Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[PoliticalChic]

the title of this thread makes my balls ache. I'll be glad when you bitches are done here and back int he kitchen making me some pie.

OK, but there'll be ground glass in it.

 

[dilloduck]

the title of this thread makes my balls ache. I'll be glad when you bitches are done here and back int he kitchen making me some pie.

Hey---we listen to your shit about ovens all the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, and did I mention you're a liar? Nowhere did I state that you should leave the board, or STFU. I said you should stop trolling, and that you're the type of person that gives us conservatives a bad name. I suggest if you're going to make such a baseless accusation, you at least fabricate something that maybe LOOKS like it confirms your statement?

That's what.. 2-3 times you've flat out lied now? That the best you've got?

You are a crude, foul-mouthed low-life, and prove same with every post.

I never lie.

No doubt if I asked you to quote where I quoted you as saying I should leave the board, you would be unable to find same. But if I were you, the term 'liar' would leap to my lips. But, thankfully, I am not you.

I never lie. Nor do I fabricate.

But I've often noticed that the other side will accuse one of doing the malicious things that they do.

Nor do I use gutter language, nor neg reps. When I disagree, I do it in the light of day. And, along those lines, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Although, in your case, I would add that actual disinfectant might not be a bad idea either.

This is part of post # 98, one of your supporters named Neser Boha:
"That said, your opinion as to what she can/should do amounts to NADA, ZIP, ZERO and you have to get over that... Maybe you should get off USMB and pay a bit more attention to your own kids... I can't imagine how a mother of two kids can find so much time to talk shit on a message board AND do a good job raising them. You see? It sucks when someone meddles in your personal affairs... yeah, and it's correct - it's none of my damn business."

If you had any class you would retract the slur, but of course the only class you have is low.

 

[jillian]

Let me get this straight... you want to hold Dis responsible for something said by someone who happend to agree with a point she made?

And you want her to retract a purported slur made by said someone who happened to agree with a point she made?

Good luck with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is obvious that reading comprehension is beyond you.

I don't know if it's comprehension or just an unwillingness to learn. And if some "liberal, activist judge" (which was her initial rant) ever had the temerity to insert him or herself into HER life by deciding if and when she could become pregnant, she'd have a nervous breakdown and spew all of this board. You'd see threads about "llib" judges, "lib" courts, "lying lawyers"

perhaps we should make the hypothetical more real to her so she finally *gets* it...

person A is no longer able to express his wishes. his live in love and partner of many years and he wanted one more child and wanted to protect the sperm... but the treatment for whatever ails person A will kill his ability to father children. because he is unable to express his wishes, and she is not legally married to him, a court order is needed and they go to court for what should be a fairly simple, unopposed application to remove and freeze his sperm. The judge, hearing that the parties' other child was home schooled, decides to do an "investigation" for the best interests of the sperm... (the very thought that we're talking about the best interests of sperm and not the desires of the person is seriously making my stomach turn)

but what do you think? you think she's lose her mind?

I do.

It's clear that she thinks law is simply a function of a judge imposing his or her will on litigants, regardless of the appropriate ruling.... so long as that ruling effectuates her own agenda and prejudices. She's also disingenuous in trying to say that the requirement of a court order somehow differed here and elsewhere.

Mostly, she thinks her prejudices should be enacted into our common law

And i'm still waiting for her to tell us if she demands that all single pregnant women have abortions.

PC is what we would call a shit house lawyer. PC simply does not understand that in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond. There is no respondent in this case, so therefore there is no case. It is simply a matter of the sperm bank covering their own ass against possible litigation.

She is forgetting that the parents of the departed approved of this. As the next of kin, they have the right to the sperm and were relinquishing that right to the petitioner. It is that simple. There is no debate here. PC is trying to argue her own morality with the law and she is failing. Seriously, what the fuck does an Australian Supreme Court decision have to do with this Judge's decision? Nothing. Her argument fails on every turn and she is obviously too thick to see it.

And you had the temerity to ask about my reading comprehension?

"... in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond."

But here are two quotes which indicate other directions the judge could have taken:

"Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation."

"As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route,..."

Do you know whose quotes those are? Yeah, yours. Posts #245 and 252.

Kind of disqualifies you as a witness, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me get this straight... you want to hold Dis responsible for something said by someone who happend to agree with a point she made?

And you want her to retract a purported slur made by said someone who happened to agree with a point she made?

Good luck with that.

Do you require everything spelled out for you?

Now I know you feel the need to support your bud, but heres the deal. She said I claimed that she told me to leave the board. I did not.

