Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[PoliticalChic]

Know what... Nevermind. Pretty much everyone thinks you're full of BS. No point in arguing further. You're wrong. Simple as that. G'day.

"Pretty much everyone..."

Your argument is reduced to "see, everyon likes me and noone likes you, so there!"

I can't begin to tell you how convincing that is.

BTW, here's some evidence that "Pretty much everyone" isn't quite the case:
Dr. Laura believes that appropriate parenthood honors the child's needs first. Problems frequently arise, when this does not happen. It is unfortunate that people sometimes have children for all the wrong reasons. They procreate to heal something within themselves. They erroneously think that having children will solve their problems. When they finally see this mistake it is often too late; they are left disappointed, and the children are the ones who suffer.
In Dr. Laura's experience, women allow themselves to get pregnant, because they think that it will all work out in the end. She also finds that women fail to accept responsibility for their own bodies, and they allow themselves to get pregnant without giving it proper thought.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger “10 Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives”

 

[jillian]

LOL! You've had your ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread...by me, Jillian, Dis, Ceccie and Valarie to name but a few. I fully expect you to take up Pubic's ridiculous victory declaration.

I am so glad that you made this point.

I've been waiting for it.

Liberals are so afraid of the disapproval of the herd, and feel so validated by same, that it underscores the weakness of their arguments and their character! You feel that by yourself, you are nothing, and on this I concur.

Having read much, and thought much, I need only my own validation. Thus the strength of character and principle that you might emulate.

Have you read Edmond Rostand? No? Let me help with a quote from CYRANO: I wear my adornments on my soul. Oh- I used to have a pair of gloves. But I lost one of them. Careless of me-- I left it in [Ravi's] face! ...

Whatever, PC. There is no herd in this opinion that you are full of shit...just a bunch of disparate posters that can see right through you. But, whatever floats your boat. You and Ann against the world, making up lies about single moms. I'm sure she's proud of you.

Dis and Valerie liberals?!?!?!?!

And why bother actually reading about the limitations of a judge's power under circumstances like this? I mean... it's only reality... and that can be ignored at will, right?

I wouldn't mind so much except for the extreme disingenuousness of the OP which accuses the judge of being activist...

it now has become clear that the complaint is not that the judge was an activist "liberal" judge, but is, in reality, a complaint that the judge is not an activist judge at all but stayed within the constraints of the facts before him.

What I'm really wondering, having read the articles, having heard about the case here and at work.... why on earth is this a "liberal"-"conservative" issue at all.

Answer: it isn't...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not quite.

WHY don't you just admit you know nothing about this family and the FACTS involved with THIS case that the judge legally reviewed and subsequently dismissed and admit the rest of your blather is just an excuse to post your "single-mother-bad" mantra?

Why don't you admit that your are, intellectually speaking, blind.

And what is it that you claim to know about this family?

As for the facts of the case, I know as much as anyone who read the news reports, nothing more.

What's humorous is that you know nothing, but you are absolutely certain that I am wrong.
Blind? None so as those who will not see.

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

And your objection would be...?

And I'll remind you of your ACTUAL position as posed in your OP:

I am outraged. This is not even a wife, so what right does she have to his sperm? In one fell swoop this radical judge's decision will set off a chain of reactions including a child being born into a most bizarre situation without a father and thus increasing substantially the chances that he/she would be at some point be involved with the penitentiary system.

"Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children." Ann Coulter, Guilty p 37-38.

Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock? It is no big accomplishment to give birth to young, even animals can do that. The challenge is too raise them in the best way possible and that includes having a mother and a father. Why do people refuse to see into the future of the children of singleparent homes? You give children a fighting chance when you bring them up in intact families.

The counterculture won on this one. Sad. Sad, indeed.

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

 

[jillian]

Know what... Nevermind. Pretty much everyone thinks you're full of BS. No point in arguing further. You're wrong. Simple as that. G'day.

"Pretty much everyone..."

