no rights, then a father should have no obligations. A woman's unilateral decision to birth the child should also obligate her to unilaterally support it.
I think if you can get the father to "sign away his rights" so to speak then he should be off the hook for child support. I realize he consented to the Dance of the Beast with Two Backs, but that doesn't mean he consented to be a father (just like women don't consent to be mothers when they do the dance).
I don't discern if you are a man or woman, my comments go to anyone trying to impede a woman's right to make choices with her own damn body. I don't care what your opinion is, everybody is entitled. What I care about is the fact some folks (men & women) think they have a right to inject themselves into someone elses personal decision.
No such thing as a libertarian anymore. I would be one if they were real. Libertarians are just wacky republicans and have been for a while now.
That's an issue of child rearing, which is separate from child bearing, and has different sets of laws.
No, not really. The issues are clearly so intertwined that they cannot be separated. The decision to give birth necessarily includes the decision to rear, excepting those situations where the child is given over to adoption.
I won't disagree that currently the treatment is different, which is the point. If it is a truth that a potential father has no rights, how can it justly be said that he has obligations to pay for the rearing. If it truly is only the woman's choice as to whether or not give birth, then she is necessarily choosing to rear the child unilaterally, and should bear the costs. Once we start couching this in terms of the woman's rights vs the man's rights, I think we are opening the door for review of said parties' obligations.
I was orphaned because religious zealots had enough power to deny women access to birth control (including abortion) so it really doesn't matter how long ago it was.
Also, it matters that people, with the same religious zealot mindset, are working today to deny women access to various kinds of birth control including abortion.
Let's have a realistic look at the not so distant past. Why would anyone want to return to living in a country that made it illegal to teach about birth control, to dispense birth control or to use birth control?
What factors create the Puritan mindset that sex is "dirty", and/or that there are "good girls" and "bad girls", and/or that pregnancy is a punishment that a woman should be forced to endure because she had sex?
Oh but we are alive and well, and most of the serious ones are long out of the republican party. Reagan was our high point, Ron Paul was our curtain call, the evangelicals have taken over that party....
Most people in this nation have a bit of libertarianism in them, even if they virulently deny it.....
yeah, and the 60's before that....
what about it?
I believe that. I have some libertarian tendencies....like legal weed.
but that defeats the whole purpose of running on the Libertarian ticket
I don't know, but maybe you could ask someone who supports doing that sort of thing.
That would be a large majority of conservatives, and you yourself often slut shame when this topic is discussed.
No, I presented facts.
If other opinions are logical, i'll consider them.
The only legal consensu that matters is what a court decides.
You said that I argued that "that science is the only arbiter," which is demonstrably false. Had i made such an argument, I would not have included legal and social points.
The SCOTUS already determined that to be the point of viability.
Not really. NY law allows for post viability abortions in cases where a woman's health/life is at risk. Any state is allowed to expand on abortion rights. They simply cannot limit them below what the SCOTUS has established.
Demonstrably wrong! See above.
That's not what i said either. So either you don't know what I said, or you're purposely trying to attribute something to me which i didn't say, which is as good as lying!
And you are EXACTLY wrong! Just as you are about what you took from what i said.
They are separate.
The difference is, the woman may choose to give birth or not, as she is the one getting pregnant. Both parents are expected to rear a child, and therefore have equal say.
Because the law changes once birth occurs.
Some women do. But the law shifts towards what is best for the child. That's why the father is required to support it.
What rights does the man have over a woman's pregnancy?
Prove it or retract it.
Perhaps you haven't read my views on abortion, so I will cheerfully provide them yet once again so there can be no doubt:
Have as many abortions as you want and can afford. I do not care. Personally, I think abortion is a crappy form of birth control, often utilized by folks too fucking dumb to use more conventional methods or incapable of planning. But when someone is too stupid to prevent getting pregnant or impregnating someone, abortion is an EXCELLENT choice for the rest of America.
I sure hope that clears up your misconceptions of what my views are, and you won't need to resort to writing falsehoods about my views any further.
WE are simply going to have to agree to disagree. you can claim your opinions are fact and resort to insults and declarations of your righteousness all you want, still doesn't make you right....
This is the CRUX of the problem, there are WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT CAN MAKE COGENT ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES ON ALMOST ANY BASIS.....
