| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ideas
United States8161 Posts
On January 10 2009 16:19 Kwark wrote: Say "what if our baby son dies and you can't look at me without being reminded of him and you just can't deal with it?". Extreme example but the point is you just can't know the future. Children of Men quote/reference? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Movable accession. Unilateral contract. In order of descending strength. All would say that the woman has a right to the goddam kidney. Not all are common law. Civil law countries could easily fall back on abuse of rights, like Art 7. C.c.Q, or could make a much simpler case for the kidney comprising an extrapatrimonial right which is no susceptible to the real action being put forward by the former husband. Generally speaking, this case will not change much unless the judges decide to get inventive with their rulings and create some new law that the legislator will be forced to hack away at. | ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
On January 10 2009 16:06 Wala.Revolution wrote: I agree with the above. But I do have a derailing question: when the woman talks about "trust" issues how should you respond? Easy: "fuck you bitch, get a jorb, I'll stay home and raise little Susie!" I know, not the most politic way of going about it, but I don't waste time and cut right through the bullshit. EDIT: I'm not a lawyer but I have taken family law courses in university and based on what I've learned this is the easiest straight up way of dealing with it. Prenup, or stf-up. Hey it ryhmes, so it's gotta be right. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
Asian culture frowns upon divorce so the divorce rate is typically lower in Asian countries, but the same marital problems (cheating, incompatibility, etc) exist like in Western countries. Only thing is that divorce is typically not an option because of the feared loss of face. There are many cases of guys running off to live with other women while they are still technically married to their wives. So yeah, don't marry unless you really think the two of you are meant for each other (you could still be wrong lol). | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On January 10 2009 15:37 CharlieMurphy wrote: Take passion crimes for example. Some douche bag 100 years ago found out his wife was cheating and planned out the murder of both his wife and the man then turned himself in and got a lesser crime because he was so furious he got off on a temporary insanity plea. Now everywhere this holds up. We call them 'passion crimes'. In fact in Texas there is/was a law that if you caught your spouse in the act of sex with someone else you had the right to shoot and kill that person. To separate crimes of passion from random acts of violence towards humanity makes a lot of sense in my opinion. If you take someone who kills a man who has slept with his wife, he's very much less likely to be a serial murderer who will go around hacking the rest of the world's heads off; than a guy who kills indiscriminately and picks a target for no reason. And putting people in jail is about assessing their risk to the public. I wouldn't be so disappointed in them myself. Perhaps they are used to too much of an extent (by unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a buck) PS to the OP, I hope a judge kicks his ass. To be demanding his kidney back is just ridiculous. He made his body part her body part. Plus he is a pretty fucking petty man. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 10 2009 18:41 HamerD wrote: To separate crimes of passion from random acts of violence towards humanity makes a lot of sense in my opinion. If you take someone who kills a man who has slept with his wife, he's very much less likely to be a serial murderer who will go around hacking the rest of the world's heads off; than a guy who kills indiscriminately and picks a target for no reason. And putting people in jail is about assessing their risk to the public. its not solely about protecting the public, its also a punishment. | ||
|
wo0py
Netherlands922 Posts
Can one ask for purchased items back after divorce? as in: "I gave you a necklace of xxxx dollar, can i haz plox?" | ||
KwarK
United States43604 Posts
No. Never heard of it. | ||
|
frankbg
Canada335 Posts
| ||
|
Alpine
United States86 Posts
On January 10 2009 16:25 Ideas wrote: Children of Men quote/reference? Think thats more of a minority report reference- | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
amoxicilline
France1124 Posts
there would be no point | ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
| ||
|
MetalMarine
United States1559 Posts
2. Gimme my kidneys or pay me bitch... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2009 00:22 aRod wrote: Alimony is not a rediculous concept. There's a reason the idea has been around since the Summerians. you just can't appreciate the genius that is headbangaa | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On January 11 2009 03:13 oneofthem wrote: you just can't appreciate the genius that is headbangaa What a thoughtful response. | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
However he just donated it freely. Next point in that line is that the human body is a lawsubject not a lawobject and isn't subject to the rolls governing items and material posessions. Hence the woman and in extention the kidney are out of any danger of ever getting anything related to the kidney itself. The human body (and all parts of it) are not a posession. You do not even posess your own body in the eyes of the law. You cannot do with it what you want, you cannot mortgage it, loan it, sell it or parts of it for that matter. Somethings can in special circumstances be donated but never for any financial gain or prospect. The fact alone that he donated it freely, even if he was abused, tricked or lied to cannot possibly lead to any financial gain or compensation in the eyes of the law. You do not own your body in the eyes of the law. (And yes this is tough for most people to accept) Again: He donated his kidney, there can be no financial gain or profit involved. Hence he cannot even be paid a sum of damages since he donated it freely and there can be no financial value attached to that. Plus the item he wants returned doesn't even exist anymore as it became a part of something else plus the fact that the thing it became part of isn't even an item in itself so the kidney did not only lose its status as a seperate item after being implanted but due to the nature of the non-object (actually subject) in which it was implanted it also lost the nature of item and subsequently lost the possibility to be affected by any laws or regulations affecting material posessions and item. Hope that made sense just wrote it out quick hehe. Divorce law is too complicated to just write a quicky on hehe, this were just two easy basics in law concerning the human body. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
If she caused him damages in "expenses made" yeah he could claim that back I guess. But then only if she tricked him, false pretences or whatever. But this again brings up the point that a underlying bargain would most likely be required for any damages caused and to repeat myself there can be no financial gain, hence what underlying bargain, hence damages caused in what related context? If you get my drift. The ex-husband in all good knowledge and consent pays for the surgery (if not insured) and donates his kidney willingly and for no financial gain. Case closed. Then they get divorced, tough luck. I'd say even if she was planning on divorcing him but waits until after he donates his kidney so he won't change his mind and he donates the kidney and then she divorces this changes nothing about the fact that he freely donated his kidney and the fact that he wasnt correctly aware of the whole situation and 100% informed about his wifes intentions doesn't change anything after the kidney is implanted in his wife. I'm just calling it a bad beat for the husband in any scenario. The only scenario's where he would have a claim in damages would be the one where the claim would be based on something illegal and there would be no resulting case at all to bring that claim forward in. Plus the fact that because there can be no valueing something that cannot lead to profit on the moral basis that one cannot value human life or human organs in all good conscience as written in Law that one could receive a compensation for it in damages and hence would be valued afterall while the whole basis is that it is without ascertainable monetary value. What would remain is a criminal charge for assault resulting in severe injury or w/e its called if she took his kidney or abused him into giving it, but not civil suit I can imagine succeeding. A criminal charge if she tricked him into donating the kidney would probably have the best shot I think but even that would be very very very thin ice and would set a terrible precedent but at least it would dodge the financial gain bullet while it might still give satisfaction to the injured (husband) and might serve justice in a desired context (not mine for sure). Its a bit of a ramble but again I hope it makes some sense BottleAbuser  . | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
If you were to donate your kidney to me and I would pay for your travel expenses and other aids you might require during your revalidation process or possibly incurred loss of income during this period that would be no problem at all. That would just be compensation for suffered damages/made expenses and wouldn't lead to any profit on part of the donor. edit: crap why do these things always turn out so much longer then intended in the first place ^^;. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Winter Champion…
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo Complete
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
