Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[PoliticalChic]

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?

The last tiime I checked. But why do you ask?

 

[Valerie]

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?

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

No, PC. Not clear and definitely not enough. Notice where your theories about the best interest of the child are mostly based on what YOU feel?

There was absolutely no basis for the judge to deny the request. Period. By your logic we should outlaw divorce, I suppose?

Typical fascist Republican! (kidding)

 

[Dis]

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?

Not in the least - you don't hold that power.

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.

You have called ME a liberal no less than half a dozen times in the last two days. And you still do in this particular response, as well. That is the gauntlet I choose to pick up and slap you with.

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

When do you start?

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.

Nope.. When you're losing, you stoop to to standard right wingnut tactics like referring to your opponents as "liberals" as if that's a crushing blow in and of itself. Epic fail, m'dear.

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.

I called you a liar for stating I gave you "several negs" - I gave you two. Standard definition for "several" is at least 3.

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

In TWO days I have TWICE neg repped you - one for insinuating single people should never be allowed to adopt on that criteria alone, and one for trolling, and constantly using the term "liberal" as an attempt to get a rise, rather than sticking to the topic at hand, and putting forth your *facts* (none of which you had).

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.

My dear, hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you exactly what you are - a liar.

And, I never whine.

What, exactly, do you call this?

 

[dilloduck]

It'll be a cold day in the morgue if some woman comes to snatch my body parts after I'm dead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Not in the least - you don't hold that power.

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.

You have called ME a liberal no less than half a dozen times in the last two days. And you still do in this particular response, as well. That is the gauntlet I choose to pick up and slap you with.

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

When do you start?

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.

Nope.. When you're losing, you stoop to to standard right wingnut tactics like referring to your opponents as "liberals" as if that's a crushing blow in and of itself. Epic fail, m'dear.

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.

I called you a liar for stating I gave you "several negs" - I gave you two. Standard definition for "several" is at least 3.

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

In TWO days I have TWICE neg repped you - one for insinuating single people should never be allowed to adopt on that criteria alone, and one for trolling, and constantly using the term "liberal" as an attempt to get a rise, rather than sticking to the topic at hand, and putting forth your *facts* (none of which you had).

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.

My dear, hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you exactly what you are - a liar.

And, I never whine.

What, exactly, do you call this?

"This" is called giving you what you deserve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC - Where's your link showing that the judge, and all family members from both sides a Liberals? Or, is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society (you made a reference about society picking up the tab earlier)?

And while we're at it, what makes you qualified to determine who can and can not have children, or be a single parent? I know PLENTY of single parents (some just on this board alone) who make better parents by themselves, than full-fledged families.

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

No, PC. Not clear and definitely not enough. Notice where your theories about the best interest of the child are mostly based on what YOU feel?

There was absolutely no basis for the judge to deny the request. Period. By your logic we should outlaw divorce, I suppose?

Typical fascist Republican! (kidding)

Since you are patently wrong about the judge, I guess that makes you wrong in general.

 

[Dis]

Oh,did I hurt you?

Not in the least - you don't hold that power.

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.

You have called ME a liberal no less than half a dozen times in the last two days. And you still do in this particular response, as well. That is the gauntlet I choose to pick up and slap you with.

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

When do you start?

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.

Nope.. When you're losing, you stoop to to standard right wingnut tactics like referring to your opponents as "liberals" as if that's a crushing blow in and of itself. Epic fail, m'dear.

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.

I called you a liar for stating I gave you "several negs" - I gave you two. Standard definition for "several" is at least 3.

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

In TWO days I have TWICE neg repped you - one for insinuating single people should never be allowed to adopt on that criteria alone, and one for trolling, and constantly using the term "liberal" as an attempt to get a rise, rather than sticking to the topic at hand, and putting forth your *facts* (none of which you had).

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.

My dear, hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you exactly what you are - a liar.

And, I never whine.

What, exactly, do you call this?

"This" is called giving you what you deserve.

Do all of the single mothers/fathers on here deserve hearing/seeing you say that they're not fit to adopt a child simply because they're unwed?

Oh, and if "this" is the best you've got, save yourself the effort, and use it against the next person that's going to stomp all over your weak-assed selfish arguments.

 

[dilloduck]

What, exactly, do you call this?

"This" is called giving you what you deserve.

Do all of the single mothers/fathers on here deserve hearing/seeing you say that they're not fit to adopt a child simply because they're unwed?

Oh, and if "this" is the best you've got, save yourself the effort, and use it against the next person that's going to stomp all over your weak-assed selfish arguments.

Doesn't bother me a bit-----she's a damn sperm swiper.

 

[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?

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.

