Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[Dis]

PC, what was your opinion of the judges ruling on the Terri Schiavo case?

You mean you're throwing in the towel on this one?

PC, what was your opinion of the judges ruling on the Terri Schiavo case?

PC, do you have any actual indication that the judge in this case investigated nothing whatsoever?

 

[Ravi]

I throw it back in your two faces.

Why do you refuse to give full consideration to the situation into which the child-to-be will be born?

Why are the 'feelings' of the prospective mother the only 'feelings' under consideration?

Because the urge to bear a child is a biological function...thus a feeling. Why is your feeling more important? Why does your feeling even matter? Why do you want a judge to decide based on your feelings?

And finally, why do you care?

It seems that you have no clue how lacking in reason your response is. Biological function? How does this bear on her the subject?

Again:I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

Biological function? The judge should have said, oh, you have the biological function so go ahead and have a child??? That's a legal decision??? Taken to a far off conclusion, should she have the right to choose the semen of anyone she chooses, at any time, because its "a biological function"?

I should have realized that discussing a serious topic with on as limited as you have provern to be is pointless. But I must admit it's fun slapping you around.

Now, a primer for your edification:
Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

See how you are the 'poster child' for this kind of thinking?

Yep, a biological urge to be a mother is a valid argument.

PC, you're a skank. Your opening post was written to bash liberals. You've no idea if this woman is a liberal or not. I don't know what led you to that conclusion...her hispanic name, the fact she was unmarried...I suspect only that you don't agree with her is all it took.

You used this woman and her grief to bash not only liberals but also single mothers. You're trash.

If you could admit it you would at least earn some respect.

And your regurgitation of Coulter's talking points makes you trash without a brain of your own.

Sleep well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you FEEL the judge did not use good JUDGEment in consideration of the FACTS before him?

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child. Do you have any indication that he investigated?

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

 

[Dis]

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child. Do you have any indication that he investigated?

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Why don't you just answer the questions put forth to you? Do you have any indication that he didn't investigate anything?

Any person on the planet has every right to make any request they wish - it's called freedom of speech. Whether or not those requests are granted is another matter entirely.

The decision had to be made quickly. How long, exactly, do you think it takes to verify employment, and do a criminal background check? 5 minutes, toots. 5 of them. What else would you have him verify? TWO families were willing to care for this child. In fact, she even said she doesn't know when she'll do the insemination process, other than "when the time is right".

Who the **** are you to decide you can dictate the outcome of someone elses life?

Busted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because the urge to bear a child is a biological function...thus a feeling. Why is your feeling more important? Why does your feeling even matter? Why do you want a judge to decide based on your feelings?

And finally, why do you care?

It seems that you have no clue how lacking in reason your response is. Biological function? How does this bear on her the subject?

Again:I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

Biological function? The judge should have said, oh, you have the biological function so go ahead and have a child??? That's a legal decision??? Taken to a far off conclusion, should she have the right to choose the semen of anyone she chooses, at any time, because its "a biological function"?

I should have realized that discussing a serious topic with on as limited as you have provern to be is pointless. But I must admit it's fun slapping you around.

Now, a primer for your edification:
Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

See how you are the 'poster child' for this kind of thinking?

Yep, a biological urge to be a mother is a valid argument.

PC, you're a skank. Your opening post was written to bash liberals. You've no idea if this woman is a liberal or not. I don't know what led you to that conclusion...her hispanic name, the fact she was unmarried...I suspect only that you don't agree with her is all it took.

You used this woman and her grief to bash not only liberals but also single mothers. You're trash.

If you could admit it you would at least earn some respect.

And your regurgitation of Coulter's talking points makes you trash without a brain of your own.

Sleep well.

You really can't contend with my argument, can you. There is no counterpoint in your post, so it must really mean "I'm so frustrated and angry that I don't know what to do..."

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child. So far, I haven't seen any ability on your part to counter it.

I used to think, when I read vapid posts like yours, "she can't be this devoid of intellect," but you've convinced me that you certainly can.

BTW, I'm sure the term 'skank' has some personal meaning for you, but I'm unfamiliar with it. Could it be some archaic form of liberal smear?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Why don't you just answer the questions put forth to you? Do you have any indication that he didn't investigate anything?

Any person on the planet has every right to make any request they wish - it's called freedom of speech. Whether or not those requests are granted is another matter entirely.

The decision had to be made quickly. How long, exactly, do you think it takes to verify employment, and do a criminal background check? 5 minutes, toots. 5 of them. What else would you have him verify? TWO families were willing to care for this child. In fact, she even said she doesn't know when she'll do the insemination process, other than "when the time is right".

Who the **** are you to decide you can dictate the outcome of someone elses life?

Busted.

Stop foaming at the mouth and read post #136 for Art 15's suggestion.

 

[Dis]

Once again, PC...Do you have any indication whatsoever that the judge didn't investigate anything, given it takes precisely 5 minutes to do a background check, and employment verification?

 

[Valerie]

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child. Do you have any indication that he investigated?

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Epic bust.

My response to this BLATHER aimed at Dis is your first response to me:

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

He's not an investigator he's a JUDGE. What you meant to say is: I FEEL the judge did not investigate!

What do you think he was judging if not the FACTS of the circumstances?

 

[Dis]

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Why don't you just answer the questions put forth to you? Do you have any indication that he didn't investigate anything?

Any person on the planet has every right to make any request they wish - it's called freedom of speech. Whether or not those requests are granted is another matter entirely.

The decision had to be made quickly. How long, exactly, do you think it takes to verify employment, and do a criminal background check? 5 minutes, toots. 5 of them. What else would you have him verify? TWO families were willing to care for this child. In fact, she even said she doesn't know when she'll do the insemination process, other than "when the time is right".

Who the **** are you to decide you can dictate the outcome of someone elses life?

Busted.

Stop foaming at the mouth and read post #136 for Art 15's suggestion.

Is that a trait of right wingnuts? To simply avoid any answer to specific questions, but rather fling an insult, and dodge the question?

 

[Dis]

Shit. I'm not any good at group labeling. Guess I'll give up on that one..

Well, PC?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have any indication that he DIDN'T?

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Epic bust.

My response to this BLATHER aimed at Dis is your first response to me:

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

He's not an investigator he's a JUDGE. What you meant to say is: I FEEL the judge did not investigate!

What do you think he was judging if not the FACTS of the circumstances?

You really should try to post on a subject you know something about, or you come out looking really dumb.

Judges regularly order investigations and reports.

 

[Valerie]

Exactly the response I expected, honestly, you're so predictable.

The first attack by your side, early in this thread, was that she has every right, and nobody objected so the judge had to give in to her request.

Now you want to feign that he investigated before he decided, even though the news reports focus on how quickly the decision had to be made.

Busted.

Epic bust.

My response to this BLATHER aimed at Dis is your first response to me:

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

He's not an investigator he's a JUDGE. What you meant to say is: I FEEL the judge did not investigate!

What do you think he was judging if not the FACTS of the circumstances?

You really should try to post on a subject you know something about, or you come out looking really dumb.

Judges regularly order investigations and reports.

Send him your stats on single mothers, I'm sure it will help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Epic bust.

My response to this BLATHER aimed at Dis is your first response to me:


He's not an investigator he's a JUDGE. What you meant to say is: I FEEL the judge did not investigate!

What do you think he was judging if not the FACTS of the circumstances?

You really should try to post on a subject you know something about, or you come out looking really dumb.

Judges regularly order investigations and reports.

Send him your stats on single mothers, I'm sure it will help.

Is that your way of saying that I am correct, and you beg my pardon?

 

[Valerie]

You really should try to post on a subject you know something about, or you come out looking really dumb.

Judges regularly order investigations and reports.

Send him your stats on single mothers, I'm sure it will help.

Is that your way of saying that I am correct, and you beg my pardon?

Not quite.