Let me help with that in a clearer fashion...

you're wrong.

 

[Valerie]

Why don't you admit that your are, intellectually speaking, blind.

And what is it that you claim to know about this family?

As for the facts of the case, I know as much as anyone who read the news reports, nothing more.

What's humorous is that you know nothing, but you are absolutely certain that I am wrong.
Blind? None so as those who will not see.

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

And your objection would be...?

And I'll remind you of your ACTUAL position as posed in your OP:

I am outraged. This is not even a wife, so what right does she have to his sperm? In one fell swoop this radical judge's decision will set off a chain of reactions including a child being born into a most bizarre situation without a father and thus increasing substantially the chances that he/she would be at some point be involved with the penitentiary system.

"Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children." Ann Coulter, Guilty p 37-38.

Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock? It is no big accomplishment to give birth to young, even animals can do that. The challenge is too raise them in the best way possible and that includes having a mother and a father. Why do people refuse to see into the future of the children of singleparent homes? You give children a fighting chance when you bring them up in intact families.

The counterculture won on this one. Sad. Sad, indeed.

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

Which reasons are those? It is my opinion that the judge used good judgment in this case. WHY do you FEEL he didn't, I wonder?

 

[jillian]

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

No.

Yeah, they are.

But keep writing girls, and I'll be back to put you in your place tomorrow.

 

[Valerie]

I am so glad that you made this point.

I've been waiting for it.

Liberals are so afraid of the disapproval of the herd, and feel so validated by same, that it underscores the weakness of their arguments and their character! You feel that by yourself, you are nothing, and on this I concur.

Having read much, and thought much, I need only my own validation. Thus the strength of character and principle that you might emulate.

Have you read Edmond Rostand? No? Let me help with a quote from CYRANO: I wear my adornments on my soul. Oh- I used to have a pair of gloves. But I lost one of them. Careless of me-- I left it in [Ravi's] face! ...

Whatever, PC. There is no herd in this opinion that you are full of shit...just a bunch of disparate posters that can see right through you. But, whatever floats your boat. You and Ann against the world, making up lies about single moms. I'm sure she's proud of you.

Dis and Valerie liberals?!?!?!?!

And why bother actually reading about the limitations of a judge's power under circumstances like this? I mean... it's only realit... and that can be ignored at will, right?

I wouldn't mind so much except for the extreme disingenuousness of the OP which accuses the judge of being activist...

it now has become clear that the complaint is not that the judge was an activist "liberal" judge, but is, in reality, a complaint that the judge is not an activist judge at all but stayed within the constraints of the facts before him.

What I'm really wondering, having read the articles, having heard about the case here and at work.... why on earth is this a "liberal"-"conservative" issue at all.

Answer: it isn't...

 

[Valerie]

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

No.

Yeah, they are.

But keep writing girls, and I'll be back to put you in your place tomorrow.

 

[Anguille]

There are many places where single parents are able to adopt. But thorough investigations take place to ascertain the responsibility of said adoptions. Here, it seems as though the judge simply said, "OK."

It's not possible to adopt sperm.

You are coming dangerously close to suggesting that what this judge really should have ruled on - and denied - was her right to become pregnant.

 

[Valerie]

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Why don't you just answer the questions put forth to you? Do you have any indication that he didn't investigate anything?

Any person on the planet has every right to make any request they wish - it's called freedom of speech. Whether or not those requests are granted is another matter entirely.

The decision had to be made quickly. How long, exactly, do you think it takes to verify employment, and do a criminal background check? 5 minutes, toots. 5 of them. What else would you have him verify? TWO families were willing to care for this child. In fact, she even said she doesn't know when she'll do the insemination process, other than "when the time is right".

Who the fuck are you to decide you can dictate the outcome of someone elses life?

Busted.

 

[Anguille]

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Didn't his family also testify that his wishes were to have another child with the mother of his first?

 

[Dis]

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Didn't his family also testify that his wishes were to have another child with the mother of his first?

