Lesbian Sues Sperm Bank Because She Gave Birth To Black Baby

Rikurzhen

Gold Member
Jul 24, 2014
6,145
1,292
185
Stupid lesbian, doesn't she know that race is a social construction. She's suing a sperm bank for some imaginary bogus reason. Race doesn't exist except in the minds of racists. How insulting to feel cheated or harmed by having a black baby.

Now imagine how cheated that baby is going to feel when she realizes that her mother violated her human rights by taking away her right to know her father.

I have no sympathy for this human rights violator. Why can't I ever get called for jury duty on cases like this?

A white lesbian mother is suing a Chicago sperm bank after she claims she was mistakenly sent a black man's sperm and gave birth to a mixed-race daughter.

Jennifer Cramblett, 36, claims the mistake has caused her stress and anguish because her family is racist and she lives in a small, all-white Uniontown in northeast Ohio.

In a lawsuit filed this week in Cook County, Illinois, Ms Cramblett says Midwest Sperm Bank sent her several vials of a black man's sperm by mistake because the clinic keeps paper records and accidentally transposed numbers on her order.

The couple had specifically chosen a white donor to be the father of their child.
I hope this violates some civil rights law - imagine - shopping for a father on the basis of race. Every liberal on this board keeps telling me that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. She should have her case thrown out of court and be labeled a racist for wanting to have sperm from a white man.
 
Yes, God, there IS some justice in this world, after all...

laughing-o.gif
 
She's a racist

go figure

Well, the 'gay community' is made up almost entirely of sociopaths and fetishists. It is heavily segregated by race, age, sex, class, and choice of 'peccadilloes', and is by no means even remotely a 'rainbow of tolerance', which is why 'Progressives' and 'neo-liberals' are utter idiots for devoting so much political capital pandering to a demographic that is neither of those things. It's the politics of self-indulgence carried to absurdity.
 
I didn't realize you could mail order sperm. She shouldn't have bought sperm off of Ebay. Is there a lesbian fertility ritual? How sad it is for the little girl to be raised by racist black man haters. If it were not for the child this story would be humorous. As it is, it is really sad.
 
I didn't realize you could mail order sperm. She shouldn't have bought sperm off of Ebay. Is there a lesbian fertility ritual? How sad it is for the little girl to be raised by racist black man haters. If it were not for the child this story would be humorous. As it is, it is really sad.

You can do a lot with sperm. Here's a cookbook.

images
 
Jennifer Cramblett, 36, claims the mistake has caused her stress and anguish because her family is racist and she lives in a small, all-white Uniontown in northeast Ohio.
I doubt her family is happy about their daughters decision to become a dyke. ...... :cool:

For argument sake let's say she was born without a choice. Doesn't that mean she was meant not to have children? Doesn't that mean by being artificially inseminated she is going against evolution and science?
 
I didn't realize you could mail order sperm. She shouldn't have bought sperm off of Ebay. Is there a lesbian fertility ritual? How sad it is for the little girl to be raised by racist black man haters. If it were not for the child this story would be humorous. As it is, it is really sad.

You can do a lot with sperm. Here's a cookbook.

images

I can think of only one good use. Why you know of such a cook book, I didn't open link, is just a tad bit scary. :D
 
I didn't realize you could mail order sperm. She shouldn't have bought sperm off of Ebay. Is there a lesbian fertility ritual? How sad it is for the little girl to be raised by racist black man haters. If it were not for the child this story would be humorous. As it is, it is really sad.

You can do a lot with sperm. Here's a cookbook.

images

I can think of only one good use. Why you know of such a cook book, I didn't open link, is just a tad bit scary. :D

The link takes you to Amazon. You really should read the reviews. You'll bust a gut.
 
Well, 'science', as always, has a wonderfully progressive and enlightened solution to her problem of such an inconvenient baby.

After-birth abortion why should the baby live -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

  1. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

  2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.
We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

After all, why shouldn't people be able to shop for babies like they do cars and breakfast cereal? Isn't self-indulgence a civil right, too?
 
Well, I think it was logical, not racist, to want a white baby if both of the 'parents' are white. Genetics works somewhat like that, as far as I know.
I just wonder how this kind of a town can still exist in US...
Poor baby. Its life has started from a collision... What would happen to it in the future?
 
Becoming a degenerate lezbo is a "choice".

Choosing to have a lesbian birth only compounds her sick lifestyle choice. .... :doubt:

It's a fashion statement; some of the other lesbians are probably getting them as a fashion accessory so she wanted one, too. This baby will end up ignored as soon as the momentary fad wears off in the face of the realities and restrictions of child care set in. She will unload it on either her parents or grandparents, or hand it over to the state if they won't take it.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top