WHY don't you just admit you know nothing about this family and the FACTS involved with THIS case that the judge legally reviewed and subsequently dismissed and admit the rest of your blather is just an excuse to post your "single-mother-bad" mantra?

 

[Father Time]

Why should the judge rule no in this case?

The guy wanted to have another child before he died, his next of kin were fine with it.

Why should the decision be up to the state?

Why, when there are next of kin readily available, should the state suddenly own the remains of someone and get to decide what to do with it?

Shouldn't whoever owns the body (and attached sperm) be allowed to dictate what happens to it or would it be all right for states to act like every corpse is their possession?

I mean hey you get to decide in a will what happens to your earthly remains (car goes to kids, wife gets house etc.). Why should sperm, blood etc suddenly belong to the state? Why should they have a right to take it from you when it's obviously worth something?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why should the judge rule no in this case?

The guy wanted to have another child before he died, his next of kin were fine with it.

Why should the decision be up to the state?

Why, when there are next of kin readily available, should the state suddenly own the remains of someone and get to decide what to do with it?

Shouldn't whoever owns the body (and attached sperm) be allowed to dictate what happens to it or would it be all right for states to act like every corpse is their possession?

I mean hey you get to decide in a will what happens to your earthly remains (car goes to kids, wife gets house etc.). Why should sperm, blood etc suddenly belong to the state? Why should they have a right to take it from you when it's obviously worth something?

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

 

[Dis]

Why should the judge rule no in this case?

The guy wanted to have another child before he died, his next of kin were fine with it.

Why should the decision be up to the state?

Why, when there are next of kin readily available, should the state suddenly own the remains of someone and get to decide what to do with it?

Shouldn't whoever owns the body (and attached sperm) be allowed to dictate what happens to it or would it be all right for states to act like every corpse is their possession?

I mean hey you get to decide in a will what happens to your earthly remains (car goes to kids, wife gets house etc.). Why should sperm, blood etc suddenly belong to the state? Why should they have a right to take it from you when it's obviously worth something?

If you have the time to read the entire thread, you will see that this has been covered.
The couple in question were not married, and there is no precedent here.

By point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions.

No, it has NOT been covered, PC. The mans NEXT OF KIN (that would be his parents and brother, mind you) asked the judge for this - not JUST his fiancee.

The NEXT OF KIN should have the ultimate say-so, especially if the mans own wishes were readily known, and his family was in keeping with that.

How ******* dumb ARE you?

 

[Dis]

Know what... Nevermind. Pretty much everyone thinks you're full of BS. No point in arguing further. You're wrong. Simple as that. G'day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Send him your stats on single mothers, I'm sure it will help.

Is that your way of saying that I am correct, and you beg my pardon?

Not quite.

WHY don't you just admit you know nothing about this family and the FACTS involved with THIS case that the judge legally reviewed and subsequently dismissed and admit the rest of your blather is just an excuse to post your "single-mother-bad" mantra?

Why don't you admit that your are, intellectually speaking, blind.

And what is it that you claim to know about this family?

As for the facts of the case, I know as much as anyone who read the news reports, nothing more.

What's humorous is that you know nothing, but you are absolutely certain that I am wrong.
Blind? None so as those who will not see.

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

And your objection would be...?

 

[Valerie]

Is that your way of saying that I am correct, and you beg my pardon?

Not quite.

WHY don't you just admit you know nothing about this family and the FACTS involved with THIS case that the judge legally reviewed and subsequently dismissed and admit the rest of your blather is just an excuse to post your "single-mother-bad" mantra?

Why don't you admit that your are, intellectually speaking, blind.

And what is it that you claim to know about this family?

As for the facts of the case, I know as much as anyone who read the news reports, nothing more.

What's humorous is that you know nothing, but you are absolutely certain that I am wrong.
Blind? None so as those who will not see.

I'll remind you that my position is that a responsible judge should have investigated the situation into which he was placing the soon-to-be child.

And your objection would be...?

And I'll remind you of your ACTUAL position as posed in your OP:

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.