Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[PoliticalChic]

You have no business deciding how someone elses life should play out simply because you disagree with their principles, and how they've lived their life thus far. That's not your call to make. You don't know why they didn't get married prior to having their first child, and quite frankly, it's none of your god damned business.

You've also pretty much insulted every single parent on here, either because they conceived prior to being married, or because they're now single, so therefore, in your eyes are not fit to parent another child through adoption, or any other means.

Who the hell do you think you are? Really.

You've pretty much revealed yourself as a fool, making up out of whole cloth most of what you claim I stand for. I'd use the term 'liar' but that term has pretty much been appropriated by the left.

It comes down to this simple choice: do you cast your lot with this mother, who 'wishes' to have another child, or with the child yet to be conceived, who will be raised surrounded by a multitude of question marks.

At no point have you provided proof that there was a marriage in the works, that the mother has a stable life, that she has done a good job parenting the two year old, that she has a way of providing for a family.

The only proof here is that you agree with the "I want what I want, whenever I want it" philosophy. Liberal.

She has one child, and 100% of her efforts should be aimed toward this already-born child.

And the only mothers that I have insulted are those who think that motherhood is all about them, and I stand with those mothers who will deny themselves so as to give their children the best chance in life.

According to you, the judge should have not allowed the woman to get the sperm... by extension of that.... you're inviting the government to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body and what kind of family she wants to have. Aren't you the one clamoring for 'smaller government', etc.? You're contradicting yourself, PC.

The only extension here is your nose, Pinocchio.

Yes, I think the judge should have denied the request. The indication that she has no legal basis for the request is that she had to go to a judge.

I've met enough people in my life that I've felt like they should never procreate, yet I know that it is their business, their right, their decision and I have NOTHING to say to that and no right to interfere in their lives - in other words, my opinion amounts to SHIT in relations to their lives and how they should lead it.

Let me try to enlighten you. Yes, it is their business, and no, you have no right to interfere in their lives. This is very different from not giving your opinion when you see wrong being done. I commend to you the great Edmund Burke, who said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I give my opinion and the reasons for same. Notice how different this is from the behavior of liberals, whose prime directive is "don't you dare criticize anything anyone does," as embodied in phrases such as "Who the hell do you think you are."

The government should only intervene with a family when a child is in obvious and provable danger of harm. Otherwise it's none of anyone's business.

And the government should not intervene here to give permission for an egregious event.

BTW, I wholly agree with the value you state for your opinion.

That said, your opinion as to what she can/should do amounts to NADA, ZIP, ZERO and you have to get over that...

Then why have you and your ilk invested so much emotion on the opposite side? Methinks I have hit a nerve, and there must be some humanity, deep deep down, where liberals realize that not all behavior should be validated.

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.

Unwittingly you have announced the motto of the liberal: "silence anyone who disagrees with me."

I feel blessed with the results of my input in my children. Thank you so much for being concerned with their well-being. My blessings on you and yours, and may they bring you as much joy as mine bring me. But, speaking of our children, I think you might want to curb your language.

And since you were so concerned with how I use my time, in all modesty I must admit that this morning I met with a group of home schoolers and took them to the NYC Fire Museum, a tour I had arranged some time ago, and came back in time to answer your post.

With a little effort, you might manage your time as well.

You see? It sucks when someone meddles in your personal affairs... yeah, and it's correct - it's none of my damn business. Clear now?

As your anger seems to have sidetracked your thinking, let me remind you of the point of this thread. This single mother, raising her child to the best of her ability, now believes that the respect she wishes to pay to her lost lover, would be best represented by having his child.

With no marital status, and with the information at hand, we have no way of knowing how well she has done raising the first child, how she will suppot the one, or two children, or anything about the young lady's life, some on this board say "Go ahead, do whatever she wishes."

I say without further information, and with full consideration for the new life at question, the judge had no impetus to give in to the request.

Clear? Now, write soon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope, but she's got numbers indicating the woman and/or her kids will likely end up in prison because she's single now, through no fault, or choice of her own.

Ahem. She was always single and she and her boyfriend did have a choice. They could have gotten married before they had their first child. I

I notice the main tenet of Liberalism is that they can't stand when flaws in their behavior or characters are pointed out.

