Lesbian Sues Sperm Bank Because She Gave Birth To Black Baby

[Jarlaxle]

Becoming a degenerate lezbo is a "choice".

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

You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography!

 

[NLT]

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.

Why are most lesbians fat ugly and pissed off. Bodey?
Racist lesbians below

 

[GreenBean]

I do feel sorry for that child. The child deserves better.

I hear they want to retroactively enact post birth abortion .

 

[NLT]

Want to try it in English, Ebonics man?

Try what in English? Saying youre stupid translates in any language.

Except when it doesn't! Damn, you never check shit, do you?.... But can't expect much from a ghetto boy!

Why would I check shit? You may check your shit for lice eggs but I dont have that issue. Seem more like you should be checking the article because you look like a fool claiming she is a racist when you havent taken the time to read the story.

Of course she is, or it wouldn't matter what color her baby is! But logic has never worked well for you!

You must not know what racist means. Figures. Its hard to teach people with low brain cell counts what definitions entail..

Racist=Asclepias

 

[daws101]

I do feel sorry for that child. The child deserves better.

I hear they want to retroactively enact post birth abortion .

you'd be first in line.

 

[MikeK]

What if there was a different kind of surprise the baby presented the Lesbian Mothers?

What if the baby had Down's Syndrome?

That would be a different kind of birth condition they would not have planned for nor welcomed.

Would they sue for having a Downs Syndrome baby if they could?

Of course!

I don't think so, because that would occur as an entirely different circumstance.

Even if the couple were inclined to sue because of a Down Syndrome baby I'm not sure that condition can be blamed entirely on the fertilizing sperm, as can the baby's race, because the Down effect occurs during development.

The race of a baby derives either from the father or the mother. It is not a developmental defect.

 

[MikeK]

[Liberal]There are no dog breeds, all dogs are equal. Breeds are just a social construction.[/liberal]

Then you acknowledge no physical or behavioral differences between a cocker spaniel and a rottweiler, or a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

 

[MikeK]

Fight White Privilege! The First Step Towards A Racially Just Society Starts With Rejecting White Sperm! All Sperm Are Equal! (Except white sperm, it's not equal.)

By acknowledging "White sperm" you acknowledge the White race. Specifically what to you mean by "rejecting White sperm?" Genocide?

 

[Rikurzhen]

[Liberal]There are no dog breeds, all dogs are equal. Breeds are just a social construction.[/liberal]

Then you acknowledge no physical or behavioral differences between a cocker spaniel and a rottweiler, or a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

Liberals all know that race is a social construction. Don't be racist and appeal to dogs.

 

[mdk]

I don't even know where to begin. This story is bizarre. They are entitled to their money back from the Sperm Bank but the rest of their suit is just frivolous nonsense.

 

[MikeK]

Liberals all know that race is a social construction. Don't be racist and appeal to dogs.

I will agree that some Liberals prefer to believe "race" is a social construct. But educated Liberals understand the word "race" used in reference to genetic grouping of humans is a semantic substitute for what in academic fact are sub-groupings of the human species, or sub-species.

Each of the various human sub-species are visually identifiable by certain consistent physical characteristics, such as pigmentation, hair texture, and facial features.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals all know that race is a social construction. Don't be racist and appeal to dogs.

I will agree that some Liberals prefer to believe "race" is a social construct. But educated Liberals understand the word "race" used in reference to genetic grouping of humans is a semantic substitute for what in academic fact are sub-groupings of the human species, or sub-species.

Each of the various human sub-species are visually identifiable by certain consistent physical characteristics, such as pigmentation, hair texture, and facial features.

OK, I'll get serious for a moment. Those "some liberals" that you refer to have just recently adopted this position. I've worked with academics who've been assaulted by liberal blank slatists who believed that there was no biological component to race and that anyone who differed was an enemy of science.

There were idiots and prevaricators like Stephen Jay Gould who wrote:

"It looks as though all non-African diversity is a product of the second migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa - a migration so recent that there just hasn't been time for the development of much genetic variation except that which regulates some very superficial features like skin color and hair form. For once the old cliché is true: under the skin, we really are effectively the same. And we get fooled because some of the visual differences are quite noticeable."
​

When I was in graduate school I was constantly battling "educated liberals" who inhabited sociology departments who denied the genetic basis of race:

When social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth took the podium at a recent interdisciplinary seminar on emotions, she was already feeling rattled. Colleagues who'd presented earlier had warned her that the crowd was tough and had little patience for the reduction of human experience to numbers or bold generalizations about emotions across cultures. Ellsworth had a plan: She would pre-empt criticism by playing the critic, offering a social history of psychological approaches to the topic. But no sooner had the word "experiment" passed her lips than the hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males. Ellsworth agreed that white Victorian males had done their share of damage in the world but noted that, nonetheless, their efforts had led to the discovery of DNA. This short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to a halt with the retort: "You believe in DNA?"

More grist for the academic right? No doubt, but this exchange reflects a tension in academia that goes far deeper than spats over "political correctness." Ellsworth's experience illustrates the trend -- in anthropology, sociology, cultural studies and other departments across the nation -- to dismiss the possibility that there are any biologically based commonalities that cut across cultural differences. This aversion to biological or, as they are often branded, "reductionist" explanations commonly operates as an informal ethos limiting what can be said in seminars, asked at lectures or incorporated into social theory. Extreme anti-innatism has had formal institutional consequences as well: At some universities, like the University of California, Berkeley, the biological subdivision of the anthropology department has been relocated to another building -- a spatial metaphor for an epistemological gap.
​

Try an experiment. Go find a sociology professor or go and read some social science in a number of fields and see how frequently you can spot genetic controls for race in their studies. It's all environment, all the time.

What you're pointing to is a very recent phenomenon, liberals grudgingly conceding ground that they can no longer defend and then revising history to say that, "of course, some of us understand that there is a biological component to race" as though this was always their position. The lying shits.