AL judge Allows Man to Sue Abortion Clinic on Behalf of his Aborted Child - Sensationalist Headlines

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — An Alabama judge has approved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a 21-year-old man on behalf of an aborted embryo. AL.com reported Wednesday that Ryan Magers is calling the 6-week-old embryo “Baby Roe” in his suit seeking damages from the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives. Magers was 19 and the girl was 16 when he said he “pleaded” with her not get an abortion. Her parents say it was her decision to take the abortion pill. The case was made possible by Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger, who ruled that Magers could represent the estate of his ex-girlfriend’s aborted embryo. Magers’ attorney, Brent Helms of Albertville, said the decision gives legitimacy to the lawsuit. "It gives more legs to the lawsuit and it's also pretty monumental because it's the first time a probate court has opened an estate for an aborted baby," Helms told AL.com on Tuesday. "It does establish some precedent in that it recognizes that an aborted baby is a person. I guess that would be the significance of the opening of the estate." Man sues abortion clinic after teenage girlfriend terminates pre.. Some galaxy brain level thinking going on here

God, imagine being the kind of scumbag who would sue a 16 year old girl because she wouldn't give birth at 16.

he's representing his 'dead' '''child'''

It’s only a three year difference tho, and legal; psychologically it can be a big difference, but not necessarily.

This is the most fisgusting thing I have ever read, jesus christ.

Roberts is unlikely to rule to overturn decades of precedent set by Roe. V. Wade - especially given the abortion ruling he already made this year. The conservatives are fucked on this issue even with Trump's two appointments - why do you think they were all grasping at straws hoping that RBG was about to drop dead?

tbh just because the age of consent is that does not mean your average 16 year old, in alabama no less, has the knowledge or emotional maturity to get pregnant at 16 and I would not be surprised if a significant amount of teen moms in alabama felt pressured to have their children, which is not a situation anyone should have to give birth and become a mother under. Even in terms of emotional maturity a 19 year old and 16 year old will generally be in completely different places in life, regardless of legality.

I understand the funnies the OP got but think of the precedence this could set if he wins. It's kinda really fucking scary.

It's Alabama. Let me tell you as someone from Alabama the state would become a Saudi tier theocracy without the federal government.

It'd be weird if you weren't pregnant at 16 in Alabama

Definitely a sticky situation. I feel like a lot of people discount the father's perspective in situations like this, to the point where we're shocked when a situation arises where the man actually wants to keep the child but the woman doesn't. A father's voice absolutely matters when it comes to the children he had a part in creating, but it's also objectively true that (until the kid is born, at least) the mother plays a FAR greater role in actually bringing the kid into the world. This specific instance is all kinds of muddled because of the difference in age between the two, but I'd be very interested in seeing how a situation like this would play out if both parties were unquestionably of age. It's not exclusively the mother's genetic material that we're dealing with here, but on the flip side the guy isn't the one carrying the kid. You hear all these stories about how we're getting closer and closer to artificial wombs and it makes me wonder if cases like this in the future won't be settled by simply removing the embryo from the mother, sticking it in an incubator, and giving the father 100% custody. But even then, there's likely a surgical element, so it's not exactly cut and dry. A woman can choose to keep a baby against the father's will, but she can also choose to abort the fetus against the father's will. Which isn't exactly fair, but it's also far from a 50/50 situation, so does it necessarily need to be fair? I know a lot of people are gonna Funny react a story about a pro-life man from the deep south seeking a frivolous lawsuit because every sperm is sacred or whatever, but it really does raise a tricky question.

I read this as AI judge, for some reason

one person has to cum in a vag once and the other person has to deal with carrying the damn thing for 9 months, pretty sure the woman definitely has a lot more reason to have supreme say in the matter given that being pregnant especially in the modern economy can be devastating

Oh no I absolutely agree, I'm just saying that that's where the conflict is. Our current system gives fathers next to zero agency when it comes to their kids, which doesn't really sit right with me considering all the (for lack of a better term) consequences that come with him cumming in said vag. And then there are all the situations that make things even more complicated; if a man is raped, if he's misled into having sex under false pretenses, if the birth control is intentionally sabotaged, etc. A man's consent is 100% optional to bring a child into the world and make it his responsibility, which is pretty fucked given what we're talking about. But, as you mention, the man's personal stake in bringing a child into the world is nowhere near as intensive as the woman's, at least until the kid is actually born. So while the man shouldn't have zero say in how things go down, making it an even 50/50 split is nebulous as well. All I'm saying is that it's not as cut and dry as people on either side of this debate seem to want to make it out to be. It takes two to tango, but only one has to actually carry it. The rights of fathers absolutely matter, but so does the bodily autonomy of women. All I'm saying is that I can see where either side may be coming from and it seems as though there are no easy answers.

Yes, it's a sad situation, but how would one make it fair for the man who wants a baby, when the woman doesn't? Force her to carry through with the pregnancy? Have him dictate control over another person's body for the next 9 months? The option is either A. literal slavery; B. suing the woman for not giving up control of herself; or C. what's happening in the article, where a clinic is sued on behalf of an embryo for providing the service they're supposed to, and legally allowed to provide. You may consider an option D, for a man to sue a woman who he believes misled him before the abortion, which is a fuckhuge can of worms, not only because it's not a new option at all, just an exception to justify B, but also: it may be that he was the one with expectations that did not match reality; it may be ambiguous whether there was any misleading on his part as well; it's possible the woman conveyed to him her plans but was met with dismissiveness; it may be she could not convey it due to abuse; it may be she is deemed to not have conveyed it "strongly enough" as has been decided against rape victims. Most importantly, even if not all of these cases ended up in the hands of biased judges, like the OP's, there should not be a recourse to punish a woman for exercising her bodily autonomy in the first place.

Oh hey it's my town! Hi guys! Yeah, this is seriously happening.

If he is so huge on having a child there are plenty already born children that need loving parents but I bet this 19 year old would shut the fuck up when offered. Just another "champion of childrens rights" who has no actual care for humans but just some selfish desire to push his/his family's point of view of morals which he for sure doesn't evenly apply because fuck consistency or actual dedication.