[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Now the Supreme Court has finally recognized the rights of fetuses less than 6 weeks old, it's time to reevaluate all their legal rights. For so many years marriage has been assaulted with man-man, man-trans, trans-trans, man-dog, dog-trans, trans-dog-pig, man-bear-pig and other disgusting combinations. It has degraded the very meaning of marriage.

To restore its holy sanctity, it's time to ban weird perversions and only allow normal humans to get married. Including the previously disenfranchised 0-6 week age group. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian men who are lonely tonight who would sign up for one of these baby-wives. Men have rights too.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Now the Supreme Court has finally recognized the rights of fetuses less than 6 weeks old, it's time to reevaluate all their legal rights. For so many years marriage has been assaulted with man-man, man-trans, trans-trans, man-dog, dog-trans, trans-dog-pig, man-bear-pig and other disgusting combinations. It has degraded the very meaning of marriage.

To restore its holy sanctity, it's time to ban weird perversions and only allow normal humans to get married. Including the previously disenfranchised 0-6 week age group. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian men who are lonely tonight who would sign up for one of these baby-wives. Men have rights too.

Since there is personhood at the time of conception a baby less than 6 weeks old needs to be able to own property and other wealth. With match making starting this early the less than six week old person should publish a net worth. Of course, this works both ways, the less than six week old needs information as well about a suitor.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Now the Supreme Court has finally recognized the rights of fetuses less than 6 weeks old, it's time to reevaluate all their legal rights. For so many years marriage has been assaulted with man-man, man-trans, trans-trans, man-dog, dog-trans, trans-dog-pig, man-bear-pig and other disgusting combinations. It has degraded the very meaning of marriage.

To restore its holy sanctity, it's time to ban weird perversions and only allow normal humans to get married. Including the previously disenfranchised 0-6 week age group. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian men who are lonely tonight who would sign up for one of these baby-wives. Men have rights too.

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

Since there is personhood at the time of conception a baby less than 6 weeks old needs to be able to own property and other wealth. With match making starting this early the less than six week old person should publish a net worth. Of course, this works both ways, the less than six week old needs information as well about a suitor.

The problem is sex determination Based on my extensive knowledge on Creation Embryology, the fetuses are either boys or girls and nothing in between but so small that even with advanced tellyscopes it is not possible to see if they are boys or girls (Genesis 1:27). What if we caused unintentional homermarriage between two aspiring Caucasian male youthful fetuses and the ceremony was performed by one of our Pastors? The marriage would become permanent!

Solution: Prayer!

Matthew 21:22
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

We'll just ask Jesus to reveal the sex of the embryo and then we can proceed with the nuptials.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Johny Joe Hold]

Thank you, Dr. White, for explaining why it is difficult to know gender early in the personhood life. As you say, it would be helpful if God gave us some sign of the gender from day one.

Yet, gender does not prevent ownership of assets or wealth. If, for example, I were to father a child and wanted him/her to be financially comfortable (what parent does not want this for his child), I would be searching about for an appropriate mate.

Bill Gates' child of, say, four weeks would be a great match. I would make certain, however, Gates actually willed some of his billions to that child. As soon as that ownership was documented the courtship and gender issues could be sorted out.

[MitzaLizalor]

I believe there are problems creating trusts or bequeathing assets to people who have not been born yet. Similarly for financial instruments (such as a promissory notes) which need to be made out to extant persons. Could this be an area meriting attention?

Whether retroactive paper could be established somehow for one's own benefit is an interesting point. Some of these things go stale after a while, some do not. Assets for the use generations not yet born is one area addressed by Nehemiah – including which spouses of those unborn should be excluded. This is perhaps where to look for guidance on the topic.

NEHEMIAH 10 click internal link for chapter-by-chapter reading

[Phil Ander]

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

Since there is personhood at the time of conception a baby less than 6 weeks old needs to be able to own property and other wealth. With match making starting this early the less than six week old person should publish a net worth. Of course, this works both ways, the less than six week old needs information as well about a suitor.

This made me wonder about a matter. Can a male fetus own a woman? As a sort of thought experiment I concocted the following scenario. Father of an unmarried 11 year old daughter dies. He has no son to take over his property rights. However he has a brother who predeceased him. This brother has a son who also has died, but not before impregnating his wife. The fetus is male (which God would know, even if the wife does not). By the laws of succession it would seem that the male fetus owns the 11 year girl, as well as being a first cousin once removed.


So far so good, but what is the situation if the fetus was a female. Who owns the 11 year old then?


Phil

[Johny Joe Hold]

Originally Posted by Phil Ander

This made me wonder about a matter. Can a male fetus own a woman? As a sort of thought experiment I concocted the following scenario. Father of an unmarried 11 year old daughter dies. He has no son to take over his property rights. However he has a brother who predeceased him. This brother has a son who also has died, but not before impregnating his wife. The fetus is male (which God would know, even if the wife does not). By the laws of succession it would seem that the male fetus owns the 11 year girl, as well as being a first cousin once removed.
So far so good, but what is the situation if the fetus was a female. Who owns the 11 year old then?
Phil

You ask a deep question, Brother Phil.

I've wondered about a wealthy man who wills everything he owns to his "firstborn." He has both a girlfriend and a wife. Let's say he has sex with the girlfriend on the tenth of the month. Two nights later, on the 12th, he has sex with his wife.