Oh no. I see another neg rep coming.

A lot of people could have gotten married before they had their first child, but didn't for whatever reason. Who are you to dictate the way the rest of their lives should play out?

I'm dictating nothing. You merely wish to stifle dissenting opinion. How liberal of you.

I guess the birthday present is going to be a dictionary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It comes down to this simple choice: do you cast your lot with this mother, who 'wishes' to have another child, or with the child yet to be conceived, who will be raised surrounded by a multitude of question marks..

Chic, what child is not born surrounded by a multitude of question marks?

And the only mothers that I have insulted are those who think that motherhood is all about them, and I stand with those mothers who will deny themselves so as to give their children the best chance in life.

A mother who lives a reasonable life, who does not make herself into a martyr or a doormat for her kids or anyone else, who is unselfish but looks out for herself too, is a mother who gives her kids the best chance in life by setting an example of how to live a balanced life.

Yep. And a mother that puts her kids on a pedestal is raising monsters.

I hope you're not speaking from personal experience.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

 

[Dis]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Hey...everyone needs a role model...even if it is one of the nuttier ones...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

 

[Dis]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Well, at least you called the right one a Liberal this time.. You're getting better... Continually calling ME one just gets YOU funny looks from pretty much everyone that knows me.

 

[Shogun]

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

I asked you a question and you ignored it...lol, now don't get all passive aggressive on us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Well, at least you called the right one a Liberal this time.. You're getting better... Continually calling ME one just gets YOU funny looks from pretty much everyone that knows me.

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prespecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

I asked you a question and you ignored it...lol, now don't get all passive aggressive on us.

Question?

Are you asking me to respond to "Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?"

Is that actually your question?

 

[Dis]

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Well, at least you called the right one a Liberal this time.. You're getting better... Continually calling ME one just gets YOU funny looks from pretty much everyone that knows me.

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prespecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision. You only know it was declared that he had no viable grounds to *deny* the request.

And while my opinion on this case may be "liberal" in your opinion, at least I'm not locked in to one view just so I can keep my "conservative" tag according to your definition of the word. That's YOUR world.

In my world, there ARE actually some gray areas to be explored. Not everything is black and white.

YOU simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. Thus the reason you also think that single parents shouldn't be legally able to adopt. YOUR personal principles. Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else.

I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone else notice how easy it is to have a liberal fall from an untenable level of logical argument to some personal level of smear?

Let's review:
Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

I asked you a question and you ignored it...lol, now don't get all passive aggressive on us.

Question?

Are you asking me to respond to "Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?"

Is that actually your question?

No, the one you ignored yesterday. That one about your mainlining habit was asked to the board at large.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I asked you a question and you ignored it...lol, now don't get all passive aggressive on us.

Question?

Are you asking me to respond to "Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?"

Is that actually your question?

No, the one you ignored yesterday. That one about your mainlining habit was asked to the board at large.

Please provide the post to which you refer.

 

[Valerie]

Well, at least you called the right one a Liberal this time.. You're getting better... Continually calling ME one just gets YOU funny looks from pretty much everyone that knows me.

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prOspecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision. You only know it was declared that he had no viable grounds to *deny* the request.

And while my opinion on this case may be "liberal" in your opinion, at least I'm not locked in to one view just so I can keep my "conservative" tag according to your definition of the word. That's YOUR world.

In my world, there ARE actually some gray areas to be explored. Not everything is black and white.

YOU simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. Thus the reason you also think that single parents shouldn't be legally able to adopt. YOUR personal principles. Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else.

I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me.

In other words, the judge had no right acquiescing or not acquiescing, and that is the correct course of legal action in this circumstance, so Dis is correct.

 

[Ravi]

Question?

Are you asking me to respond to "Does anyone else picture PC sitting on her bed with a needle in her arm and one of Ann Coulter's books dripping into her vein?"

Is that actually your question?

No, the one you ignored yesterday. That one about your mainlining habit was asked to the board at large.

Please provide the post to which you refer.

No, you can look if you want. I'll save it for the next time you bring up this topic. Who knows though, maybe you'll think twice before demonizing single mothers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, at least you called the right one a Liberal this time.. You're getting better... Continually calling ME one just gets YOU funny looks from pretty much everyone that knows me.

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prespecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision. You only know it was declared that he had no viable grounds to *deny* the request.

And while my opinion on this case may be "liberal" in your opinion, at least I'm not locked in to one view just so I can keep my "conservative" tag according to your definition of the word. That's YOUR world.

In my world, there ARE actually some gray areas to be explored. Not everything is black and white.

YOU simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. Thus the reason you also think that single parents shouldn't be legally able to adopt. YOUR personal principles. Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else.

I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me.

See, here is another problem I have with you: you can't seem to separate what's real from what you imagine.

First:"You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision" While you don't know any of this, I was the one who made the point that there are things that should be considered before the decision was made.

And the judge could deny the request for any reason. He's the judge. He has now made precedent.

There are many places where single parents are able to adopt. But thorough investigations take place to ascertain the responsibility of said adoptions. Here, it seems as though the judge simply said, "OK."

See, here's what I mean about your grip on reality:" You simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. "

On numerous posts I've asked for exactly that: further discussion before it is allowed, investigation as I would expect in an adoption.

And again "Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else."

Have someone read my arguments to you, and perhaps they will explain that that is exactly what I want.

"I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me." I'm pleased to see this growth in you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prOspecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision. You only know it was declared that he had no viable grounds to *deny* the request.

And while my opinion on this case may be "liberal" in your opinion, at least I'm not locked in to one view just so I can keep my "conservative" tag according to your definition of the word. That's YOUR world.

In my world, there ARE actually some gray areas to be explored. Not everything is black and white.

YOU simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. Thus the reason you also think that single parents shouldn't be legally able to adopt. YOUR personal principles. Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else.

I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me.

In other words, the judge had no right acquiescing or not acquiescing, and that is the correct course of legal action in this circumstance, so Dis is correct.

Wrong.

If it were the case, why go before a judge?

BTW, I asked a lawyer for his opinion and he said " He's the judge; he can do what he wishes."

 

[Dis]

Dis, on this issue, you are a liberal, or if that makes you unhappy, let's say your opinion is liberal.

What we are debating is precedent for public policy. I claim that without more information, without a better view of the life of the prespecive second child, the judge had no business acquiescing.

Wishes of the mom, or consideration for the child.

You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision. You only know it was declared that he had no viable grounds to *deny* the request.

And while my opinion on this case may be "liberal" in your opinion, at least I'm not locked in to one view just so I can keep my "conservative" tag according to your definition of the word. That's YOUR world.

In my world, there ARE actually some gray areas to be explored. Not everything is black and white.

YOU simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. Thus the reason you also think that single parents shouldn't be legally able to adopt. YOUR personal principles. Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else.

I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me.

See, here is another problem I have with you: you can't seem to separate what's real from what you immagine.

First:"You don't actually know what the judge looked at to make his decision" While you don't know any of this, I was the one who made the point that there are things that should be considered before the decision was made.

And the judge could deny the request for any reason. He's the judge. He has now made precedent.

There are many places where single parents are able to adopt. But thorough investigations take place to ascertain the responsibility of said adoptions. Here, it seems as though the judge simply said, "OK."

See, here's what I mean about your grip on reality:" You simply wanted to deny her request on your own principle alone, with no further discussion. "

On numerous posts I've asked for exactly that: further discussion before it is allowed, investigation as I would expect in an adoption.

And again "Those don't take in to account what might be good for anyone else."

Have someone read my arguments to you, and perhaps they will explain that that is exactly what I want.

"I simply hold far more conservative views than liberal views. Sue me." I'm pleased to see this growth in you.

Your brain is broken. Dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, the one you ignored yesterday. That one about your mainlining habit was asked to the board at large.

Please provide the post to which you refer.

No, you can look if you want. I'll save it for the next time you bring up this topic. Who knows though, maybe you'll think twice before demonizing single mothers.

It's so easy to be a liberal.

"No" means you made it up, but that doesn't lower my opinion of you. 'Cause it couldn't be lower.