Who cares what she wants?
He tried and tried and tried to talk her into continuing the pregnancy, apparently unperturbed by the fact that he was trying to persuade her to endure ever-increasing discomfort and disability for months and then anguish for several hours to have a baby she didn’t want to have.
In an unprecedented move, an Alabama judge is allowing a man to sue a clinic because his ex-girlfriend terminated her pregnancy without his consent. The incident took place in February 2017, when he was 19 and she was 16, The Independent reports. (The age of consent in Alabama is 16.) At the time she terminated the pregnancy, she was six weeks along, making the embryo about the size of a sweet pea. Now, for the first time in United States history, a probate court has recognized an aborted fetus as a person with rights.
In court documents filed on March 6 by Ryan Magers, he claims that he begged his ex-girlfriend to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. She refused and opted to terminate the pregnancy by taking the so-called “abortion pill,” which is actually two pills, containing mifepristone and misoprostol. The wrongful death lawsuit names both the Alabama Women’s Center and the pharmaceutical company that made the medication.
Because everybody on the planet has the right to veto a woman’s decision to stop being pregnant, apparently.
“I’m here for the men who actually want to have their baby,” Mager explained to ABC 31. “I just tried to plead with her and plead with her and just talk to her about it and see what I could do, but in the end, there was nothing I could do to change her mind.”
So he’s getting his revenge by attempting to create a new right for men to veto women’s abortions.
The case has alarmed reproductive rights groups, who are concerned the “personhood” movement might spread. On Twitter, Ilyse Hogue, the president of Naral Pro-Choice America, called the case “very scary” because it “asserts woman’s rights third in line,” behind the man who impregnates her and the dead fetus. Salon writer Amanda Marcotte agreed, saying any man who “vetoes” an abortion is “not fit to be a father or a partner. Any such man is by definition, an abuser.”
Or we could just give up and agree that women aren’t really people at all but merely devices for the creation of people (males) and more devices for the creation of people (males).
H/t Holms
When the man has to endure pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention all the time off work/school and the years of care for the child (I’ll admit, some do this last one). Fine. Have the baby. Just don’t ask another human to have it for you.
Everything that comes after the actual birth men can do their fair share of, up to and including all of it except lactation. If the whole process were like that it might well be fair to give each party an equal say. But it isn’t. I find it amazing when men think they get to just ignore that fact.
I would be okay with letting a male seahorse have some say in whether the female seahorse continued the pregnancy or not…
If men want a child they can raise all by themselves it shouldn’t be too hard to find a willing woman who loves being pregnant but doesn’t care for being a mother. The fact that they wouldn’t have an emotional attachment to the other party in the arrangement shouldn’t matter, since they wouldn’t have an emotional attachment to a girlfriend, either, if they pressure her keep a fetus she doesn’t want.
Well, there is “having a say” and “having the last word”. Both members of a couple are entitled to their wishes, opinions, and so on and can have their says. Ideally they will have already had many says on important matters before becoming a couple. It is sad when they say different things but bodily autonomy rightfully gives the last word to the pregnant one.
In how many states would the plaintiff be jailed for statutory rape? Not in Roy Moore land, obviously.
John, I was going to look up the answer, then I realized I don’t really want “age of consent laws” in my Google history, so I’ll leave that up to you!