Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[AllieBaba]

If the assumption they're Hispanic didn't mean anything, then I guess it's irrelevant, no?

 

[Dis]

If the assumption they're Hispanic didn't mean anything, then I guess it's irrelevant, no?

Let's assume they're purple aliens with yellow bikinis, and pink flip-flops.

How does that change the validity of any point that I've made?

 

[AllieBaba]

It just makes it an irrelevant observation.

And we all know how you despise those.

Except, of course, in this case the observation truly IS irrelevant. Not just too much for you to absorb at once.....

 

[Dis]

It just makes it an irrelevant observation.

And we all know how you despise those.

Except, of course, in this case the observation truly IS irrelevant. Not just too much for you to absorb at once.....

Seriously? I typed "mexican" in one post, while making several points; Ravi asked how I knew, I said I assumed, and that's what you're running with because you can't refute a single post I've made? My one little (possibly incorrect) observation in an entire thread is one thing..

You wasting an entire post to say something so highly ridiculous and so far-fetched it's not even fathomable, much less part of the current discussion just because you feel like you got your pigtails pulled, and the majority happens to think you're full of shit is entirely another. You're really going to compare my assumption that they're mexican to THIS:

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.

?


Really. Grow up. I've nothing left to say to you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

You really are too easy.

 

[WorldAHope]

It would be wrong if she was married to him, too.

There's just so much wrong with the engineering of children it boggles the mind.

After digging up Abe and stealing his sperm, I want to dig up what's left of James Dean and have one of his kids.

You can get the sperm bank's genticists to splice the two spermatazoa together, so you can produce
Abrajames Lincdean - or Jamesbraham Deancoln.
Could be a troublesome blend, like a mix of ketchup and espresso.
Good luck. Implant a bunch of the zygotes and you will be as famous as Octomom.
Get an agent.

 

[WorldAHope]

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A New York judge has given a woman permission to harvest her dead lover's sperm so she can still have his baby.

Johnny Quintana was only 31 when he died Thursday of an apparent heart attack.

He had wanted to have a second child with his fiancee, Gisela Marrero, but the only way to make it happen was to quickly collect his sperm, which stays fresh for only 36 hours after death.

A court order was needed because Quintana and Marrero were not yet married.

The Bronx judge said "yes" Friday with only four hours left until the deadline.

Sperm bank staffers then rushed to Jacobi Medical Center, where Quintana's body lay.

Marrero already has a 2-year-old son with Quintana.

HeraldNet: Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

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'm glad it was not a same sex relationship, with the survivor going to court to harvest sperm from his departed lover's chilled cadaver, while Momma sobs......
New York is wierd enough, as it is.

I'd counsel the woman, "move on...find another man..."

 

[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?

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.

I can read just fine, but thanks for the offer. Next time I need a wingnut to misinterpret data I'll call on you.

This is what you said:

I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

Nothing you've posted backs that up. Even if you could somehow find a link that backed you up, you would not have proven that single motherhood results in life in the pen...which is what you keep implying on this thread and others.

80% of the prison population is Christian.

 

[AllieBaba]

You really take pride in your stupidity, don't you, Ravi?

I've never met somebody who was actually proud of being an idiot, and played on it for attention. This point has already been proven, and again, and again, but here you go:

"Sixty per cent of America's rapists, 72 per cent of adolescent murderers and 70 per cent of long-term prison inmates come from fatherless homes."
CHILDREN OF SINGLE FAMILIES

70% of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up with one or neither parent
43% of adult inmates grew up in single-parent homes
30% of children live with never-married mothers repeat a grade
22% of children who living with divorced mothers repeat a grade
compared with 12% of those living with both biological parents
Fatherless Homes

For instance, a study by the University of Maryland found that the best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not race or poverty, it is the percentage of households without fathers. National surveys of prison inmates have found that 60 percent of American rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of all inmates serving long prison terms all come from homes where they grew up without their fathers.
Alabama Policy Institute :: Archived Article

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of illegitimate births in 1999 for blacks in Alabama was 67.8 percent compared to 17.2 percent for whites. These figures agree with the percentages of blacks and whites serving time and these are the data that state officials should be concerned about.
Alabama Policy Institute :: Archived Article

Over 50% of current inmates come from single headed families, or were raised by other family members and in foster homes.
A Sentence of Their Own: Resources - Fact Sheet

And while it's understood that children who grow up in a single-parent household are at a DISADVANTAGE and therefore land in prison, choosing Christianity upon entering prison is generally an attempt to OVERCOME obstacles and become a better functioning member of society.

People don't go into prison and then lose their parents. But they do go into prison and choose Christianity because it provides them with a playbook for moral and functional living.

Nice red herring, though. Too bad you use it every single time you open your mouth to blab on this subject.

 

[Ravi]

Nice effort, Babble, but you didn't prove her statement with any of your links.

But they do go into prison and choose Christianity because it provides them with a playbook for moral and functional living.

Sorry, dearie...you missed my point. 80% of prison inmates are Christians before they go in.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure, Ravi. We all know how accurate you always are when it comes to data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I can tell that you are hot under the collar. When you calm down, you'll see that it's pretty silly to state " he had at least one, if not two jobs," since in his unfortunate condition this will have no bearing on the income of his growing family.

Did it state that the young lady had a job, or two, and if so how will you continue with same if she becomes 'infanticipating.'

Will your opinion change if you are convinced that the family will require public assistance?

As far as "request of BOTH the fiancee AND THE MANS MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, etc." What does this have to do with the question at hand? You can go to court and ask for the high school ring of a classmate who passed on, and the judge could throw it out of court saying that you have no standing to make this request, and might have done the same here.

And the phrase " emotionally attached to," isn't that on page 72 of the Liberal Dictionary?

My point remains that the judge should have done this as the proper way to serve the larger community. Remember...no precedent.

 

[AllieBaba]

But after all, we are a Christian nation. It makes sense that the majority are Christian.

 

[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.

I can read just fine, but thanks for the offer. Next time I need a wingnut to misinterpret data I'll call on you.

This is what you said:

I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

Nothing you've posted backs that up. Even if you could somehow find a link that backed you up, you would not have proven that single motherhood results in life in the pen...which is what you keep implying on this thread and others.

80% of the prison population is Christian.

I see the problem, you don't realize that the posts on this board require a working understanding of the English language!

As you correctly stated, I said "the majority of those in prison ."

Dictionary.com: the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the populatio

Do you see now? My links use terms like "most," "more than half." and "prevalence..." Do you see how these terms are related to "majority"?

You know, I can almost hear you saying :Ohhhhhh."

Clear?

BTW, what was the Christian thing about?

 

[Neser Boha]

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?

Well, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

The truth is that I do not read every single post of yours as there is quite a number of them out there; however, I've read a few to get a sense of your views. What I noticed, is that you repeatedly make every possible topic a liberal vs. conservative issue. To add to that, I've noticed an overwhelming bias against everything even remotely 'liberal' and also that you tend to label almost everything and everyone that you disagree with as 'liberal' (hence 'bad', 'disagreeable', 'evil', 'irresponsible', etc.).

I think you view your entire world in terms of 'liberal vs. conservative' and I think that it is a problem that you should deal with because: even though the USA is a large country with a sizable population, majority of the world you CAN'T view and 'analyze' in the typical US liberal vs. conservative black-n-white way... I'm sorry to say... as this seems to be your strong point.

I think this is the point where someone should introduce you to the book:

Mitchell, Brian P. 2007. Eight Ways To Run the Country: A New And Revealing Look At Left And Right. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

I think it might open your eyes to new realities... at least in the US context...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD now THAT's PRECIOUS!

One must "HATE" Liberals... when one contests their idiocy...

There's nothing more certain in this life than the CERTAINTY OF THE UNITENDED CONSEQUENCES born from the application of Left-think.

The guy dropped dead @31... not exactly spectacular genes to saddle your child with. Does it ALWAYS have to be about YOU PEOPLE?

The would-be FATHER IS DEAD. Nothing about that strikes you as inappropriate?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

Yet that is precisely what COMMON SENSE says... which explains why you're ignorant of it.

