Current Events > Judge is CONFLICTED on a GUY Suing his EX GF for ABORTING THEIR CHILD!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Alabama Judge Chris Corner is in a corner on whether or not to dimiss a lawsuit against a man's wrongful death suit against the clinic that performed his ex gf's ABORTION!!

21 y/o Ryan Magers is filing on behalf of his aborted child against the Alabama Women's Centre and the maker of the abortion inducing medication that used to terminate his ex's pregnancy

He and his ex were both teenagers when she got pregnant in 2017 and he BEGGED her not to have an abortion but she did it anyway when she was 6 weeks as the case made national headlines which is the first in American history to move forward with the estate of the aborted embryo

The judge heard arguments on both sides but hsa yet to make a ruling to dimiss as he asked both to submit proposed orders within 2 weeks to make a decision

He expressed skepticism on wrongful death stating the impact of the ruling in Magers favour would be "chaos" because it would give the green light to sue abortion provideres and Roe V Wade

Magers complaint is vague and would have to be amended but he expects whatever decision he makes will be appealed

Brent Helms, the attorney for Magers said "There's never been a case like this in the United States of America, it didn' get dismissed, we have the opportunity to move forward. We are really excited. We're confdient. We decided to proceed solely under him being named the personal representative of the estate. For the first time in history of America the aborted child has been able to move forward with this case"

Magers convinced Madison County Probate Judge, Frank Barger to allow to list the terminated fetus "Baby Roe"

Magers said his aborted child's rights to life were violated as the State of Alabama recognized Baby Roe is a person as the laws allow for Baby Roe's personal representative.

Attorney Sara Tucker for the women's clinic said there was no wrongful act because the abortion was legal and said deciding in favour of the plaintiff would create a dangerous precedent affecting all women seeking abortions

They hope this reaches the Supreme Court and overturn Roe V Wade as it will be the first to force the judges to make a decision and with a strong anti-abortion majority, Conservatives may have found their golden opportunity

Alabama passed the most restrictive anti-abortion bill in the country as it is felony punishing up to 99 years in prison as all abortions, including incest and rape are illegal

Do you think this Kid has rights or does his ex have the final say?

Judge - Conflicted



Ryan - Conservative





Conservative Oinker Lawyer -



Clinic -


---

Takes 2 people to make a baby. If they want to legally kill it, both parties should have to agree.

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

you weren't married to her and you were both teens. it's sad but that's too bad, your rights don't trump hers.
---

As soon as he gets pregnant himself, he can decide how he wants the pregnancy to play out. Blame biology.
---

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

But this is Alabama and abortion is basically illegal

treewojima posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

But this is Alabama and abortion is basically illegal

Oh? Then off with her head!

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

Gotta agree with this.
---

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?
---

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".
---

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Takes 2 people to make a baby. If they want to legally kill it, both parties should have to agree.

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

How is that fair? If the fetus comes to term and is born...the child is existing in the world and needs support. Why shouldnt the father help support the offspring he created

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?

You're confusing having a say in the matter with surrendering complete control.

I would say that in a marriage both parties should have a say in the matter. However when not married the woman should have the only say in the matter.

Marriage "should ideally" mean a civil contract between two people to share a life together and all the inherit responsibilities required to sustain said life. Its not "fair" to have a legal union and allow only one party to be able to make a decision that affects both parties.

With no marriage there is no guaranteed mutual sharing of said responsibilities. Without any formal obligations there is no way of making sure the other helps or holds up their end of said relationship. Therefore it would only make sense to only allow the woman to make the choice.
---

Her body, her choice. The guy has no say so about it.
---

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This should be allowed. The man has the same abortion timeframe as the woman to opt out. If he doesn't, he is financially on the hook
---

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

So is forcing a person to birth a child

Dampproof posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?

You're confusing having a say in the matter with surrendering complete control.

I would say that in a marriage both parties should have a say in the matter. However when not married the woman should have the only say in the matter.

Marriage "should ideally" mean a civil contract between two people to share a life together and all the inherit responsibilities required to sustain said life. Its not "fair" to have a legal union and allow only one party to be able to make a decision that affects both parties.

With no marriage there is no guaranteed mutual sharing of said responsibilities. Without any formal obligations there is no way of making sure the other helps or holds up their end of said relationship. Therefore it would only make sense to only allow the woman to make the choice.

