Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[jillian]

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."

That's what a lawyer told you? Theoretically, he's right, I suppose... but we're talking about what was the right answer.

I wonder if thats what your friend tells his clients.

 

[Valerie]

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."

There were no legal grounds to deny the request. I asked my lawyer friend.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Oh thank God! I can sleep tonight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

We've reached the saturation point of your comprehension? I understand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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."

There were no legal grounds to deny the request. I asked my lawyer friend.

Did you see Jilian's post: "Theoretically, he's right, I suppose."

But you've arrived on the thread after some time. We were giving out opinions as to the correctness of the outcome, not the law.

I feel that we should study the possible outcomes for the child, rather than the wishes of the adult.

 

[Article 15]

I feel that we should study the possible outcomes for the child, rather than the wishes of the adult.

What evidence do you have to cite about this particular case that provides insight to this particular child's possible outcomes?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Oh thank God! I can sleep tonight.

I didn't think for a moment that it would prevent your sleeping, merely meant to communicate to you that beyond ignorance, and the gutter snipe personal attack, you have now added - and I'll mention another book that I'm certain you haven't read, "The Trial," by Franz Kafka, which also deals with the detestable nature of 'hidden' charges.

As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

 

[Ravi]

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.

Oh thank God! I can sleep tonight.

I didn't think for a moment that it would prevent your sleeping, merely meant to communicate to you that beyond ignorance, and the gutter snipe personal attack, you have now added - and I'll mention another book that I'm certain you haven't read, "The Trial," by Franz Kafka, which also deals with the detestable nature of 'hidden' charges.

As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

You're just lazy...if you really wanted the answer the question you'd find it. You're very transparent, PC.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh thank God! I can sleep tonight.

I didn't think for a moment that it would prevent your sleeping, merely meant to communicate to you that beyond ignorance, and the gutter snipe personal attack, you have now added - and I'll mention another book that I'm certain you haven't read, "The Trial," by Franz Kafka, which also deals with the detestable nature of 'hidden' charges.

As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

You're just lazy...if you really wanted the answer the question you'd find it. You're very transparent, PC.

So, let's see. Beaten thoroughly each time we joust, your new strategy is to hint at some charge. Base.

And you, indolent or cowardly.

What is your charge, varlet?

 

[Valerie]

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."

There were no legal grounds to deny the request. I asked my lawyer friend.

Did you see Jilian's post: "Theoretically, he's right, I suppose."

But you've arrived on the thread after some time. We were giving out opinions as to the correctness of the outcome, not the law.

I feel that we should study the possible outcomes for the child, rather than the wishes of the adult.

In the legal JUDGEment of the JUDGE there were no grounds to deny the request, that's the fact jack.

SHOULD he have had legal grounds to deny such a request based on the one single fact that the child would presumably fatherless? IMO, no.

You're correct, I have not read the entire thread, but that's my reaction to what I've read so far.

 

[Ravi]

LOL! You've had your ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread...by me, Jillian, Dis, Ceccie and Valarie to name but a few. I fully expect you to take up Pubic's ridiculous victory declaration.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I feel that we should study the possible outcomes for the child, rather than the wishes of the adult.

What evidence do you have to cite about this particular case that provides insight to this particular child's possible outcomes?

Covered well in this thread, repeated often, this is not about evidence.

Did you read the original story?

If so, did it indicate that the judge ordered any investigation into the way the prospective child would be supported? The way the mother is bringing up her child? Were, in fact, any questions asked at all?

The judge has set precedent that is this woman wants to have said child, so be it.

This is not to society's benefit, and may very well be against the best interests of a child brought into this situation.

Now, if you agree, fine. If not, also fine.

But I presume that your disagreement will not take the form that Dis regularly chooses: rather than debte, she has simply neg rep'd several times.

Such bravery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL! You've had your ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread...by me, Jillian, Dis, Ceccie and Valarie to name but a few. I fully expect you to take up Pubic's ridiculous victory declaration.

I am so glad that you made this point.

I've been waiting for it.

Liberals are so afraid of the disapproval of the herd, and feel so validated by same, that it underscores the weakness of their arguments and their character! You feel that by yourself, you are nothing, and on this I concur.

Having read much, and thought much, I need only my own validation. Thus the strength of character and principle that you might emulate.

Have you read Edmond Rostand? No? Let me help with a quote from CYRANO: I wear my adornments on my soul. Oh- I used to have a pair of gloves. But I lost one of them. Careless of me-- I left it in [Ravi's] face! ...

 

[Article 15]

I feel that we should study the possible outcomes for the child, rather than the wishes of the adult.