Given that FACT there is no consensus. The discussion I'm bringing to a close proves the fact....
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS on this subject in our society, and it is high time for one.........
Conversation closed....
They are intertwined. You're statement makes that clear. The woman chooses to give birth, and thereby chooses to rear. The man is simply expected to rear. It'd be different if abortion was not legal. But, it is, and now there is a choice.
I think you're correct. I also think that the way things are trending, this subject is potentially opening up for review of what we know of expectations and obligations.
My point. What rights does he have? 30 years ago? Maybe some would recognize a legitimate interest. Now? Hell, the position taken with regard to a man is basically "go F* yourself, you have zero interest in what would potentially result from the pregnancy." That position, I think, is what might potentially open this up for debate. Not saying it's right, but I think there is room.
No, my statement does not say that.
Since the woman is the one getting pregnant, she has that choice. When the man gets pregnant, then he'll have a choice.
Short answer: none!
It used to be that a woman couldn't get an abortion without her partner's (presumably spouse) consent. Clearly such a condition was unconstitutional.
The man has no position with regards to a woman's pregnancy. That's what this case is about.
Which parts were opinion exactly? The part where I said: "Rights and laws are not a popularity contest?" That's a fact. Only a court's decision matters in that regard.
Maybe the part where I said: "And the SCOTUS has established a woman has the right to an abortion?" No, that is an established legal fact and precedent!
Perhaps you mean the part where I said: "The law says elective abortions are allowed until the point of viability. The law also does not recognize a fetus as a person or having rights. Science has established what the point of viability is. And the majority of society support abortion rights." Nope, those are still facts. You can look it up!
How about: "And it's only been reaffirmed and expanded on each time?" Still fact, if you bother to review the multiple related cases.
I know! It must be the part where I said: "The 'father' of this case has no such argument." Oh wait, that is a fact too. The woman has a right to an abortion and she doesn't need the "father's" consent to have one. The clinic in question simply performed an abortion on a client who requested it and broke no laws in the process. Not to mention it wasn't even a fetus yet. So Alabama's "personhood" nonsense doesn't even apply to this case. It was not even proved if the "father" was the true "father" either. So no matter how you look at it, from a legal standpoint, the "father" has no legal foundation to stand on, much less raise a legitimate lawsuit.
Sorry, but I can't find any "opinion" of mine. Just straight facts!
What insults or "righteousness," (wherever you get that idea from)? If you think I made an insult, then flag the offending post for moderator review.
The crux of the problem is that some people think they have a say in the decisions and choices of another! But they certainly haven't raised and valid or logical argument. At least none which cannot be easily refuted or logically shot down.
All that means is some people are right, and some are wrong.
Who cares! There will never be 100% agreement on abortion. That's irrelevant anyway. The courts have already settled the matter.
That's funny, considering this is my seed. But I accept your surrender.
Surrender hell, you haven't stated anything to surrender to..... Nothing but opinions without a shred of proof to back them up, just more opinion...
And just because it is your seed doesn't in the least make you right...
It's impossible to discuss anything with someone who has decided they are right before anyone ever responds.... Essentially they are looking for argument is all. and argument isn't worth any intelligent persons time....
Surrender? you haven't even put up a fight yet....
To you, the court is the answer and it answers all questions for evermore.... Not true, but that is your argument... everything else is irrelevant.
who is the one with the closed locked up mind...... You do not care if there is a consensus, you have the way you wish it to be and to hell with everyone else, they are unimportant.....
Welcome to your dictatorship of incredibly selfish narrow-mindedness......
No thanks. I prefer to think for myself....
Then you haven't been paying attention. I pretty much spelled it all out for you in my previous reply. But you certainly haven't offered anything of substance to refute anything I said, much less make a valid case of your own.
Except the facts of and the basic legal argument I already gave.
Go ahead: make your case! Let's see a logical counter argument to mine that has legal merit! So far, all you've done is whine!
There isn't much of a fight to begin with.
When the court's rule, the case is settled and anything else is irrelevant, whether you like it or not.
As I said, consensus outside of a courtroom is irrelevant. Simple fact.
Your attempt to make this personal only shows your own lack of a credible argument!
