|
|
|
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17296_20031125.htm
A 22-year-old Detroit woman was charged Tuesday with falsely accusing
Detroit Lions wide receiver Scotty Anderson of raping her.
Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan announced the four-year felony
charge at a press conference Tuesday morning. Duggan said the charges
stem from a Sept. 17 incident at Anderson's Dearborn apartment that
spilled over into the early morning hours of Sept. 18.
The accusing woman, Nicole Milburn, who is a dancer at a Detroit
gentelman's club, went to Anderson's apartment with two friends on
Sept. 17 for a night of drinking, Duggan said.
At some point, Anderson had consensual sex with Milburn's friend, but
never with Milburn, Duggan said.
At 11 p.m. that night, Anderson confronted the women about $700 in
cash missing from his bedroom. At that point, one of the other women
told Anderson that Milburn picked up his discarded condoms from his
bedroom and allegedly put the contents inside of her, Duggan said.
The reason, according to Duggan: ``Apparently, either to hopefully
cause herself to be pregnant and have a child support claim, or
potentially, as it turned out, possibly to support a rape claim.''
Anderson and his 18-year-old cousin found three used condoms in
Milburn's back pocket, Duggan said. They also found some of the stolen
money stuffed into her hair, he said.
``They demanded the money back, at which point Ms. Milburn ran out
into the hallway of the building, screaming rape,'' Duggan said.
Neighbors called 911 and Dearborn police responded. Police also found
some of the stolen money hidden in Milburn's car, Duggan said.
``This is disturbing from so many perspectives,'' Duggan said. ``We
are seeing more and more people's reputations being tarnished with
false felony reports. This also hurts every woman who is raped and
goes through that trauma because it causes other women to pause and
wonder whether they're going to be believed when they see somebody who
is caught being a liar.''
Duggan said the two other women who accompanied Milburn confirmed that
she told them about her alleged rouse with the condoms.
Milburn is expected to turn herself in and be arraigned this week,
Duggan said.
Anderson, a 3-year veteran of the Lions, is currently on injured
reserve with an ankle injury.
|
| |
| |
in article 6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com, s_knight8 at
s_knight8@hotmail.com wrote on 11/26/03 8:33 AM:
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17296_20031125.htm
At 11 p.m. that night, Anderson confronted the women about $700 in
cash missing from his bedroom. At that point, one of the other women
told Anderson that Milburn picked up his discarded condoms from his
bedroom and allegedly put the contents inside of her, Duggan said.
The reason, according to Duggan: ``Apparently, either to hopefully
cause herself to be pregnant and have a child support claim, or
potentially, as it turned out, possibly to support a rape claim.''
Anderson and his 18-year-old cousin found three used condoms in
Milburn's back pocket, Duggan said. They also found some of the stolen
money stuffed into her hair, he said.
Leykis 101: "Before disposing used condom, put a dash of habanero sauce in
it"
Laurance
|
| |
| |
Laurance <lauranceking@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:BBEA1893.3B1C2%lauranceking@earthlink.net:
in article 6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com, s_knight8
at s_knight8@hotmail.com wrote on 11/26/03 8:33 AM:
Leykis 101: "Before disposing used condom, put a dash of habanero
sauce in it"
And the corollary: "Never have sex with someone who can hide things is
their hair."
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17296_20031125.htm
A 22-year-old Detroit woman was charged Tuesday with falsely accusing
Detroit Lions wide receiver Scotty Anderson of raping her.
Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan announced the four-year felony
charge at a press conference Tuesday morning. Duggan said the charges
stem from a Sept. 17 incident at Anderson's Dearborn apartment that
spilled over into the early morning hours of Sept. 18.
The accusing woman, Nicole Milburn, who is a dancer at a Detroit
gentelman's club, went to Anderson's apartment with two friends on
Sept. 17 for a night of drinking, Duggan said.
At some point, Anderson had consensual sex with Milburn's friend, but
never with Milburn, Duggan said.
At 11 p.m. that night, Anderson confronted the women about $700 in
cash missing from his bedroom. At that point, one of the other women
told Anderson that Milburn picked up his discarded condoms from his
bedroom and allegedly put the contents inside of her, Duggan said.
The reason, according to Duggan: ``Apparently, either to hopefully
cause herself to be pregnant and have a child support claim, or
potentially, as it turned out, possibly to support a rape claim.''
Anderson and his 18-year-old cousin found three used condoms in
Milburn's back pocket, Duggan said. They also found some of the stolen
money stuffed into her hair, he said.
``They demanded the money back, at which point Ms. Milburn ran out
into the hallway of the building, screaming rape,'' Duggan said.
Neighbors called 911 and Dearborn police responded. Police also found
some of the stolen money hidden in Milburn's car, Duggan said.
``This is disturbing from so many perspectives,'' Duggan said. ``We
are seeing more and more people's reputations being tarnished with
false felony reports. This also hurts every woman who is raped and
goes through that trauma because it causes other women to pause and
wonder whether they're going to be believed when they see somebody who
is caught being a liar.''
Its not such a picnic for the falsely accused, either.
But we need not mention that -- they're only men.
Duggan said the two other women who accompanied Milburn confirmed that
she told them about her alleged rouse with the condoms.
Milburn is expected to turn herself in and be arraigned this week,
Duggan said.
Anderson, a 3-year veteran of the Lions, is currently on injured
reserve with an ankle injury.
|
| |
| |
Hey msnyder@redhat.com, do you know where there are any personages of
historical significance around here?:
s_knight8 wrote:
Its not such a picnic for the falsely accused, either.
But we need not mention that -- they're only men.
Read the first sentence of that again, pardner. The one about tarnished
reputations.
--
TO
"I look at breasts.
.... uh, and, I'm a detective.
....but mainly the breast thing"--Duckman
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in
news:6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com:
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17296_20031125.htm
A 22-year-old Detroit woman was charged Tuesday with falsely accusing
Detroit Lions wide receiver Scotty Anderson of raping her.
So, judgement call here, ladies: if this crazy #@&@
had successfully made
herself pregnant, would it be right when Anderson inevitably had to pay her
child support?
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
"Robert Lee" <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:Xns943FB2BDD7D81cranchingwireearthli@207.69.154.204...
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in
news:6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com:
So, judgement call here, ladies: if this crazy #@&@
had
successfully made
herself pregnant, would it be right when Anderson inevitably had to
pay her
child support?
Yes, of course. The support is the child's, not the mother's. But I
think he'd have a strong case for custody.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in
news:6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com:
So, judgement call here, ladies: if this crazy #@&@
had successfully made
herself pregnant, would it be right when Anderson inevitably had to pay
her
child support?
--
--Robert
Not that you asked me, but yes, it would. And he should participate in
raising the kid. Heck, he should want to: it's his kid.
News flash: people accidentally have kids they didn't intend to all the
time. This is more unusual, but that's not the kid's fault. Under the
circumstances, he would have a good case to get physical custody, and go
after her for child support.
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:AWcxb.16106$n56.14666@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Not that you asked me, but yes, it would. And he should participate in
raising the kid.
Really? Because by that standard, every sperm donor in the country would
*also* be on the hook for child support, were it ever demanded.
So let me ask again: if a woman steals your sperm and impregnates herself
with it, should you be saddled with a lifetime of responsibility for a
child you didn't want and didn't do *anything* to bring about?
Because if you say "yes" again, then all you have to do is replace
"steal" with "buy," and you're demanding that sperm donors have
relationships with those children and pay for their upbringing. And that
isn't a significant word swap.
Heck, he should want to: it's his kid.
Why should he want to? Maybe he doesn't want kids, or doesn't want any
when he's 22 years old. And you can't even use the old "well, he
shouldn't have done the nasty, then" bull#@($ (that's only ever applied
to men in these arguments), because he didn't. He had sex with somebody
else and obviously took care to ensure there was no pregnancy.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if the men's rights guys are correct,
and men are presumed by most people to have *no* legal right of choice in
whether or not they want to have kids. Women, hell, if you don't want it
and you don't get around to aborting it before it pops out, we'll set up
a "no questions asked" drop box for you, but men apparently bear the
moral weight of fatherhood every time they shoot a load.
Which is old school Catholic crap, folks. You've taken all that stigma
and ridiculous burden off women, socially, and enhanced the male end, to
the point where men are apparently the *only* people responsible for
children.
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:AWcxb.16106$n56.14666@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Really? Because by that standard, every sperm donor in the country would
*also* be on the hook for child support, were it ever demanded.
Specific exception in the law, and stipulated to by both donor and
recipient. That's why the donor remains anonymous to the recipient.
So let me ask again: if a woman steals your sperm and impregnates herself
with it, should you be saddled with a lifetime of responsibility for a
child you didn't want and didn't do *anything* to bring about?
Guess you need to keep track of your sperm. Wow, what a concept.
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:Qedxb.16125$n56.10313@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:'
Specific exception in the law, and stipulated to by both donor and
recipient. That's why the donor remains anonymous to the recipient.
Actually, Bo, in case you haven't been following the news anymore, sperm
donors no longer have any right to privacy, even if the contract for
their donation stipulated that.
So this isn't exactly a blue-sky argument. Sperm donors in the US are
getting unwanted contact and visits from dozens of adult children who are
the result of quick money made back in college in the seventies. This is
going on right now. These men are in no sense any of these children's
"fathers" except the strict biological one, and they've got signatures on
paper promising their names would never be given out in the future, and
those contracts are no longer being honored, because nosy adult children
who apparently aren't happy with the actual families they had and haven't
thought the concept through that they're likely one of scores or even
hundreds of offspring resulting from a single donor want it to be so.
(Boy am I glad I never gave in and did this when I was younger and
poorer. I'd actually given it some thought again, of late, but then all
this #@($ happened, and no way am I risking having the kind of emotional
cripple who feels the need to hunt down a sperm donor descend on me in
droves in a few decades.)
It's not a big jump from there to "now you have to pay child support,
too, because her husband died."
So let me ask again: if a woman steals your sperm and impregnates
herself with it, should you be saddled with a lifetime of
responsibility for a child you didn't want and didn't do *anything*
to bring about?
Guess you need to keep track of your sperm. Wow, what a concept.
What the hell does that mean--you have to track it all down and lock it
in a vault? The condoms were in a wastebasket in this guy's room, and
there is a reasonable expectation that when you throw your used condom in
the trash, some nutso broad will not come along and baste her goodies
with your man juice.
Beyond false accusations, this woman commited an illegal entry and theft
in obtaining the sperm. You really consider the male crime victim
responsible for a resulting pregnancy in a case like this?
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
Robert Lee <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Xns943FBD7911F1Ecranchingwireearthli@207.69.154.203:
Actually, Bo, in case you haven't been following the news anymore,
I didn't mean to type "anymore," which makes no sense, I meant to type "on
this matter" or something similar.
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:Qedxb.16125$n56.10313@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:'
Actually, Bo, in case you haven't been following the news anymore, sperm
donors no longer have any right to privacy, even if the contract for
their donation stipulated that.
I did not know this!
So this isn't exactly a blue-sky argument. Sperm donors in the US are
getting unwanted contact and visits from dozens of adult children who are
the result of quick money made back in college in the seventies. This is
going on right now. These men are in no sense any of these children's
"fathers" except the strict biological one, and they've got signatures on
paper promising their names would never be given out in the future, and
those contracts are no longer being honored, because nosy adult children
who apparently aren't happy with the actual families they had and haven't
thought the concept through that they're likely one of scores or even
hundreds of offspring resulting from a single donor want it to be so.
Well, that is a tough one, but I have sympathy for the offspring, too, so
there is some balancing here. The state should set up an intermediary
mechanism through which the donor is contacted and can accept or decline
disclosure of his identity to the offspring.
That said, it isn't all that different from opening adoption records, which
some states have done. California keeps 'em sealed, don't know a count of
states that do so. Adults who were adopted as children want to see their
birth records, and the same promise of anonymity was made to the people who
gave those kids up for adoption long, long ago.
Absent any intermediary mechanism, I'd weigh the interests of the offspring
as having greater value than the privacy rights, since you have practical
issues of medical history to consider.
(Boy am I glad I never gave in and did this when I was younger and
poorer. I'd actually given it some thought again, of late, but then all
this #@($ happened, and no way am I risking having the kind of emotional
cripple who feels the need to hunt down a sperm donor descend on me in
droves in a few decades.)
Yeah, imagine, somebody wanting to find out about 50% of their heritage. If
you've never had the state cut you off from your blood relations, then maybe
you can't imagine how sad this is. I would hardly call myself an emotional
cripple, but I wouldn't mind meeting the half-siblings that share the same
father with me. But the state won't let me see the original birth
certificate, so I can't.
In order to protect the privacy of someone who, in all liklihood, is dead by
now. Yeah, great balancing act, that one.
It's not a big jump from there to "now you have to pay child support,
too, because her husband died."
And it's not a big leap from that to suing the state for damages for the
emotional distress of the kid finding you, as well as any subsequent costs
due to their invalidating the terms of a perfectly legal private contract
that the state was not a party to.
So let me ask again: if a woman steals your sperm and impregnates
herself with it, should you be saddled with a lifetime of
responsibility for a child you didn't want and didn't do *anything*
to bring about?
What the hell does that mean--you have to track it all down and lock it
in a vault? The condoms were in a wastebasket in this guy's room, and
there is a reasonable expectation that when you throw your used condom in
the trash, some nutso broad will not come along and baste her goodies
with your man juice.
Actually, they were in the back pocket of his jeans. But I quibble. The
point is, hate to say it, you better go to the trouble of flushing 'em.
That is, if you can't trust the women who are around when you're having sex.
Beyond false accusations, this woman commited an illegal entry and theft
in obtaining the sperm. You really consider the male crime victim
responsible for a resulting pregnancy in a case like this?
I think there was no illegal entry. She was already a visitor in his home
at the time. Theft, well, that's a stretch, but okay, the most petty of
theft. I'd let him sue her for whatever child support he had to pay, I'd
take away any resulting kid from her custody, and I'd give him the choice
about where the kid lived (with him or someone he chose that was fit).
You talk about "responsible" in the moral sense. That doesn't really apply.
It's a biological fact, his offspring, or not. Circumstances might impact
custody, civil suits, and all kinds of other things, but those come after
the fact that if she has his kid, it's his kid.
Anything else is punishing the kid for her crimes, and for the theft of
three used condoms you will punish the kid to no child support and no
father.
Why is it in the discussions of men's versus women's rights, everyone looks
at some balancing act that just about never takes the kid's rights in to the
equation at all?
I'm surprised that you, a parent, would not remember to plug what the kid
gains or loses in to your calculus.
Bo Raxo
|
| |
| |
In alt.true-crime on Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:02:08 GMT, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
her
Not that you asked me, but yes, it would. And he should participate in
raising the kid. Heck, he should want to: it's his kid.
News flash: people accidentally have kids they didn't intend to all the
time. This is more unusual, but that's not the kid's fault. Under the
circumstances, he would have a good case to get physical custody, and go
after her for child support.
I must disagree. People accidentally have kids when they have sex and
are often required to pay child support. The reason they can be
forced to do so is the "It takes two to tango" argument. Pregnancy
resulting from the illicit theft of sperm doesn't fall under this
argument. It seems unreasonable to expect that the unintentional
father in such a case should bear any responsibility at all. The
deception used to acquire his sperm pins 100% of the responsibility on
the one who did the deceiving.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
her
Not that you asked me, but yes, it would. And he should participate in
raising the kid. Heck, he should want to: it's his kid.
News flash: people accidentally have kids they didn't intend to all the
time. This is more unusual, but that's not the kid's fault. Under the
circumstances, he would have a good case to get physical custody, and go
after her for child support.
But she, for her stealing of his genetic material and creating a child
he didn't want, is ethically liable to him for all his financial cost
including compensation for emotional and general damages, plus interest,
legal fees, and punitive damages. When she gets hers paid, then she can
ask him for the child support (part of his costs).
Bob
|
| |
| |
In alt.true-crime on Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:02:08 GMT, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
I must disagree. People accidentally have kids when they have sex and
are often required to pay child support. The reason they can be
forced to do so is the "It takes two to tango" argument. Pregnancy
resulting from the illicit theft of sperm doesn't fall under this
argument. It seems unreasonable to expect that the unintentional
father in such a case should bear any responsibility at all. The
deception used to acquire his sperm pins 100% of the responsibility on
the one who did the deceiving.
Of course your right on who's responsible, but bo is referring to a moral
responsibility of it being your child. Regardless of how it was conceived,
it isn't the child's fault, and it's still your son or daughter, your flesh
and blood.
td
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:24:03 GMT, T O'B
<thisspaceintentionallyleftblank@ameritech.gnet>
Hey msnyder@redhat.com, do you know where there are any personages of
historical significance around here?:
Read the first sentence of that again, pardner. The one about tarnished
reputations.
Perhaps this is why he thinks everyone is out to get men - he can't
understand what he reads.
|
| |
| |
"wg bradley" <wgb@bogus.ca> wrote in message news:<FUcxb.500809$6C4.153717@pd7tw1no>...
"Robert Lee" <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:Xns943FB2BDD7D81cranchingwireearthli@207.69.154.204...
successfully made
pay her
Yes, of course. The support is the child's, not the mother's. But I
Strange how Marcia Clark petitioned the court for in increase in child
support SO SHE COULD PURCHASE A NEW WARDROBE FOR HERSELF.
If it's "the child's" money, then how come mommy-dearest never has to
show a single receipt demonstrating that a single cent has been spent
on behalf of the child
Simple...because "Child Support" is NOT "the child's"....it is MOMMY SUPPORT.
think he'd have a strong case for custody.
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message news:<AWcxb.16106$n56.14666@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
her
Not that you asked me, but yes, it would. And he should participate in
raising the kid. Heck, he should want to: it's his kid.
News flash: people accidentally have kids they didn't intend to all the
time. This is more unusual, but that's not the kid's fault. Under the
circumstances, he would have a good case to get physical custody, and go
after her for child support.
HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE SEX WITH THIS WOMAN!
She was at his residence at a party, and STOLE THE USED CONDOMS OUT OF
THE TRASH BIN.
|
| |
| |
Robert Lee <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Xns943FBA67F7FFcranchingwireearthli@207.69.154.206>...
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:AWcxb.16106$n56.14666@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Really? Because by that standard, every sperm donor in the country would
*also* be on the hook for child support, were it ever demanded.
Not to mention that in this case, the used condoms the woman used to get
the man's sperm inside her....were used NOT with her, but with ANOTHER WOMAN.
He never even had sex with this gold-digging sow.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message news:<fVdxb.16163$n56.796@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
I did not know this!
Par for the course when playing from the red(*) tees...
(*) female
So this isn't exactly a blue-sky argument. Sperm donors in the US are
getting unwanted contact and visits from dozens of adult children who are
the result of quick money made back in college in the seventies. This is
going on right now. These men are in no sense any of these children's
"fathers" except the strict biological one, and they've got signatures on
paper promising their names would never be given out in the future, and
those contracts are no longer being honored, because nosy adult children
who apparently aren't happy with the actual families they had and haven't
thought the concept through that they're likely one of scores or even
hundreds of offspring resulting from a single donor want it to be so.
Well, that is a tough one, but I have sympathy for the offspring, too, so
there is some balancing here.
Yes. Men should have the SAME right to renounce parenthood that women do.
The state should set up an intermediary
mechanism through which the donor is contacted and can accept or decline
disclosure of his identity to the offspring.
That said, it isn't all that different from opening adoption records, which
some states have done. California keeps 'em sealed, don't know a count of
states that do so. Adults who were adopted as children want to see their
birth records, and the same promise of anonymity was made to the people who
gave those kids up for adoption long, long ago.
Absent any intermediary mechanism, I'd weigh the interests of the offspring
as having greater value than the privacy rights, since you have practical
issues of medical history to consider.
Yeah, imagine, somebody wanting to find out about 50% of their heritage. If
you've never had the state cut you off from your blood relations, then maybe
you can't imagine how sad this is. I would hardly call myself an emotional
cripple, but I wouldn't mind meeting the half-siblings that share the same
father with me. But the state won't let me see the original birth
certificate, so I can't.
In order to protect the privacy of someone who, in all liklihood, is dead by
now. Yeah, great balancing act, that one.
And it's not a big leap from that to suing the state for damages for the
emotional distress of the kid finding you, as well as any subsequent costs
due to their invalidating the terms of a perfectly legal private contract
that the state was not a party to.
Actually, they were in the back pocket of his jeans. But I quibble. The
point is, hate to say it, you better go to the trouble of flushing 'em.
And clog the plumming.
Too bad he didn't follow the Leykis rule:
ALWAYS fill used condoms with Habenero sauce.
The scheming #@&@
would have been identified for the corrupt in-duh-vidual
that she is, right there, on the spot.
That is, if you can't trust the women who are around when you're having sex.
I think there was no illegal entry. She was already a visitor in his home
at the time. Theft, well, that's a stretch,
Did she have his permission to take a used condom from his trash and
stick it up inside her?
a) yes
B) ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE??!?!?!?!?
but okay, the most petty of
theft.
Considering the possible consequences of this theft, this is certainly
Felonious theft. We're talking damages to the victim which could
have accrued into the MILLIONS of dollars.
That, you sexist sow, is WAAAAAAAAAAY past the threshold of felonious
behavior.
I'd let him sue her for whatever child support he had to pay, I'd
take away any resulting kid from her custody, and I'd give him the choice
about where the kid lived (with him or someone he chose that was fit).
You talk about "responsible" in the moral sense. That doesn't really apply.
It's a biological fact, his offspring, or not. Circumstances might impact
Feminist claptrap.
custody, civil suits, and all kinds of other things, but those come after
the fact that if she has his kid, it's his kid.
Anything else is punishing the kid for her crimes, and for the theft of
This is NOT about the kid, and you know it.
You're just using the kid as an emotion-laden tool for extortion.
What gives a woman any RIGHT to unilaterally decide to make herself
pregnant, and then DEMAND that someone else pay for HER choice.
HER CHOICE....HER RESPONSIBILITY for any and all subsequent costs.
three used condoms you will punish the kid to no child support and no
father.
Why is it in the discussions of men's versus women's rights, everyone looks
|
| |
| |
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, of course. The support is the child's, not the mother's. But
I
Strange how Marcia Clark petitioned the court for in increase in
child
support SO SHE COULD PURCHASE A NEW WARDROBE FOR HERSELF.
If it's "the child's" money, then how come mommy-dearest never has
to
show a single receipt demonstrating that a single cent has been
spent
on behalf of the child
Simple...because "Child Support" is NOT "the child's"....it is MOMMY
SUPPORT.
OK, I'll bite...where is the child getting money to live?
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:fVdxb.16163$n56.796@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The state should set up an intermediary
mechanism through which the donor is contacted and can accept or
decline
disclosure of his identity to the offspring.
Excuse me, but why? He already made his opinion known at the time of the
donation. Why do you need a whole new bureaucracy in place to check and
make sure he really meant that?
I'd weigh the interests of the offspring
as having greater value than the privacy rights, since you have
practical
issues of medical history to consider.
Not in the same way as adoptees, no. In the sperm donation situation, the
kids already have one clear genetic line if they, say, need a kidney. If
they can't get one from mom's family...too @$#*ing bad for them, I guess.
Seriously, is the anonymous donor's supposed to field potential scores of
requests for medical assistance, just because?
Yeah, imagine, somebody wanting to find out about 50% of their
heritage.
What "heritage?" The genetic one? You'd have to work awfully hard to
convince me that any sperm donor kid has any compelling claim to
knowledge of that against the donor's wishes.
And it's not a big leap from that to suing the state for damages for
the
emotional distress of the kid finding you
Well, sure. Of course, you could just honor the original deal in the
first place and avoid any such necessity.
Actually, they were in the back pocket of his jeans.
No, they were in *her* pocket after she stole them.
I'm surprised that you, a parent, would not remember to plug what the
kid
gains or loses in to your calculus.
I manage not to do so when I'm considering, say, abortion. Kids lose an
awful lot in that transaction, Bo.
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Tzgxb.6507$m7.3789@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
Of course your right on who's responsible, but bo is referring to a
moral responsibility of it being your child. Regardless of how it was
conceived, it isn't the child's fault, and it's still your son or
daughter, your flesh and blood.
....unless, of course, you're the one who bears it, in which case you can
just drop it off at the fire station if you don't kill it before the time
limit runs out in your state.
This is @$#*ing *absurd.* You're saying that women, essentially, bear no
responsibilities regarding children that they do not choose and that *all*
of men's responsibilities are mandated from outside themselves.
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
| |
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in
news:6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com:
So, judgement call here, ladies: if this crazy #@&@
had successfully made
herself pregnant, would it be right when Anderson inevitably had to pay
her
child support?
hell no.
|
| |
| |
"wg bradley" <wgb@bogus.ca> wrote in message
news:<FUcxb.500809$6C4.153717@pd7tw1no>...
"Robert Lee" <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:Xns943FB2BDD7D81cranchingwireearthli@207.69.154.204...
s_knight8@hotmail.com (s_knight8) wrote in
news:6bd12cd6.0311260833.4b3a1969@posting.google.com:
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17296_20031125.htm
A 22-year-old Detroit woman was charged Tuesday with falsely
accusing
Detroit Lions wide receiver Scotty Anderson of raping her.
So, judgement call here, ladies: if this crazy #@&@
had
successfully made
herself pregnant, would it be right when Anderson inevitably had to
pay her
child support?
Yes, of course. The support is the child's, not the mother's. But I
Strange how Marcia Clark petitioned the court for in increase in child
support SO SHE COULD PURCHASE A NEW WARDROBE FOR HERSELF.
you are speaking to one case, which it appears from your statement was made
by an incredibly stupid woman
was the increase granted?
|
| |
| |
"Robert Lee" <cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in message
Actually, Bo, in case you haven't been following the news anymore, sperm
donors no longer have any right to privacy, even if the contract for
their donation stipulated that.
So this isn't exactly a blue-sky argument. Sperm donors in the US are
getting unwanted contact and visits from dozens of adult children who are
the result of quick money made back in college in the seventies. This is
going on right now. These men are in no sense any of these children's
"fathers" except the strict biological one, and they've got signatures on
paper promising their names would never be given out in the future, and
those contracts are no longer being honored, because nosy adult children
who apparently aren't happy with the actual families they had and haven't
thought the concept through that they're likely one of scores or even
hundreds of offspring resulting from a single donor want it to be so.
"nosy" adult children should be allowed to find out if their dad's want
contact or not and to find out if their dads have any info about genetic
diseases. sadly, i think the "no info" contracts were irresponsible, and
quite frankly shortsighted. People's privacy needs to be respected yes.
But thats not an argument for sealed adoption, or sperm donation records.
|
| |
| |
That said, it isn't all that different from opening adoption records,
which
some states have done. California keeps 'em sealed, don't know a count of
states that do so. Adults who were adopted as children want to see their
birth records, and the same promise of anonymity was made to the people
who
gave those kids up for adoption long, long ago.
Still sealed?
i had no idea.
Yeah, imagine, somebody wanting to find out about 50% of their heritage.
If
you've never had the state cut you off from your blood relations, then
maybe
you can't imagine how sad this is. I would hardly call myself an
emotional
cripple, but I wouldn't mind meeting the half-siblings that share the same
father with me. But the state won't let me see the original birth
certificate, so I can't.
my friend billy was adopted. when he was in his twenties he received a call
from a lawyer who wanted to speak to him about his biological family. He
knew a little about his parents - his mother was an irish artist, his dad
was greek from a restaurant owning family. They were very young and in love
but parental pressure kept them apart. Billy was given to a loving family.
As it turns out Billy's biological mom and dad had given up another baby boy
for adoption a couple of years before Billy. It was he who was contacting
Billy via this lawyer. He and his wife were having a child and looking for
information about health of the bio grandparents. When they discovered
Billy they decided they should contact him. Of course with a brother there
are none of the icky-abandonment issues that might be with the birth
parents.
So Billy has two brothers now. The resemblence and the mannerisms and the
interests of billy and his bio-brother are amazingly similar. I don't
believe the guys ever contacted their birth parents - they weren't able to
find them.
without those unsealed records that reunion would never have happened.
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:fVdxb.16163$n56.796@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
decline
Excuse me, but why? He already made his opinion known at the time of the
donation. