Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[Care4all]

The judge, made his ''judgement'' and ruled on this particular case....that's all that happened PC.

The judge took these circumstances in to consideration...



- The dead man's sperm needed harvesting within 3 days of his death.

- No law was writen by congress preventing such action.

- The dead man had a long term relationship with his girlfriend.

- The dead man also had a child, conceived with this woman, so she was the mother of his one child already.

- The dead man's will was to have another child, based on witnesses, including the dead man's mom.

- The dead man's blood relatives did NOT object.

- AND if any objection arose after the harvesting of this sperm, there was legal means for those objecting to redress the grievences...


The judge, if he ruled in ANY OTHER MANNER, would have been writing laws from the BENCH, judicial ACTIVISM....pc?

CERTAINLY you are against judicial activism, making law from the bench?

I understand, to a degree your concerns of the ''what ifs''....

AS EXAMPLE of my own ''what ifs'':

What if this were a man's girlfriend, who he did have a child with already and who he did tell he wanted another child with...

That ALSO had a wife with 2 of his children as well, who objected to the harvesting of his sperm for his mistress to have another of his children with....

THE JUDGE, would have to rule according to THESE circumstances, and more than likely, his ruling would have been DIFFERENT according to THOSE circumstances because the wife would have all legal decisions with her as next of kin....as his legal wife and the judge would have to rule, according to law and the wife would be favored in this dispute.

care

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coward.

Oh, this is awsome!

First you, and then DISgusting hoping against hope that the constant dumb-beat, er, drumbeat from from your coterie would cow me, silence me, and by the sheer weight of numbers, allow you to walk away in victory.

Clearly you you are both misguided,and have misjudged.

My cause is just: I guard the interests of the weakest, the child-yet-to-be-born. You, self-interested brats.

Almost 300 posts, and I stand alone.

And you say "coward"??? Self-delusion, thy name is Ravi!

In my ongoing efforts at edifying in language, writing, and philosophy, you've given me the opportunity to teach you some highly appropriate poetry.

Here, and ode to my bravery: Invictus

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Yes, you are a coward. You feel very strongly that this woman should not be allowed to bear her dead lover's child. And yet you are afraid to start the ball rolling to prevent it.

And this vapid attempt at what in some circles passes for humor is all you have left?

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...?

Well, not being privy either to the actual case records or the laws of that state, I can only guess, but I'd say that since the circumstances were so unusual, the medical personnel involved wouldn't perform the procedure without a court ruling.

And no, the judge had no legal standing to "investigate" anything except whether or not there was anyone in the family objecting, or any legal basis for blocking the procedure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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."

Adoption and social services take place in another court under another set of laws and circumstances. In this case, there is no applicable law for what you're talking about, and to order such an investigation would have been a massive overstepping of the judge's bounds.

And no, the sperm had to be harvested within a certain amount of time, and apparently, the medical personnel were balking at harvesting it at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The judge, made his ''judgement'' and ruled on this particular case....that's all that happened PC.

The judge took these circumstances in to consideration...



- The dead man's sperm needed harvesting within 3 days of his death.

And as we saw in Brisbane, could have been stored awaiting a future decision.

- No law was writen by congress preventing such action.

- The dead man had a long term relationship with his girlfriend.

I never said there was a law, and the point of my post is that the judge has set an unfortunate precedent. Relationship is correct, it is a committment that is missing.

- AND if any objection arose after the harvesting of this sperm, there was legal means for those objecting to redress the grievences...

I didn't see any reference in the article and insemination could be immediate.

The judge, if he ruled in ANY OTHER MANNER, would have been writing laws from the BENCH, judicial ACTIVISM....pc?

Exactly what he did: he set precedent.

My concern is that a child did not have to be born into what is a less than ideal situation.


care[/QUOTE]

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Political, what part of "they wouldn't harvest the sperm without a court order" are you having trouble with? Sperm can only be frozen and stored AFTER it's out of the guy's body, and THAT was the procedure she was getting the court order for.

And while no one denies that the judge could have ruled the other way if he so chose, there was really no legal reason to do so, since no one, apparently, was objecting. In fact, every interested party to the case was supporting this woman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, it's not a question of approval.

The premise is that to give a child the best possible chance in life is to be born into a committed relationship with loving parents. Stats pretty much bear this out.

If a woman waits to have children until she is married, then for one reason or another no longer has the husband, then she has done the best she could for the child, and she will do the best to then raise that child.

