Just thinking the same thing. If he has any assets, such as life insurance, or stocks and bonds, she could claim those assets in the name of the child. Thus, she can pretend it's all about having his child while in fact she's after his money.
Let's all thank Steve Brule (Brulé). He uploads saved videos. He is the one who made this Studio B channel. Janice Fiamengo's happy he does that work; she has said so.
It is desecration. Sex exists purposefully for reproduction. If we make it utilitarian in relation to the ethics of desire; "I want his child." even if he is not involved in the affair, you can make the same case for grape or a man wanting his wife taxidermied for the sake of him still wanting the sexual gratification. Sex is both utilitarian and a moral consideration and both people involved need to be consenting and in reciprocation of intent. Everything else is technological or moral abhorrations.
Hypothetical: If the "girlfriend?" gets pregnant from harvesting sperms from his dead body, can she then make a claim for child support on the estate? I find this sickening.
Google this case: In the matter of Gray [2000] QSC 390 IN THE MATTER OF WARREN ANDREW GRAY (deceased) and Re Cresswell [2018] QSC 142 AYLA BELINDA CRESSWELL (applicant). Both are from the Queensland Supreme Court.
Imagine that a woman is in a vegetative coma and the husband wanted her ova harvested so he could father a child later on. Because they had both said they wanted children. The anger and moral outrage would be deafening.
Does she also have rights to his heart or kidneys or any other organs? If a female acquaintance has a claim, then why not every other person, or the State?
Without a living will, or other witnessed document, a dead person doesn't necessarily have control over their remains. In some jurisdictions, consent for organ donation is assumed. You have the right to opt out, of course, and this results in a win-win situation. Having to obtain consent after a death is not the best way to go about organ donation, or posthumous reproduction.
Sooo we’re just supposed to assume implied consent? Isn’t this what women have been fighting against? The need for implicit consent and an emphatic yes ? Guess not for men.
Human rights only apply to women, not men! Take Title IX in US - bans sex discrim8nation in education. Thousands of courses, for women only, were created after this law passed!
Frankenstein built a new creature from others' parts.(*) Janice please consider writing a story that covers the same elements of this video. It'll be Nobel prize level because it'll cover new ground! (*) To all: Janice Fiamengo's aware of the Frankenstein story because it was written by a teenage feminist (whose mother was an anti-man feminist).
Who represented the young man? Judicial arrogance on full display. It seems odd that his mother did not know the women when they were allegedly planing to marry and have children. Can a man whose female partner dies get her eggs so that he can father a child later. As for a woman’s sole right regarding childbirth, it stands to reason that she has sole financial responsibility for the child as the biological father had no say in the conception of the child.
At 34 he may not have had much of an estate. There may have been insurance that she might try to claim. There have also been cases of women suing grandparents for support. It also said she was 42 so it would seem she herself was already past her prime for having children.
I think that the "prior to death consent" from the man to have his testicles removed after death by his girlfriend is necessary in any case. Although while we're talking about "consent", I want to know if "mutual consent of a man and a woman" is a requirement for a woman to become pregnant or for either of them to choose to become parents? I find it odd that, even today, while possessing the gifts of medicinal knowledge and breakthroughs in modern science to allow our species to become capable of controlling our reproduction to allow the possibility to choose to decide whether to become parents or not through contraceptives. Yet there are women out there who get pregnant without the mutual consent of their partners by discontinuing contraceptive intake (quit taking the birth control pill) and not telling them. Intentionally lying about their fertility and the ability to become pregnant. Meaning these women are purposely deceiving men and getting pregnant whether the man consents or not. Am I wrong to think that its the decision of both the intended parents involved? Sorry if my opinion is somewhat offensive but I can be taught to see differently. Comments of all nature welcome! Love your show Professor Fiamengo! @fiamengofile #janicefiamengo. Peace Ya'll!
is this channel actually janice fiamengo? or a fan/reposter? if you are actually janice, you should consider renaming this channel to "janice fiamengo" instead of "studio b" because the name recognition alone will get you a LOT more subscribers and viewers, especially considering the two recent high view count videos that were randomly advertised to me on my youtube feed (and probably others). you'll get your message out way faster and more broadly if you do this, because nobody recognizes studio b. even if you rename it to "studio b (janice fiamengo official)" or something like that. get your message out there. everybody remembers janice fiamengo. studio b is utterly ambiguous and nobody knows what the "b" stands for. even renaming it to "studio brule" would be better (if that is truly janice's actual substack and not just a fan/reposter.) even if this is a fan/reposter, you should still rename it to "studio brule" so as to associate it visually with your substack. studio "b" means nothing. "b" can be anything. go all the way. don't use something that could be the name of a random forgotten warehouse in hollywood.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
“Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provides something.”
― Chris Rock
As it should be
@@Nazareneprotestant ...even dogs? Really?
@@Nazareneprotestant. Spoken just like a woman.
yes, even dogs. and pets. and animals in the zoo. and in the wild
Wait until she sues his family for child support from the insurance proceeds.
And inheritance from his family .
I came here to write just about the same thing.
Just thinking the same thing. If he has any assets, such as life insurance, or stocks and bonds, she could claim those assets in the name of the child. Thus, she can pretend it's all about having his child while in fact she's after his money.
Pure insanity. The only way this should even be considered is if they’re married. And even then, consent should be a prerequisite.
I don't understand allowing for the production of children without two parents in the first place.
government handouts
Disgusting.
But I thought women have the ability to create life? lol
Let's all thank Steve Brule (Brulé). He uploads saved videos. He is the one who made this Studio B channel. Janice Fiamengo's happy he does that work; she has said so.
