Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[Article 15]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

 

[Dis]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

PC won't even *acknowledge* the fact that the guys family wanted this. She's so fixated on the mother, and what she's "not" entitled to, and the fact that she's a single mother with a child to see anything else.

She doesn't have a valid point. All she has is robotic textbook views, and Coullter quotes. Take either, or both of those away from her, and she's like a fish out of water.

 

[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.

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...?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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...

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...?

 

[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..."

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

you're wrong.

Your position is that I am wroung that a judge should have required a report before deciding?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

If the family had been the sole determinor, why did they go before a judge?

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...?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

An in your world the 'begging' takes precedent over a social services report ordered by a responsible judge?

Again, feeling passes for knowing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

In error on so many points.

Judges often ask for reports based on investigations by adoption and other social service agencies.

Why have you attempted to 'beg the question' by inserting "quickly"? What's the rush? Sperm can be maintained indefinately.

The basis for denial might have been to consider said reports.

What he had before him, according to DISreputable, is "begging."

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 ...

Ah, the icing on the cake. Sometimes a poster, like yourself, is so foolish she doesn't realize that their post punctures their own argument.

My argument is certainly rational. For your edification, rational means "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense."

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

Your side has advanced thinking such as "it's a biological function," or the family "begged," or simply that she want it so let her have it.

Can you pick out the rational argument? Carefull, this is an IQ test.

And here it comes: "...you know, being she's hispanic and all..."

Wow, we are so lucky to have a liberal always ready to defend the poor, the minority, the defensless...

First, the only one to mention minority status was your side, DISreputable, to engender some kind of support from, I guess minorities, and second...
who is more defenseless than this unborn, prospective sibling to her two year old????

Trouble being consistent, or simply taking the oppotunity to advance your side of the culture war?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

Let's remind everyone what you wrote:
"PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete? " Article15

 

[Ravi]

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?

These are good questions and I don't know the answer. I assumed it was because he was dead and there are laws in place to decide what can be done to a corpse. Otherwise I can't see a logical reason that a judge was involved at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

PC won't even *acknowledge* the fact that the guys family wanted this. She's so fixated on the mother, and what she's "not" entitled to, and the fact that she's a single mother with a child to see anything else.

She doesn't have a valid point. All she has is robotic textbook views, and Coullter quotes. Take either, or both of those away from her, and she's like a fish out of water.

Wow, this has been fun.

I hope folks on both sides have the time, and interest, to read this whole thread, over 200 posts!

I have presented a cogent, rational thesis, that in this precedent setting case our sights and those of the judge should have considered the prospective life that might be created at least as much as the the wished of the prospective mother.

That's it.

Your side has been reduced to irrational statements and vile language and neg reps, spcifically you, DISreputable, and suggested that I leave the board, or STFU.

I have no objection to being the 'lightning rod" for this discussion and in fact, feel like Leonidas at Thermopylae.

 

[jillian]

Ah, the icing on the cake. Sometimes a poster, like yourself, is so foolish she doesn't realize that their post punctures their own argument.

My argument is certainly rational. For your edification, rational means "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense."

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

Your side has advanced thinking such as "it's a biological function," or the family "begged," or simply that she want it so let her have it.

Can you pick out the rational argument? Carefull, this is an IQ test.

And here it comes: "...you know, being she's hispanic and all..."

Wow, we are so lucky to have a liberal always ready to defend the poor, the minority, the defensless...

First, the only one to mention minority status was your side, DISreputable, to engender some kind of support from, I guess minorities, and second...
who is more defenseless than this unborn, prospective sibling to her two year old????

Trouble being consistent, or simply taking the oppotunity to advance your side of the culture war?

I have to admit to being amused by someone who would have a heart attack if government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old but wants a court to impose IT'S morality on this family.

Is it that you think anyone but you should be told what to do? You know, that whole noblesse oblige thing?

Or is it that you can't admit you were hoisted on your own petard and created a stupid thread but now can't back down.

I'm figuring that's it...

what i do know is you've embarrassed yourself here... and proven to all of us that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

man, that so must suck for you. I have to admit admiration for your tenacity, though... no matter how absurd your position....