Biology isn't always fair. Until a man physically shares the pregnancy, he shouldn't be obligated a say. Now, it would be nice if people in a relationship discussed all things before making decisions, but a man has ultimately no say in a woman's body and it would be unethical to enforce otherwise.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This should be allowed. The man has the same abortion timeframe as the woman to opt out. If he doesn't, he is financially on the hook

Nope. If the woman decides to have the baby, then two parents have to support it. Or do we want the state to pick up the tab on every child one parent wants no part of?
---

Take all of her money and give it to him
---

He even looks like the kind of guy who would want a kid at 17.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Dampproof posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?

You're confusing having a say in the matter with surrendering complete control.

I would say that in a marriage both parties should have a say in the matter. However when not married the woman should have the only say in the matter.

Marriage "should ideally" mean a civil contract between two people to share a life together and all the inherit responsibilities required to sustain said life. Its not "fair" to have a legal union and allow only one party to be able to make a decision that affects both parties.

With no marriage there is no guaranteed mutual sharing of said responsibilities. Without any formal obligations there is no way of making sure the other helps or holds up their end of said relationship. Therefore it would only make sense to only allow the woman to make the choice.

Biology isn't always fair. Until a man physically shares the pregnancy, he shouldn't be obligated a say. Now, it would be nice if people in a relationship discussed all things before making decisions, but a man has ultimately no say in a woman's body and it would be unethical to enforce otherwise.

Then the woman shouldn't be entitled to half the mans money in the divorce.

If I got married, (i am) with intent to have children and the wife gets pregnant and decides herself to get an abortion, the man should be able to get a divorce and give the wife not a cent.

If I were the judge, I would throw the case out and chastise the fuck out of that kid and rule that he pay the entirety of the clinic's legal fees.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Dampproof posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?

You're confusing having a say in the matter with surrendering complete control.

I would say that in a marriage both parties should have a say in the matter. However when not married the woman should have the only say in the matter.

Marriage "should ideally" mean a civil contract between two people to share a life together and all the inherit responsibilities required to sustain said life. Its not "fair" to have a legal union and allow only one party to be able to make a decision that affects both parties.

With no marriage there is no guaranteed mutual sharing of said responsibilities. Without any formal obligations there is no way of making sure the other helps or holds up their end of said relationship. Therefore it would only make sense to only allow the woman to make the choice.

Biology isn't always fair. Until a man physically shares the pregnancy, he shouldn't be obligated a say. Now, it would be nice if people in a relationship discussed all things before making decisions, but a man has ultimately no say in a woman's body and it would be unethical to enforce otherwise.

Which is why I have the "should ideally" in quotations. It would be nice if things worked out that way.
---

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?
---

male judge
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This should be allowed. The man has the same abortion timeframe as the woman to opt out. If he doesn't, he is financially on the hook

Nope. If the woman decides to have the baby, then two parents have to support it. Or do we want the state to pick up the tab on every child one parent wants no part of?

Why though? Just because you say so?
---

How rare is it for a male to be attached to his child before it comes out the woman's body?

I know it is normal for women to get attached to a fetus.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This should be allowed. The man has the same abortion timeframe as the woman to opt out. If he doesn't, he is financially on the hook

Nope. If the woman decides to have the baby, then two parents have to support it. Or do we want the state to pick up the tab on every child one parent wants no part of?

Why though? Just because you say so?

It takes two parents to raise a child.
---

gamestunner posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Dampproof posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

gamestunner posted...

Since they weren't married, I'd have to side with the female.

So being in a legal union would somehow give a man a say in a women's body? Do we sign away bodily autonomy in marriage?

You're confusing having a say in the matter with surrendering complete control.

I would say that in a marriage both parties should have a say in the matter. However when not married the woman should have the only say in the matter.

Marriage "should ideally" mean a civil contract between two people to share a life together and all the inherit responsibilities required to sustain said life. Its not "fair" to have a legal union and allow only one party to be able to make a decision that affects both parties.

With no marriage there is no guaranteed mutual sharing of said responsibilities. Without any formal obligations there is no way of making sure the other helps or holds up their end of said relationship. Therefore it would only make sense to only allow the woman to make the choice.

Biology isn't always fair. Until a man physically shares the pregnancy, he shouldn't be obligated a say. Now, it would be nice if people in a relationship discussed all things before making decisions, but a man has ultimately no say in a woman's body and it would be unethical to enforce otherwise.

Then the woman shouldn't be entitled to half the mans money in the divorce.

If I got married, (i am) with intent to have children and the wife gets pregnant and decides herself to get an abortion, the man should be able to get a divorce and give the wife not a cent.

I guess that depends on how and if they shared assets. Clearly a marriage like you'd describe was doomed from the start so hopefully the dude wasn't an idiot
---

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Takes 2 people to make a baby. If they want to legally kill it, both parties should have to agree.