She should choose a man who wants to be a father.
A woman flippantly and selfishly desecrates a man's corpse because "her body, her choice".
*makes total sense*
This also applies to women involved in infant male circumcision .
It is desecration. Sex exists purposefully for reproduction. If we make it utilitarian in relation to the ethics of desire; "I want his child." even if he is not involved in the affair, you can make the same case for grape or a man wanting his wife taxidermied for the sake of him still wanting the sexual gratification. Sex is both utilitarian and a moral consideration and both people involved need to be consenting and in reciprocation of intent. Everything else is technological or moral abhorrations.
Hypothetical: If the "girlfriend?" gets pregnant from harvesting sperms from his dead body, can she then make a claim for child support on the estate?
I find this sickening.
Of course!
Only her wishes count!
Silly question!
Robocop... but instead of bringing justice, he's brought back to pay support. 😅🤦♂️
In the current climate, obviously yes.
Funny how 'implied consent' only applies in one direction.
Google this case: In the matter of Gray [2000] QSC 390 IN THE MATTER OF WARREN ANDREW GRAY (deceased) and Re Cresswell [2018] QSC 142 AYLA BELINDA CRESSWELL (applicant). Both are from the Queensland Supreme Court.
Imagine that a woman is in a vegetative coma and the husband wanted her ova harvested so he could father a child later on. Because they had both said they wanted children. The anger and moral outrage would be deafening.
When it comes to self-contradictions and irony, feministas are the uncontested champions.
Does she also have rights to his heart or kidneys or any other organs? If a female acquaintance has a claim, then why not every other person, or the State?
It is breath taking that the law considers my components posthumously up for grabs. Maybe I should auction it off beforehand?
Thank you .
You are welcome!
Anyone care to bet that the deceased or his family are very well off?
I wonder how this case turned out...
Without a living will, or other witnessed document, a dead person doesn't necessarily have control over their remains. In some jurisdictions, consent for organ donation is assumed. You have the right to opt out, of course, and this results in a win-win situation. Having to obtain consent after a death is not the best way to go about organ donation, or posthumous reproduction.
Sooo we’re just supposed to assume implied consent? Isn’t this what women have been fighting against? The need for implicit consent and an emphatic yes ? Guess not for men.
Human rights only apply to women, not men!
Take Title IX in US - bans sex discrim8nation in education. Thousands of courses, for women only, were created after this law passed!
@@jonahtwhale1779 exactly
@@jonahtwhale1779 oh ya. I almost forgot.
You could poll men on the question. I have little doubt that a majority would consent to such a procedure.
@@bumblebee9337 they shouldn’t exclude the people don’t agree. These individual men were not given consideration
Frankenstein built a new creature from others' parts.(*) Janice please consider writing a story that covers the same elements of this video. It'll be Nobel prize level because it'll cover new ground!
(*) To all: Janice Fiamengo's aware of the Frankenstein story because it was written by a teenage feminist (whose mother was an anti-man feminist).
Who represented the young man? Judicial arrogance on full display. It seems odd that his mother did not know the women when they were allegedly planing to marry and have children. Can a man whose female partner dies get her eggs so that he can father a child later. As for a woman’s sole right regarding childbirth, it stands to reason that she has sole financial responsibility for the child as the biological father had no say in the conception of the child.
I get it. It’s the man’s body. My thought is: he’s dead. What’s the big deal? She can’t very well get him on the hook for child support.
At 34 he may not have had much of an estate. There may have been insurance that she might try to claim. There have also been cases of women suing grandparents for support. It also said she was 42 so it would seem she herself was already past her prime for having children.
@@barryj388 It does seem suspicious
Feminists say it's a big deal, remember? How about holding them to their standards, for once?
edge-lord
I think that the "prior to death consent" from the man to have his testicles removed after death by his girlfriend is necessary in any case. Although while we're talking about "consent", I want to know if "mutual consent of a man and a woman" is a requirement for a woman to become pregnant or for either of them to choose to become parents? I find it odd that, even today, while possessing the gifts of medicinal knowledge and breakthroughs in modern science to allow our species to become capable of controlling our reproduction to allow the possibility to choose to decide whether to become parents or not through contraceptives. Yet there are women out there who get pregnant without the mutual consent of their partners by discontinuing contraceptive intake (quit taking the birth control pill) and not telling them. Intentionally lying about their fertility and the ability to become pregnant. Meaning these women are purposely deceiving men and getting pregnant whether the man consents or not. Am I wrong to think that its the decision of both the intended parents involved? Sorry if my opinion is somewhat offensive but I can be taught to see differently. Comments of all nature welcome! Love your show Professor Fiamengo! @fiamengofile #janicefiamengo. Peace Ya'll!
is this channel actually janice fiamengo? or a fan/reposter?
if you are actually janice, you should consider renaming this channel to "janice fiamengo" instead of "studio b" because the name recognition alone will get you a LOT more subscribers and viewers, especially considering the two recent high view count videos that were randomly advertised to me on my youtube feed (and probably others). you'll get your message out way faster and more broadly if you do this, because nobody recognizes studio b. even if you rename it to "studio b (janice fiamengo official)" or something like that.
get your message out there. everybody remembers janice fiamengo. studio b is utterly ambiguous and nobody knows what the "b" stands for. even renaming it to "studio brule" would be better (if that is truly janice's actual substack and not just a fan/reposter.)
even if this is a fan/reposter, you should still rename it to "studio brule" so as to associate it visually with your substack. studio "b" means nothing. "b" can be anything. go all the way. don't use something that could be the name of a random forgotten warehouse in hollywood.