Then, the wife gives birth before the girlfriend. Obviously, the girlfriend's child should get all the inheritance. The girlfriend's child became a human the night of intimacy. The wife's child might abandon Biblical rules and claim to be born first. We are coming to a time when couples will need to keep a long on their private business.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Phil Ander

So far so good, but what is the situation if the fetus was a female. Who owns the 11 year old then?

Wouldn't the lawyers just go back through the generations (male ancestors only, obviously) and then back down all the various lines until they found the closest living male relative?

I think this sort of dilemma only shows the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date family records.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

………girlfriend………

Wouldn't the "girlfriend" need to be a concubine for the progeny to be legitimate?

Hebrews 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

lawyers … back through the generations … various lines until they found the closest living male relative?

Precedent is so important in common law – but there's nothing common about Jesus.

Ruth 2:1, 22-23; 3:1-4 And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz . . . And Naomi said unto Ruth her daughter in law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field. So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and dwelt with her mother in law . . . Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee? And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshingfloor. Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.

[handmaiden]

I am hoping that this female is a godly True Christian™ who understands the stakes in this matter and not some Liebral loser trying to scam our innocent, hardworking traffic courts.

Pregnant woman claims that her fetus counts as a person when driving in designated two person highway lane.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

I've wondered about a wealthy man who wills everything he owns to his "firstborn." He has both a girlfriend and a wife. Let's say he has sex with the girlfriend on the tenth of the month. Two nights later, on the 12th, he has sex with his wife.

Then, the wife gives birth before the girlfriend. Obviously, the girlfriend's child should get all the inheritance. The girlfriend's child became a human the night of intimacy. The wife's child might abandon Biblical rules and claim to be born first. We are coming to a time when couples will need to keep a long on their private business.

Let's not go overboard. The fetus is still a bastard, and we're not going to let a bastard inherit. It would be a different story, of course, if the man and his girlfriend had entered into a proper contract of concubinage. In that case, yes, the fetus would have owned the 11-year old.

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Hebrews 12:8

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Now that we've established that the fetus is an actual human being from conception, we need to re-think s*xual intercourse during pregnancy. Technically Legally speaking, shooting semen on another person is s*xual assault if you get caught, therefore the donor is a pedophile rapist. Worse, adultery. His very soul is at risk! We need the Supreme Court to rule on the issue of semen and fetuses asap.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Now that we've established that the fetus is an actual human being from conception, we need to re-think s*xual intercourse during pregnancy. Technically Legally speaking, shooting semen into another person is s*xual assault if you get caught, therefore the donor is a pedophile rapist. Worse, adultery. His very soul is at risk! We need the Supreme Court to rule on the issue of semen and fetuses asap.

The way it is these days, with men being treated so poorly and women getting all the breaks, we really need legal protection.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

The way it is these days, with men being treated so poorly and women getting all the breaks, we really need legal protection.

Mr Mayor, forgive me for speaking in medical language, but the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down and is able to control the intake of semen. So if I were advising Justice Thomas, I would put that onerous onus on females.

[Phil Ander]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Wouldn't the lawyers just go back through the generations (male ancestors only, obviously) and then back down all the various lines until they found the closest living male relative?

I think this sort of dilemma only shows the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date family records.

Now there are a couple of interesting issues here. Lets say, somewhere along the closest line there are two dizygotic male twins. In this case, one ovuum will have been fertilized before the other. BUT the baby from the second fertilization may exit the birth canal before the first fertilized baby.


So which male baby carries on the line of property succession (or royal titles for that matter). Is it the first fertilized, or the first birth canal exit? God is the only one who knows which is the first fertilized. Maybe He will strike down the pretender before he can exert property rights.


Then there is the case of monozygotic male twins. In fairness there should be a 50/50 ownership of the girl, but the secular authorities will probably go 100% to the first one out the birth canal.


Phil

[James Hutchins]

Back when my wife, Mrs. Hutchins was around, she had a midwife woman that inspected my wife for 'female issues'. When the midwife decided my wife was going to have a female, I immediately put the child on the list on the Church Bulletin board 'Girls looking for Husband'. No need to put off to tomorrow what you can do today. Since I did not have a photograph, I used the following (with a disclaimer that she may appear different.

[WWJDnow]

Of course fetuses should be able to marry, provided, of course, that their fathers have properly arranged the marriage and that the agreed dowry has been paid. But we should not permit the consummation of the marriage until they are 8 to 10 years old. After all, we don't want to sexualize children!

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

After all, we don't want to sexualize children!

Yes, Brother. The less they know about the icky stuff and the dirty place the better. It's disgusting listening to the liberals constantly thrusting sexural language in our faces, back and forth like a psychopathic jackhammer. Every time we try and elevate the discourse it's "10 year old raped" and "Pregnant women dies", shush just shush up about it. It's not as if legitimate medical procedures are banned, just abortions.

[handmaiden]

That ten year old pregnant child is exactly why God gave us Deuteronomy 22.

The fellow who fathered her child should have paid the proper price to the little girl's dad and then married her with no possibility of divorce. That's the Biblical way of handling things; not abortion.

[Didymus Much]

That's the Biblical way of handling things; not abortion.

Two little pills for the rapee, or ruin 3 lives forever. WWJD?