Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[PoliticalChic]

There is no potential child yet.

And potential life has no rights. You might not like that. But it's fact.

Again, no one opposed the application. It wasn't the judge's place to insert his own religious beliefs ... assuming he would agree with you.

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

You truly HATE liberals, don't you... especially for 'getting whatever they want whenever they want it, no matter the ramifications'... hmm... some personal issues maybe?

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

 

[AllieBaba]

You sound like I hurt your feelings or something, pinhead.

It's about setting a precedent. And it's not a good precedent to set.

But then, neither is legalized abortion in the name of family planning, or embryonic harvesting.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not directed at you, Pol. Chic.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

An 'easy bake oven', so to speak?

 

[Dis]

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

You truly HATE liberals, don't you... especially for 'getting whatever they want whenever they want it, no matter the ramifications'... hmm... some personal issues maybe?

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but it could very well be that if no one whatsoever was protesting this, and whoever the executor of his estate/owner of his corpse in agreement, the judge might not actually have had any choice under the law but to render this judgement. I'd have to ask someone.

 

[Ravi]

You truly HATE liberals, don't you... especially for 'getting whatever they want whenever they want it, no matter the ramifications'... hmm... some personal issues maybe?

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

I agree with you 100% on this topic, but I've got to ask...how do you know they are Mexican?

 

[AllieBaba]

That's right. If Octomom could do it, everyone should be able to!

 

[Dis]

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

I agree with you 100% on this topic, but I've got to ask...how do you know they are Mexican?

Honestly? I don't. Assumption, based on the sound of first and last names. However, I'm too lazy to go back and put that in my posts so this one will have to do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You truly HATE liberals, don't you... especially for 'getting whatever they want whenever they want it, no matter the ramifications'... hmm... some personal issues maybe?

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

 

[Ravi]

There ARE no credible studies that say single motherhood accounts for the majority of the prison population.

This is how REAL conservatives behave: they don't give a fuck about how other people live their lives.

Clear?

 

[AllieBaba]

However there are credible studies which show that the majority of prisoners come from single-parent homes.

 

[AllieBaba]

"The weight of evidence indicates that the traditional family based upon a married father and mother is still the best environment for raising children, and it forms the soundest basis for the wider society."
Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family

Translated, this means that children from a fatherless home are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of school
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison"
Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics

Reports from the US show the effect that absence of a father has on nearly 22% of American children in a fatherless home is:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: US DHHS Bureau of the census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Centre for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principles Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: US Dept of Justice Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
Statistics

 

[Dis]

In careful consideration as a result of your post, I must state that I don't hate anyone.

I don't expect you to read my many posts, but you would see that I have principled and thought out reasons for disagreement.

With liberals, I merely would like them to act like adults and, and as good parents do with respect to raising their children, sometimes do what may not be easiest or best for themselves, but act in accordance with the best interest of their children, or, in this case, society.

I am saddened, though, when I see adults doing what appeals to them at the moment, without careful consideration. This is acceptable when choosing a new car, but not when making a decision that bodes ill for the future of their child.

Clear?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

PC, what exactly were you implying then, when you said this: Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock?

Who is it you think is responsible for the first child now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There ARE no credible studies that say single motherhood accounts for the majority of the prison population.

This is how REAL conservatives behave: they don't give a fuck about how other people live their lives.

Clear?

Isn't it sad when big font is the substitute for big thinking?

Now, let's read carefully. I believe the point was that the majority of inmates come from single parent households.


-Most inmates were raised in single-parent households, over 25% had parents who abused drugs or alcohol, and 37% had at least one immediate family member incarcerated.
Someone to Come Home To: Parenting Programs for Men in Prison/ Quelqu'un de special a la maison: Des programmes pour les peres detenus

More than half of all inmates did not live with both
parents while growing up,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/sospi91.pr

the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto
Race and Prison | Drug War Facts


Let me know if you need more help with this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

PC, what exactly were you implying then, when you said this: Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock?

Who is it you think is responsible for the first child now?

First, you made up that they were Mexican?

Next, by ignoring my 'review' questions, can I assume that you see the relevance and acquiesce to there pertinance?

Third, "children born to married couples, those born outside of marriage score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens."
Out of Wedlock Birthrate Out of Control » The Foundry

The reference to poverty in the quote implies welfare.

 

[AllieBaba]

Dis made up that they were Mexican?

Perhaps we should re-visit the topic of RELEVANCE, since it's of so much importance....

 

[jillian]

I think Dis' assumption that they were Mexican was in response to their last name and its seeming relevance to PC's position. Given where she lives, Dis would probably associate an hispanic name with Mexican immigrants as opposed to another group.

They may be Mexican... they could be Puerto Rican... they could be Dominican...
lots of possibilities... but which flavor of hispanic isn't relevant to Dis's point...

but you already know that.

 

[Dis]

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

PC, what exactly were you implying then, when you said this: Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock?

Who is it you think is responsible for the first child now?

First, you made up that they were Mexican?

Next, by ignoring my 'review' questions, can I assume that you see the relevance and acquiesce to there pertinance?

Third, "children born to married couples, those born outside of marriage score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens."
Out of Wedlock Birthrate Out of Control » The Foundry

The reference to poverty in the quote implies welfare.

I didn't "make up" - I was asked and truthfully said that I assumed based on the names. Whether or not they ARE Mexican has absolutely no bearing on anything, and is simply a way for you to nitpick.

As for your "review" questions, I'm not there yet, and I also think they're irrelevant, since adoption references children already in existence, and in a lot of cases, needing specialized care, rather than just a home.

"Implies" welfare? It was clearly stated that he had at least one, if not two jobs, they were pretty much all but in possession of a piece of paper that states they're bound by law..

So, you pretty much *assumed* they were/are/will be on welfare, you assumed they're liberals simply because of what the mother asked a judge for, regardless of the fact that nobody in their entire FAMILY disputed it, including the deceased *parents* who would have had more say-so by default over the girlfriend?

Someone asked...how is this any different than her going to a sperm bank, other than the fact that this was someone she was mentally, physically, and emotionally attached to?

The judge had nothing that required him to do anything.. Nor did he have any *valid and legal* reason for denying said request of BOTH the fiancee AND THE MANS MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, etc.

 

[Dis]

Dis made up that they were Mexican?

Perhaps we should re-visit the topic of RELEVANCE, since it's of so much importance....

That's the best that you have? I assumed they were Mexican, so my entire argument is irrelevant if they're not?

Please, Allie. You look foolish.