What brings about the most vilification from some of the board members is that I will not say that it's fine if a woman has children with a man who will not make the commitment to the family that is represented by marriage.

Now watch how many angry posts there are when I state how I feel about day-care.

The problem with this is that at this moment, there is no child involved. Therefore, the laws concerning placement of children don't apply. What we are actually talking about, in legal terms, is performing a medical procedure on a dead body. We're not talking about family law here. There is absolutely no law allowing the judge to make determinations on whether or not a woman is a fit parent enough to become pregnant.

As near as I can tell, the only legal precedent he had to work with was that governing things liike the harvesting of bodily organs for transplant, which requires the approval of the next of kin. And while I'm not a lawyer and can't say for sure, it seems to me that without any respondent to object, the legal precedent is to rule in favor of the plaintiff. I know that's what happens in other types of legal cases when the respondent doesn't show up to court.

 

[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

You are ignoring 90% of my post and you are ignoring the second half of the exchange where you got that quote from.

Yes.

But the point of the discussion, and, generally, the back and forth on the board, is to kick around ideas and opinions. I offered mine with the view that the judge is setting a precedent which I find not in the best interests of all concerned.

An investigation along the lines of what is de rigueur in adoptions would have made me more sanguine.

I guess what has me trippin' about your point that a precedent has been set is that nobody challenged the request. I mean, I'm not a lawyer or anything but if a similar case were to come up and the family of the deceased were to challenge the request could their argument be thrown out because of this ruling? I'm not so sure that's what would go down. What I suspect would happen is what I just suggested in my last post, acquiesce but withhold the sperm until an investigation, etc.

The bolded text you never responded to nor did you respond to post #134.

Please keep what I say in full context. You have ignored more than half of what I've posted in this thread but are using my words like they are some kind of silver bullet.

Are you suffering a 'senior moment'?

Context is defined as : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning .

In using your suggestion, I did not cut anything or use just a part. I used your entire post #136 exactly as you posted it, In its entirety.

Further, I gave you full credit for same. You wrote it, not I.

If you meant silver bullet as "The metaphor of the silver bullet applies to any straightforward solution perceived to have extreme effectiveness. The phrase typically appears with an expectation that some new technology or practice will easily cure a major prevailing problem," it seems pretty clear as I responded 'yes' when you asked it.

Here is the post # 136:
"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

Now, if what you mean by 'silver bullet' is that I required your aid, the entirety of the thread doesn't seem to indicate same, as most of the other side ignored your idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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...?

Well, not being privy either to the actual case records or the laws of that state, I can only guess, but I'd say that since the circumstances were so unusual, the medical personnel involved wouldn't perform the procedure without a court ruling.

And no, the judge had no legal standing to "investigate" anything except whether or not there was anyone in the family objecting, or any legal basis for blocking the procedure.

Nonsense.

Judge has every right to gather material that would aid in making an informed decision.

Why do you suppose the Brisbane judge ordered the sperm frozen?

 

[jillian]

Who cares what the Brisbane judge did?

I would love to see your reaction if we tried to rely on some other country's actions in making a determination about the bush administration's behavior.

 

[Anguille]

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

Poly, I love reading your posts but I cringed when when I saw the word "gal". I'm shocked that use of that irritating word has spread as far east as Brooklyn. Please don't use it again. Thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...?

Well, not being privy either to the actual case records or the laws of that state, I can only guess, but I'd say that since the circumstances were so unusual, the medical personnel involved wouldn't perform the procedure without a court ruling.

And no, the judge had no legal standing to "investigate" anything except whether or not there was anyone in the family objecting, or any legal basis for blocking the procedure.

Nonsense.

Judge has every right to gather material that would aid in making an informed decision.

Why do you suppose the Brisbane judge ordered the sperm frozen?

No, he doesn't. The law prescibes very specific "material" which he has the right to consider, let alone demand, in a case. I realize that in all too many cases these days, judges act as though they're omnipotent, but they really aren't. And I don't know of anything in the law that gives the judge the right in this instance to investigate whether or not a woman is suitable to get pregnant. If you'd like to cite me that particular law, I'd be happy to read it.

I don't care why the Brisbane judge did anything. We aren't in Brisbane, and I don't give a damn what the laws are in other countries.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, this is awsome!

First you, and then DISgusting hoping against hope that the constant dumb-beat, er, drumbeat from from your coterie would cow me, silence me, and by the sheer weight of numbers, allow you to walk away in victory.