Yeah, your like several others make an opinion declaration that you claim is right, reject any reasoned arguments in your righteousness, any relevant points made that go against your righteousness are declared irrelevant, convert your statements into absolute facts after eliminating any relevant argument without providing any proof except your self serving claims, insult the opponent or allude to the opponent being of less stature than you, when such is pointed out you dismiss the opponent as making it personal.....
Nice round robin circle jerk there.... It's a tactic of the mentally deficient, those known as trolls, those who do not want a real debate, just create argument for arguments sake......
A supreme waste of time....
I bow to your holiness, the arbiter of all truth..... who can't post a credible argument cause they cannot risk being wrong...... they have to remain the absoluteness of absolution, they can't handle a valid opposing view so they risk nothing by declaring all views other than their own as invalid from the start......
And since that is the truth of their arguments, an argument meant and devised to shut down all argument simply proves that such person offers nothing but hot air, hence all they prove is they are full of hot air....
Enjoy your false claim of victory. As there was never a real debate, it wasn't much of a victory....
But that is what you like... Vapidity, Enjoy....
Often, as in your case, there are those who are just plain ol wrong.
That would explain why some opinions get dismissed out of hand...
Agreed, just like most of his does to any real thinking person....
There is no place for absolutism in an intelligent society....
I offered you a chance to provide a valid argument or to address the article. And yet, all you do is continue to whine, make juvenile remarks, and get personal. So it looks like you wasted your own time here.
well, i
for one,
found it entertaining,
and, i thank you all.
Come on Gordy. It's implicit. I've read enough of your comments to know that you are sharp enough to understand that I'm not saying that you expressed that. Regardless, implicit, explicit, you make a choice to carry the child to birth, you are making a choice to rear. No different than choosing to jump in the water. By that choice, I also choose to sink or swim.
Isn't that what I said too? Your position is essentially go F* yourself. To the guy bringing this case...go F* yourself.
I haven't read the petition, but I'd guess his position is that he has a legitimate interest in the fetus or potential baby. Planned Parenthood probably answers the question, although it dealt with notice required by state statute. That's fine, I'm not arguing that. Simply putting forward the thought that, the more the middle finger is given to the man, the closer we may be to reviewing support obligations. The thrusting motion has been getting stronger each passing year since Casey.
If that's how you want to perceive it.
Thank you.
One leads to the other, but the circumstances change at birth. The laws in place reflect that too.
My apologies if i misunderstood what you were saying.
My position is that the guy bringing this case has no legal standing for his lawsuit, much support his position.
What about the woman's interests? Since when does his "interest" override here or her own choices? He doesn't even have any grounds to sue the clinic where the abortion was performed.
Support obligations is an entirely separate issue and not associated with this particular issue.
This is an awesome lawsuit and I’m glad that the judge ruled correctly in letting the case move forward.
How can it be awesome when it has no legal merit?
Too bad it will not likely advance any farther. <sarc>
This will go nowhere. I personally believe someone put him up to it as a "test" case to see how far they can get with this kind of bullshit of making women second class citizens.
When this jerk can get pregnant then he can have the final say.
I hope so.
That seems quite reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised.
Exactly!
" God-given human right" (from seed)
abortion is described in the Bible (somewhere) and that description did not prohibit it, so really abortion is a god given right
Yes, part of our life choices. That free will we are all supposed to have. If men got pregnant abortion would be more important than the 2nd amendment.
There would be 24 hour drive-thru abortion clinics. All abortions would be medical and not surgical (because men are wimps when it comes to surgery)
Hey!
LOL!
“The time is ripe for consistency in Alabama’s jurisprudence: either we fully acknowledge the personhood of the unborn or we cherry pick which innocents we protect and which ones we trash for profit.”
Helms believes the case could make it to the Supreme Court.
Don't look now, Mr. Helms, but it looks like you are the one doing the cherry picking for profit.
I can see it now
Boy sues girl to force her to have baby then turns around and sues her for child support even tho she didn't want it in the first place
Really? It is already that way with the sexes reversed.
I put my thoughts on the same above. I'm sure most states treat support the same, in that the right belongs to the child, and the parents cannot waive it. I can get behind that policy.
However, not all of the policy can be squared, imo, and the idea that a man has zero rights, or argument therefor, raises a legitimate question as to a man's obligations.
I can think of two scenarios that, to me, are examples of bad policy:
1) A friend of mine, married at the time, learned that his two children were actually fathered by the dude across the street. Upon a divorce, he was ordered to pay child support for a 2 year old and a 3 year old who are now living with their mother and biological father. He was unable to contest paternity, because the kids were 2, and the court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter at that point.
2) A friend of mine entered into a same sex marriage with another woman. The two wanted a child, and my friend was impregnated the old fashioned way by a willing, and obviously able, young man. A child was born during the marriage, and at both of the spouses wishes, but the marriage did not last. My friend's ex walks away, after a divorce, with no obligations to the child. The poor schmuck that donated the sperm, however, was sued for paternity, and was ordered to pay child support. (Note: had the fertilization come at a clinic, as opposed to in a bedroom, the story ends differently, I think)
In both of your examples, I think it's time to revisit child support laws. If a man is clearly not the father of a child why should he pay child support?
And in your second scenario, that young man never agreed to support the child, even if he did agree to create it. I personally don't think he should be on the hook for support, but I don't know how to word a law that would cover something like that
He could use DNA and submit that evidence to the court.
Should have gotten it in writing...
If he lives in a state with archaic marriage/divorce laws, he doesn't have a prayer
I agree, and this lawsuit may be such an opportunity, or the beginnings.
So, the current law distinguishes between artificial insemination performed in a clinic, and insemination occurring anywhere else. (I assume that includes insemination by turkey baster or straight from the hose.) In the former, the donor has no obligations. In the latter, he does.
After 2 years, the court has no jurisdiction, meaning the court cannot order a test or even consider the results of a paternity test voluntarily taken. They are legally his.
As for the sperm donor, even a written agreement would not save him...currently. (he would have had to drop the sample off at a clinic for later fertilization) As the law stands, parents have no say in their statutory obligations to support the child. According to the law, he is the father. The mother cannot waive the father's obligation to contribute to the support of the child, on behalf of the child. I think the more interesting question here would be if the ex would have adopted the child. ( I think I left that nugget out) The law would still provide that he is the father, (since he delivered the sample personally) but would the adoption by the spouse relieve him of his obligation to support? I would think it should, but I don't know that it has been answered.
That all depends on the state you live in.
A sperm donor with a written contract shouldn't be libel for child support if that was part of the contract, just as he should be part of the child's life it that were part of the contract and the 'parents' wouldn't be able to stop that unless he was found to be a danger to the child.
At minimum, he should have signed away his parental rights, had that notarized and filed that with a lawyer or the court.
Of course. In mine, the mother cannot contract away the obligations, as such a contract is against public policy. Termination pursuant to an adoption is a different story though.
A sperm donation, dropped off at a clinic, doesn't create obligations. Dropped anywhere else...now you're on the hook. Gotta create an incentive to pay a professional for what the stable boy would do several times, free of charge.
If they can contract away the obligation with an Invitro clinic, why couldn't they do so legally with a parent? Lawyers draw up contracts like that all of the time.
The clinics would raise hell. Again, the rugged and handsome stableboy might pay you for the pleasure of donating the sperm. Why go to the clinic and pay for what you can do for free at that house?
Nothing is stopping that from happening now.
Invitro clinics do much more than merely inseminate.
Alabama judge allows teen to sue on behalf of aborted fetus
Sometimes the law is an ass.
This is Alabama we're talking about here. Remember, this is the state that gave us Roy Moore.
"Guys" have "Rights" too !
Lol, yes they have lots of rights but none in regards to human fetuses or embryo's
Nor women's bodies.
Selective "RIGHTS" !
Oh Well.
If "NEITHER" use protection...in the "HEAT-OF-THE-MOMENT"....why is it ONLY a "One-way-street ?
All right, when we can mandate that you stay pregnant at your sexual partner's insistence, we'll do the same to women, mmkay?
Weirder things are happening these days. Be careful....THAT....may come true for reals one day !
"'Pregnant Man' Gives Birth to Girl"
Of course
Men have no rights when it comes to the woman's body or pregnancy, NONE, WHATSOEVER.
That about sums it up nicely!