I said that those on your side did certain things, such as tell me to leave the board.

And I just proved it.

Get it?

To review: she said I said something which I did not, I proved same, and you injected yourself in because you thought I was bullying your clique. How funny is that.

I love it, almost 300 posts in the thread, me against all of you, and I guess you feel I've been picking on your gang!!!

Wow, I am woman, hear me roar!

 

[jillian]

clique?

dude, you have no clue about the dynamic on this board.

trust me...we are bonding over thinking you're meshugganah.

And I seem to recall you accusing her of telling you to leave the board, too. I just can't be bothered to go look for it right now.

As I said, I have to admire your tanicity, even in the face of your having been humiliated on this thread.

But you are delusional if you think you've looked anythig but beaten...

 

[Ravi]

Hey, PC, you might be in luck. Chances are this women hasn't impregnated herself yet. Why don't you round up a crowd, make some signs and picket in front of her house?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I don't know if it's comprehension or just an unwillingness to learn. And if some "liberal, activist judge" (which was her initial rant) ever had the temerity to insert him or herself into HER life by deciding if and when she could become pregnant, she'd have a nervous breakdown and spew all of this board. You'd see threads about "llib" judges, "lib" courts, "lying lawyers"

perhaps we should make the hypothetical more real to her so she finally *gets* it...

person A is no longer able to express his wishes. his live in love and partner of many years and he wanted one more child and wanted to protect the sperm... but the treatment for whatever ails person A will kill his ability to father children. because he is unable to express his wishes, and she is not legally married to him, a court order is needed and they go to court for what should be a fairly simple, unopposed application to remove and freeze his sperm. The judge, hearing that the parties' other child was home schooled, decides to do an "investigation" for the best interests of the sperm... (the very thought that we're talking about the best interests of sperm and not the desires of the person is seriously making my stomach turn)

but what do you think? you think she's lose her mind?

I do.

It's clear that she thinks law is simply a function of a judge imposing his or her will on litigants, regardless of the appropriate ruling.... so long as that ruling effectuates her own agenda and prejudices. She's also disingenuous in trying to say that the requirement of a court order somehow differed here and elsewhere.

Mostly, she thinks her prejudices should be enacted into our common law

And i'm still waiting for her to tell us if she demands that all single pregnant women have abortions.

PC is what we would call a shit house lawyer. PC simply does not understand that in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond. There is no respondent in this case, so therefore there is no case. It is simply a matter of the sperm bank covering their own ass against possible litigation.

She is forgetting that the parents of the departed approved of this. As the next of kin, they have the right to the sperm and were relinquishing that right to the petitioner. It is that simple. There is no debate here. PC is trying to argue her own morality with the law and she is failing. Seriously, what the fuck does an Australian Supreme Court decision have to do with this Judge's decision? Nothing. Her argument fails on every turn and she is obviously too thick to see it.

And you had the temerity to ask about my reading comprehension?

"... in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond."

But here are two quotes which indicate other directions the judge could have taken:

"Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation."

"As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route,..."

Do you know whose quotes those are? Yeah, yours. Posts #245 and 252.

Kind of disqualifies you as a witness, huh?

Not quite there junior, because the Judge had no reason to. The only way he would have gone those routes is in the instance of a respondent arguing against the petition. There was no respondent therefore he had no reason to explore those options. He acted within the law. Simple as that. You are dismissed.

P.S. Nice use of the taking quotes out of context tactic. Didn't work though. Too bad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is what we would call a shit house lawyer. PC simply does not understand that in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond. There is no respondent in this case, so therefore there is no case. It is simply a matter of the sperm bank covering their own ass against possible litigation.

She is forgetting that the parents of the departed approved of this. As the next of kin, they have the right to the sperm and were relinquishing that right to the petitioner. It is that simple. There is no debate here. PC is trying to argue her own morality with the law and she is failing. Seriously, what the fuck does an Australian Supreme Court decision have to do with this Judge's decision? Nothing. Her argument fails on every turn and she is obviously too thick to see it.

And you had the temerity to ask about my reading comprehension?

"... in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond."

But here are two quotes which indicate other directions the judge could have taken:

"Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation."

"As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route,..."

Do you know whose quotes those are? Yeah, yours. Posts #245 and 252.

Kind of disqualifies you as a witness, huh?

Not quite there junior, because the Judge had no reason to. The only way he would have gone those routes is in the instance of a respondent arguing against the petition. There was no respondent therefore he had no reason to explore those options. He acted within the law. Simple as that. You are dismissed.