Yes, they did. But that wasn't in HER story (which was just a paragraph). It was in an additional story that was posted, that she never indicated she bothered reading. She won't address anything in that "other" story link. His mother actually begged the judge to let this happen.

 

[Valerie]

There are many places where single parents are able to adopt. But thorough investigations take place to ascertain the responsibility of said adoptions. Here, it seems as though the judge simply said, "OK."

It's not possible to adopt sperm.

You are coming dangerously close to suggesting that what this judge really should have ruled on - and denied - was her right to become pregnant.

Oh c'mon, Anguille, don't you dare even "attempt to bring up extraneous, peripheral and unrelated material" !! It must mean that "you have given up confronting {my} point. "




It's only LOGICAL.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Why should the judge rule no in this case?

The guy wanted to have another child before he died, his next of kin were fine with it.

Why should the decision be up to the state?

Why, when there are next of kin readily available, should the state suddenly own the remains of someone and get to decide what to do with it?

Shouldn't whoever owns the body (and attached sperm) be allowed to dictate what happens to it or would it be all right for states to act like every corpse is their possession?

I mean hey you get to decide in a will what happens to your earthly remains (car goes to kids, wife gets house etc.). Why should sperm, blood etc suddenly belong to the state? Why should they have a right to take it from you when it's obviously worth something?

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

Bullshit. Judges are not social workers. He had a legal obligation to make a decision quickly based on rule of law. Which he did. The man's family made no objection and there was zero basis to deny the request. I applaud this judge for actually using his brain and not his, or anyone else's moral compass. He didn't need an investigation, be had all the acts he needed right in front of him.

 

[Dis]

Why should the judge rule no in this case?

The guy wanted to have another child before he died, his next of kin were fine with it.

Why should the decision be up to the state?

Why, when there are next of kin readily available, should the state suddenly own the remains of someone and get to decide what to do with it?

Shouldn't whoever owns the body (and attached sperm) be allowed to dictate what happens to it or would it be all right for states to act like every corpse is their possession?

I mean hey you get to decide in a will what happens to your earthly remains (car goes to kids, wife gets house etc.). Why should sperm, blood etc suddenly belong to the state? Why should they have a right to take it from you when it's obviously worth something?

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

Bullshit. Judges are not social workers. He had a legal obligation to make a decision quickly based on rule of law. Which he did. The man's family made no objection and there was zero basis to deny the request. I applaud this judge for actually using his brain and not his, or anyone else's moral compass. He didn't need an investigation, be had all the acts he needed right in front of him.

You flaming f*cking Liberal!

Whoops.. Did I say that out loud?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

Bullshit. Judges are not social workers. He had a legal obligation to make a decision quickly based on rule of law. Which he did. The man's family made no objection and there was zero basis to deny the request. I applaud this judge for actually using his brain and not his, or anyone else's moral compass. He didn't need an investigation, be had all the acts he needed right in front of him.

You flaming f*cking Liberal!

Whoops.. Did I say that out loud?

 

[Valerie]

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

Bullshit. Judges are not social workers. He had a legal obligation to make a decision quickly based on rule of law. Which he did. The man's family made no objection and there was zero basis to deny the request. I applaud this judge for actually using his brain and not his, or anyone else's moral compass. He didn't need an investigation, be had all the acts he needed right in front of him.

You flaming f*cking Liberal!

Whoops.. Did I say that out loud?

Did I laugh out loud? I'll never tell.

 

[jillian]

Pretty good reasons the judge should have said no, huh?

No.

Yeah, they are.

But keep writing girls, and I'll be back to put you in your place tomorrow.

Well, considering you haven't made a rational argument on this thread yet, I would welcome something that even approximates challenging...

Why don't you just stop futzing around and admit that you think a Judge should decide that this woman shouldn't become pregnant because she doesn't meet your standard for suitability... you know, being she's hispanic and all ...

 

[RodISHI]

The judge ruled within the scope of the law. Simple.