What evidence do you have to cite about this particular case that provides insight to this particular child's possible outcomes?

Covered well in this thread, repeated often, this is not about evidence.

I've read the entire thread. I've seen statistics cited but I haven't seen anything case specific. There is a big difference between the two the latter being what's credible and the former being ... statistics.

Did you read the original story?

I read both of them.

If so, did it indicate that the judge ordered any investigation into the way the prospective child would be supported? The way the mother is bringing up her child? Were, in fact, any questions asked at all?

No, none of that was mentioned in the story. What did jump out at me though was that the man suddenly dropped dead and they had 36 hours before the sperm became no good. The way the story read it sounded like much of that time was eaten just getting the emergency hearing. It was a time crunch, if the judge ordered an investigation the window would have closed.

The judge has set precedent that is this woman wants to have said child, so be it.

This is not to society's benefit, and may very well be against the best interests of a child brought into this situation.

But the judge found no reason to deny the request and nobody from either family objected to it. Hell, the guy's mother was part of the driving force to get it done and it sounded like this is what the guy would have wanted.

Regarding the best interest of the child, the fact is that nobody in this thread knows what is or what isn't in the best interest of this potential child.

 

[Valerie]

The judge has set precedent that is this woman wants to have said child, so be it.

This is not to society's benefit, and may very well be against the best interests of a child brought into this situation.

Are you sure you are a woman?

 

[Article 15]

PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete?

 

[Dis]

LOL! You've had your ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread...by me, Jillian, Dis, Ceccie and Valarie to name but a few. I fully expect you to take up Pubic's ridiculous victory declaration.

I am so glad that you made this point.

I've been waiting for it.

Liberals are so afraid of the disapproval of the herd, and feel so validated by same, that it underscores the weakness of their arguments and their character! You feel that by yourself, you are nothing, and on this I concur.

Having read much, and thought much, I need only my own validation. Thus the strength of character and principle that you might emulate.

Have you read Edmond Rostand? No? Let me help with a quote from CYRANO: I wear my adornments on my soul. Oh- I used to have a pair of gloves. But I lost one of them. Careless of me-- I left it in [Ravi's] face! ...

So now EVERYONE that disagrees with you and thinks you're wrong is a Liberal?

Is there no level to which you won't stoop in order to try to garner yourself a self-proclaimed "win"?

Seriously. That's sad.

(Oh, and "several" negs? You're a liar. 2. Stop whining.)

 

[dilloduck]

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL! You've had your ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread...by me, Jillian, Dis, Ceccie and Valarie to name but a few. I fully expect you to take up Pubic's ridiculous victory declaration.

I am so glad that you made this point.

I've been waiting for it.

Liberals are so afraid of the disapproval of the herd, and feel so validated by same, that it underscores the weakness of their arguments and their character! You feel that by yourself, you are nothing, and on this I concur.

Having read much, and thought much, I need only my own validation. Thus the strength of character and principle that you might emulate.

Have you read Edmond Rostand? No? Let me help with a quote from CYRANO: I wear my adornments on my soul. Oh- I used to have a pair of gloves. But I lost one of them. Careless of me-- I left it in [Ravi's] face! ...

So now EVERYONE that disagrees with you and thinks you're wrong is a Liberal?

Is there no level to which you won't stoop in order to try to garner yourself a self-proclaimed "win"?

Seriously. That's sad.

(Oh, and "several" negs? You're a liar. 2. Stop whining.)

Oh,did I hurt you?

The post was to Ravi who implied that having several on her side resulted in " ass whooped from here to Sunday on this thread." Of course, she needs several on her side to make it fair.

I identified her as a liberal, and you feel it necessary to pick up the gauntlet. I guess you need the back-up as well. Get it: I referred to Ravi. But if you would like to be lumped in, so be it.

But I give as good as I get, no matter the number.

I didn't claim any "win," I merely consider my opinion righteous, and have defended it as such. I don't stoop to stab-in-the-back tactics, like neg reps, as you do.

Although you eschew the title 'liberal,' you immediatly use the term 'liar,' which the liberal uses to claim superiority, as though it was an actual thought.

In one day, on this thread, you have twice used neg reps twice in place of actual debate. An indication of a weak argument.

BTW, 'several' may mean more than two, but also as follows:
Dictionary.com, 'several' : several persons or things; a few; some
I await your apology.

And, I never whine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete?

Yes.

But the point of the discussion, and, generally, the back and forth on the board, is to kick around ideas and opinions. I offered mine with the view that the judge is setting a precedent which I find not in the best interests of all concerned.

An investigation along the lines of what is de rigueur in adoptions would have made me more sanguine.