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This, if the man doesn't want the kid and she does she can still make him pay. The other way around and she doesn't want it she should pay for the man being childless. Childless support.
---

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

XD? Really?

Imagine calling someone shitty for thinking that killing a baby is wrong. Imagine not thinking you yourself arent the shitty person here.

XD though
---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

XD? Really?

Imagine calling someone shitty for thinking that killing a baby is wrong. Imagine not thinking you yourself arent the shitty person here.

XD though

It's like you didn't even read what I said. "Baby" and "child" are not in and of themselves buzzwords, but when used in the context in which you and that other user used them, they absolutely inarguably are. Post any sfw picture or diagram accurately depicting a 6 week old embryo here if you want to argue with me.

Also you committed a flame there so we'll see what happens with that.
---

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.

Who cares? It is inside a woman and completely dependent on that woman for survival. It is at her mercy.

Though if embryos should have rights, does that mean we also shouldn't be allowed to pull the plug on the braindead?
---

Its just a clump of cells, theres usually 9 months in which its fair game to abort.

Its not a person with rights until its out of the woman. #HerBodyHerChoice
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.

Who cares? It is inside a woman and completely dependent on that woman for survival. It is at her mercy.

Though if embryos should have rights, does that mean we also shouldn't be allowed to pull the plug on the braindead?

Young children are completely dependent on their parents for survival too. That doesn't mean they're at their "mercy" (termination of life), as you put it.

People who are braindead and developing human beings are obviously two very different things. One is alive and developing, the other is in a way, DEAD.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.

It means that if it isn't wanted, it can fuck off or be fucked off and this douchey scumbag shouldn't have course to try and sue in its unworthy behalf.
---

I'm in favor of letting a man have a say in the matter married or not but no matter how you cut it the woman is getting the worse part of the deal and needs to be properly compensated.

Only G wants to opt out? M should be able to offer payment monetary or otherwise and G surrenders parental rights
Only M wants to opt out? Lol this will never change but M should be allowed to surrender rights with some kind of fair arrangement

Machete posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.

It means that if it isn't wanted, it can fuck off or be fucked off and this douchey scumbag shouldn't have course to try and sue in its unworthy behalf.

Wow holy shit.
---

0xDEFECADE posted...

you weren't married to her and you were both teens. it's sad but that's too bad, your rights don't trump hers.

Tell that to child support court
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Takes 2 people to make a baby. If they want to legally kill it, both parties should have to agree.

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

This, if the man doesn't want the kid and she does she can still make him pay. The other way around and she doesn't want it she should pay for the man being childless. Childless support.

---

This is a personal issue, not a legal one. Especially given their relationship status. She's not his broodmare. That's all this boils down to.
---

iron jojo posted...

Machete posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Machete posted...

Squall28 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Pro-lifers being shit-tier people? Must be another day ending in "y".

Not wanting your child to die is a shitty thing to do now?

XD imagine calling a 6 week old indistinguishable embryonic blob a "child." You do realize that at that stage, you wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the embryo of a cow, a dog, a pig, a chicken or probably several dozen other mammal embryos, right?

I don't understand what your point is. That a person who is not a doctor, could not identify a extremely young embryo? Resemblance to other mammal embryos in the early stages doesn't mean it's not a human lifeform.

It means that if it isn't wanted, it can fuck off or be fucked off and this douchey scumbag shouldn't have course to try and sue in its unworthy behalf.

Wow holy shit.

Not at all
---

For those who insist on referring to unborn babies as meaningless blobs and indistinguishable embryos... take note of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The way this law defines and recognizes an unborn baby is rather at odds with the notion that abortion is totally a-ok.

even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Check out that line. Even in the provision itself that makes the legal exception for abortion, it is still referred to as an unborn child.
---

Comfy_Pillow posted...

Takes 2 people to make a baby. If they want to legally kill it, both parties should have to agree.

Otherwise make it fair and make it so men aren't financially responsible for kids if they leave the girl.

Im gonna have to side with this even though it opens up a whole new can of worms.
---

Sue her for what? Lol what's that money for? Rebuilding the baby? Smh
---

Funbazooka posted...

For those who insist on referring to unborn babies as meaningless blobs and indistinguishable embryos... take note of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The way this law defines and recognizes an unborn baby is rather at odds with the notion that abortion is totally a-ok.

even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Check out that line. Even in the provision itself that makes the legal exception for abortion, it is still referred to as an unborn child.

I wonder how those same people will feel if their family had an unintended miscarriage. Is it still just a blob?
---

Yes that's nice funbazooka but I already took that into consideration
---