I guess what has me trippin' about your point that a precedent has been set is that nobody challenged the request. I mean, I'm not a lawyer or anything but if a similar case were to come up and the family of the deceased were to challenge the request could their argument be thrown out because of this ruling? I'm not so sure that's what would go down. What I suspect would happen is what I just suggested in my last post, acquiesce but withhold the sperm until an investigation, etc.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFL... "Don't Label me MAN!" LOL... Isn't it cool how the left can't STAND Truth in lableing?

Cracks me up.

 

[Article 15]

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.

ROFL... "Don't Label me MAN!" LOL... Isn't it cool how the left can't STAND Truth in lableing?

Cracks me up.

She's a rightie, you jackass.

 

[dilloduck]

withhold the sperm until an investigation, etc.

That's what my girlfriend always says!!

 

[RodISHI]

It'll be a cold day in the morgue if some woman comes to snatch my body parts after I'm dead.

You'd better get that written into your will. then again judges have broken wills and trusts pretty regularly. Maybe you should just take care of the issue prior to death.

 

[dilloduck]

It'll be a cold day in the morgue if some woman comes to snatch my body parts after I'm dead.

You'd better get that written into your will. then again judges have broken wills and trusts pretty regularly. Maybe you should just take care of the issue prior to death.

How much are you willing to pay for em ?

 

[Valerie]

First, this is not a case of, as they used to say, a "card carrying commie."

To behave as a liberal is to be, for the purposes of this event, a liberal. You know, the old "walks like a duck, etc." Giving more weight to the feelings of this prospective mom than to the future of the child is not a conservative way to behave. I say this based on studies which show that, for example, the majority of those in prison come from single mom homes.

For the purposes of this discussion, giving in to this request without the consideration for the future of the child, or of society if this were to be precedent setting, is a liberal way of thinking.

Thus, a demand for a 'link' which shows a picture of the judge and the label 'liberal' is beyond necessary. But since he is a "Bronx judge," you can bet he is a Democrat. Enough?

Now, as far as "is this just an assumption on your part, and a further assumption that because they're Mexican, they're on welfare, and therefore going to suck off society," don't infer where I didn't imply. What you are doing here is attempting to cloud the issue.

To review: I feel that a) there was no marriage, and so this woman does not have the same rights that would be given to a wife, and b) this judge had no precedent that required him to place another child in this situation.

I asked earlier, and again, if instead of a judge, this question were before an adoption agency, would they place a child in this situation?

No, PC. Not clear and definitely not enough. Notice where your theories about the best interest of the child are mostly based on what YOU feel?

There was absolutely no basis for the judge to deny the request. Period. By your logic we should outlaw divorce, I suppose?

Typical fascist Republican! (kidding)

Since you are patently wrong about the judge, I guess that makes you wrong in general.

Whatever gets you through the night.

So WHY do you think the JUDGE in his legal JUDGEment didn't agree with you?

Funny you get off on constantly telling people what they can't comprehend when you can't even comprehend that statistics about single motherhood are not even relevant to the legal matter at hand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What, exactly, do you call this?

"This" is called giving you what you deserve.

Do all of the single mothers/fathers on here deserve hearing/seeing you say that they're not fit to adopt a child simply because they're unwed?

Oh, and if "this" is the best you've got, save yourself the effort, and use it against the next person that's going to stomp all over your weak-assed selfish arguments.

Sadly, you have exposed yourself as a very small person who cannot contend with being confronted.

So insecure, that you are constantly trying to drag others, as in "single mothers/fathers on here," in to back up what has been shown as a weak, self-centered, insipid defense of what you see as the all-powerful desire for wish-fulfillment of this person, about whom you know nothing.

Since you have difficulty in focusing, 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.

Your respose has been DISappointing and DISreputable.

Consider yourself DISmissed.

 

[Dis]

If you want to continue this conversation, drop the liberal vs. conservative bullshit with me. I don't play it.

ROFL... "Don't Label me MAN!" LOL... Isn't it cool how the left can't STAND Truth in lableing?

Cracks me up.

She's a rightie, you jackass.

Don't confuse the dear boy with facts.

 

[RodISHI]

It'll be a cold day in the morgue if some woman comes to snatch my body parts after I'm dead.

You'd better get that written into your will. then again judges have broken wills and trusts pretty regularly. Maybe you should just take care of the issue prior to death.

How much are you willing to pay for em ?

Zip.

 

[dilloduck]

You'd better get that written into your will. then again judges have broken wills and trusts pretty regularly. Maybe you should just take care of the issue prior to death.

How much are you willing to pay for em ?

Zip.

I'm going to get Mani to auction them off for me-----wait--that sounds bad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you want some M&M's and a Coke? You must be finished with your popcorn by now.