*edit* and you've even changed THAT position... the OP started with your insanely rabid annie coulter impression

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

so it was her singleness that was the problem for you then... no investigation needed. she's still single...and it still isn't government's business.

can i take it that you think all single women who get pregnant should be forced to have abortions by activist judges, too? you know, that way there are no kids to be " potentially involved with the penitentiary system".

 

[Valerie]

I in fact, feel like Leonidas at Thermopylae.

 

[xsited1]

Humor break!

This case brings a whole new meaning to the age-old dilemma of "spit or swallow?"

 

[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?

If the family had been the sole determinor, why did they go before a judge?

I assume it's because the hospital or morgue where the boyfriend's body was being kept wanted a judge to grant her permission to absolve them of any responsability in case his family did object.

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...?

He did investigate. His legal heirs were present and had no objection. You make no sense when you try to equate some sperm , what you refer to as a "soon-to-be-child" (who hasn't even been conceived yet!!! ) with a real live child up for adoption.

Should all women go before judges before becoming pregnant to get permission to do so?

 

[Anguille]

who is more defenseless than this unborn, prospective sibling to her two year old????

About as defenceless as Oliver Twist or any other fictional character.

 

[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.

In error on so many points.

Judges often ask for reports based on investigations by adoption and other social service agencies.

Why have you attempted to 'beg the question' by inserting "quickly"? What's the rush? Sperm can be maintained indefinately.

The basis for denial might have been to consider said reports.

What he had before him, according to DISreputable, is "begging."

Prety sure I have a better handle on what Judges do and don't do. But hey its your story, tell it how you want. It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation. He didn't feel he needed one. By your argument, people should have to go before a Judge to be investigated before getting pregnant. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well so does your argument.

So I'll tell you what. Point me to case law that shows that Judge was in error. If you can show me where the Judge's decision fails legally, I will switch sides and argue on your behalf. I'll be waiting patiently.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

In error on so many points.

Judges often ask for reports based on investigations by adoption and other social service agencies.

Why have you attempted to 'beg the question' by inserting "quickly"? What's the rush? Sperm can be maintained indefinately.

The basis for denial might have been to consider said reports.

What he had before him, according to DISreputable, is "begging."

Prety sure I have a better handle on what Judges do and don't do. But hey its your story, tell it how you want. It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation. He didn't feel he needed one. By your argument, people should have to go before a Judge to be investigated before getting pregnant. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well so does your argument.

So I'll tell you what. Point me to case law that shows that Judge was in error. If you can show me where the Judge's decision fails legally, I will switch sides and argue on your behalf. I'll be waiting patiently.

Since you have claimed the niche of 'legal expert,' why don't you tell me how you will take the position that judges are never in error.

And you have seriously weaked you hold on the niche by inferring where I didn't imply. Bad choice of argument; I think I'll chose another lawyer.

But I will accept your "expert testimony" when you say "It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation." Thanks for supporting my argument.

And as far as "...I will switch sides and argue on your behalf," thanks anyway, but it doesn't appear that I need your help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, the icing on the cake. Sometimes a poster, like yourself, is so foolish she doesn't realize that their post punctures their own argument.

My argument is certainly rational. For your edification, rational means "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense."

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

Your side has advanced thinking such as "it's a biological function," or the family "begged," or simply that she want it so let her have it.

Can you pick out the rational argument? Carefull, this is an IQ test.

And here it comes: "...you know, being she's hispanic and all..."

Wow, we are so lucky to have a liberal always ready to defend the poor, the minority, the defensless...

First, the only one to mention minority status was your side, DISreputable, to engender some kind of support from, I guess minorities, and second...
who is more defenseless than this unborn, prospective sibling to her two year old????

Trouble being consistent, or simply taking the oppotunity to advance your side of the culture war?

I have to admit to being amused by someone who would have a heart attack if government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old but wants a court to impose IT'S morality on this family.

Either admit that you cannot support the absurd and totally fabricated charge above, that I have argued against "government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old," or show where I have said same.

You are now forced to admit that everything I stated about you in the previous post is beyond argument, as you are reduce to making up charges. I believe yours is known as a 'straw man' argument.

My point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions. Can you remember that?

Better yet, write it down so you don't have to fabricate things.