 

[Neser Boha]

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?

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD now THAT's PRECIOUS!

One must "HATE" Liberals... when one contests their idiocy...

There's nothing more certain in this life than the CERTAINTY OF THE UNITENDED CONSEQUENCES born from the application of Left-think.

The guy dropped dead @31... not exactly spectacular genes to saddle your child with. Does it ALWAYS have to be about YOU PEOPLE?

The would-be FATHER IS DEAD. Nothing about that strikes you as inappropriate?

Sweet cherry pie...

PoliticalChic was the one who made this into a liberal vs. conservative issue yet again. That's what she does, if you haven't noticed already.

The article was not about liberals, it was about some people and some judge that made a decision. It was her, who made the 'oh them stupid liberals are at it again' comment and attempted to make it to another liberal vs. conservative (or in other words evil vs. good) thread. Read the thread - even Dis addresses that.

And yeah, from what I've read of Political Chic's posts, she does seem to have a strong distaste for everything liberal.

 

[Dis]

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.

I can tell that you are hot under the collar. When you calm down, you'll see that it's pretty silly to state " he had at least one, if not two jobs," since in his unfortunate condition this will have no bearing on the income of his growing family.

Did it state that the young lady had a job, or two, and if so how will you continue with same if she becomes 'infanticipating.'

Will your opinion change if you are convinced that the family will require public assistance?

As far as "request of BOTH the fiancee AND THE MANS MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, etc." What does this have to do with the question at hand? You can go to court and ask for the high school ring of a classmate who passed on, and the judge could throw it out of court saying that you have no standing to make this request, and might have done the same here.

And the phrase " emotionally attached to," isn't that on page 72 of the Liberal Dictionary?

My point remains that the judge should have done this as the proper way to serve the larger community. Remember...no precedent.

If you want to continue this conversation, drop the liberal vs. conservative bullshit with me. I don't play it. I haven't ever labeled anyone here as anything as my basis for argument, and you have no business doing it to me.

If she were to talk in to an adoption agency and say the same thing, would YOU deny her a child (better yet, would you deny a child a safe home) simply because she's a single parent, regardless of the fact that she's a more than adequate parent, with a more than adequate lifestyle to support another child? Or would you simply rule her out because you don't believe single women should have children?

They were in the process of becoming married.. Had he died one day after the wedding, THEN what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I can tell that you are hot under the collar. When you calm down, you'll see that it's pretty silly to state " he had at least one, if not two jobs," since in his unfortunate condition this will have no bearing on the income of his growing family.

Did it state that the young lady had a job, or two, and if so how will you continue with same if she becomes 'infanticipating.'

Will your opinion change if you are convinced that the family will require public assistance?

As far as "request of BOTH the fiancee AND THE MANS MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, etc." What does this have to do with the question at hand? You can go to court and ask for the high school ring of a classmate who passed on, and the judge could throw it out of court saying that you have no standing to make this request, and might have done the same here.

And the phrase " emotionally attached to," isn't that on page 72 of the Liberal Dictionary?

My point remains that the judge should have done this as the proper way to serve the larger community. Remember...no precedent.

If you want to continue this conversation, drop the liberal vs. conservative bullshit with me. I don't play it. I haven't ever labeled anyone here as anything as my basis for argument, and you have no business doing it to me.

If she were to talk in to an adoption agency and say the same thing, would YOU deny her a child (better yet, would you deny a child a safe home) simply because she's a single parent, regardless of the fact that she's a more than adequate parent, with a more than adequate lifestyle to support another child? Or would you simply rule her out because you don't believe single women should have children?

They were in the process of becoming married.. Had he died one day after the wedding, THEN what?

Don't tell me what kind of argument to use. If you'd prefer not to debate me that's up to you.

No, if I was in charge of an adoption agency, she would certainly be denied adoption based on the fact that there would be no father in the home. As far as her being an "adequate parent" with an "adequate lifestyle" that is pure conjecture on your part and these were factors that the judge should have taken into account when making his decision.

You have no way of knowing that they were in the process of marriage. People in our society use the term "fiancee" quite loosely and will use that term even though there is no ring or a date.