Clearly you you are both misguided,and have misjudged.

My cause is just: I guard the interests of the weakest, the child-yet-to-be-born. You, self-interested brats.

Almost 300 posts, and I stand alone.

And you say "coward"??? Self-delusion, thy name is Ravi!

In my ongoing efforts at edifying in language, writing, and philosophy, you've given me the opportunity to teach you some highly appropriate poetry.

Here, and ode to my bravery: Invictus

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Yes, you are a coward. You feel very strongly that this woman should not be allowed to bear her dead lover's child. And yet you are afraid to start the ball rolling to prevent it.

And this vapid attempt at what in some circles passes for humor is all you have left?

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

Not sure why you take my statement as an attempt at humor. I am being totally serious. Perhaps if you tell yourself it was meant as humor you can hide your cowardice from yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, not being privy either to the actual case records or the laws of that state, I can only guess, but I'd say that since the circumstances were so unusual, the medical personnel involved wouldn't perform the procedure without a court ruling.

And no, the judge had no legal standing to "investigate" anything except whether or not there was anyone in the family objecting, or any legal basis for blocking the procedure.

Nonsense.

Judge has every right to gather material that would aid in making an informed decision.

Why do you suppose the Brisbane judge ordered the sperm frozen?

No, he doesn't. The law prescibes very specific "material" which he has the right to consider, let alone demand, in a case. I realize that in all too many cases these days, judges act as though they're omnipotent, but they really aren't. And I don't know of anything in the law that gives the judge the right in this instance to investigate whether or not a woman is suitable to get pregnant. If you'd like to cite me that particular law, I'd be happy to read it.

I don't care why the Brisbane judge did anything. We aren't in Brisbane, and I don't give a damn what the laws are in other countries.

Well, let's see what you do give a damn about.

To be clear, this thread is not about the law, it is about the essence of motherhood.

To be on one side of this debate, or the other, you decide whether or not you agree with this quote:
"To be a mother, you and another adult, committed partner (i.e. spouse) have the interest, intent, ability, and means to make the necessary sacrifices of time, attention, and resources to give the child the nurturing, security, support, love and education he or she needs!
Procreation has little to do with your needs; it has everything to do with the child's needs."

If you do not agree, then I see you as belonging to the majority of those writing on this thread, the "motherhood is all about me," mentality.

If I stand alone, so be it.

 

[Anguille]

My concern is that a child did not have to be born into what is a less than ideal situation.

Then no children need be born. Let them all go straight to heaven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, you are a coward. You feel very strongly that this woman should not be allowed to bear her dead lover's child. And yet you are afraid to start the ball rolling to prevent it.

And this vapid attempt at what in some circles passes for humor is all you have left?

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

Not sure why you take my statement as an attempt at humor. I am being totally serious. Perhaps if you tell yourself it was meant as humor you can hide your cowardice from yourself.

There is no substance to your posts, just some feeble attempt at some kind of attack

Your kind of post is what gives women the appearance of being shallow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My concern is that a child did not have to be born into what is a less than ideal situation.

Then no children need be born. Let them all go straight to heaven.

Post #314

 

[Ravi]

And this vapid attempt at what in some circles passes for humor is all you have left?

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

Not sure why you take my statement as an attempt at humor. I am being totally serious. Perhaps if you tell yourself it was meant as humor you can hide your cowardice from yourself.

There is no substance to your posts, just some feeble attempt at some kind of attack

Your kind of post is what gives women the appearance of being shallow.

If no one raises an objection the woman will impregnate herself with the harvested sperm. Why are you not actively seeking to file an objection?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, thanks for participating, (300 posts in the thread!) and serving as foil as I revealed the principled side of this argument.

Hopefully, you gals have learned something of intelligent argument, clear thinking, and about the injection of literary references to make posts more interesting.

I hope in some small way I have paved the path to help you make the journey back from the 'darkside.'

Poly, I love reading your posts but I cringed when when I saw the word "gal". I'm shocked that use of that irritating word has spread as far east as Brooklyn. Please don't use it again. Thank you.

I guess I see humor where others don't.

After all of the offensive language used on this thread, none by me, you feel the need to criticize my use of 'gals'????

Now, that's funny.

 

[Anguille]

Poly, do you think all adults have always been adults? Do you think children will always be children? Everyone, if they are fortunate enough will be both. This adults must prostrate themselves before children thing is crazy.
Some children are also mothers. Do you expect total sacrifice from them too? How do you reconcile that?