P.S. Nice use of the taking quotes out of context tactic. Didn't work though. Too bad.

Yeah, it worked.

A priori proof that you will speak out of both sides of your mouth, reading boy.

Earlier you admitted that these were possible courses of action.

Now, you want to run and hide.

So much for expert testimony.

BTW, ironic in this thread, do you know the etymology of 'testimony'?

I ask the judge for a directed verdict of guilty!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, PC, you might be in luck. Chances are this women hasn't impregnated herself yet. Why don't you round up a crowd, make some signs and picket in front of her house?

Looks to me like you guys got the crowd, or is it a lynch mob?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

And you had the temerity to ask about my reading comprehension?

"... in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond."

But here are two quotes which indicate other directions the judge could have taken:

"Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation."

"As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route,..."

Do you know whose quotes those are? Yeah, yours. Posts #245 and 252.

Kind of disqualifies you as a witness, huh?

Not quite there junior, because the Judge had no reason to. The only way he would have gone those routes is in the instance of a respondent arguing against the petition. There was no respondent therefore he had no reason to explore those options. He acted within the law. Simple as that. You are dismissed.

P.S. Nice use of the taking quotes out of context tactic. Didn't work though. Too bad.

Yeah, it worked.

A priori proof that you will speak out of both sides of your mouth, reading boy.

Earlier you admitted that these were possible courses of action.

Now, you want to run and hide.

So much for expert testimony.

BTW, ironic in this thread, do you know the etymology of 'testimony'?

I ask the judge for a directed verdict of guilty!

Seriously. Go take your meds.

 

[Ravi]

Hey, PC, you might be in luck. Chances are this women hasn't impregnated herself yet. Why don't you round up a crowd, make some signs and picket in front of her house?

Looks to me like you guys got the crowd, or is it a lynch mob?

I'm serious. The judge merely ruled that the sperm could be harvested. Now is your big chance to put your beliefs where your mouth is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

clique?

dude, you have no clue about the dynamic on this board.

trust me...we are bonding over thinking you're meshugganah.

And I seem to recall you accusing her of telling you to leave the board, too. I just can't be bothered to go look for it right now.

As I said, I have to admire your tanicity, even in the face of your having been humiliated on this thread.

But you are delusional if you think you've looked anythig but beaten...

You "I seem to recall you accusing her of telling you to leave the board,"? Pretty firm in the evidence department, miss. Totally our of your fevered imagination.

T-E-N-A-C-I-T-Y

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G

"having been humiliated" ??? I did just fine, and if I can juice you guys up a bit more, I bet we can get to 300 posts!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not quite there junior, because the Judge had no reason to. The only way he would have gone those routes is in the instance of a respondent arguing against the petition. There was no respondent therefore he had no reason to explore those options. He acted within the law. Simple as that. You are dismissed.

P.S. Nice use of the taking quotes out of context tactic. Didn't work though. Too bad.

Yeah, it worked.

A priori proof that you will speak out of both sides of your mouth, reading boy.

Earlier you admitted that these were possible courses of action.

Now, you want to run and hide.

So much for expert testimony.

BTW, ironic in this thread, do you know the etymology of 'testimony'?

I ask the judge for a directed verdict of guilty!

Seriously. Go take your meds.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkp1CwGg-Kw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkp1CwGg-Kw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Father Time]

So you were accused of needing medication and in response you post a clip of someone talking to himself?

 

[Anguille]

the title of this thread makes my balls ache. I'll be glad when you bitches are done here and back int he kitchen making me some pie.

OK, but there'll be ground glass in it.

 

[Anguille]

Yes, if they had been married it would obviate the entire post. I would not impose, nor would the article be in the paper, if it involved marital rights. One major difference is that we would know that the father had committed to the woman.

So single women to whom men have at one time been committed in marriage are exempted from your claim that single women cannot effectively raise children? Sounds like more of your a woman should not have children unless a man has given his approval of her.

 

[Valerie]

Yes, if they had been married it would obviate the entire post. I would not impose, nor would the article be in the paper, if it involved marital rights. One major difference is that we would know that the father had committed to the woman.

So single women to whom men have at one time been committed in marriage are exempted from your claim that single women cannot effectively raise children? Sounds like more of your a woman should not have children unless a man has given his approval of her.

>>>

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.

If you wouldn't have felt this way had they been married, why did you add all the stuff in your OP that I underlined above? When the person is dead, the end result is a single parent either way.

 

[jillian]

I just found it funny that she's so melted down that she needed to fix my typos.

thanks for that. i couldn't be bothered going over it myself.

lol..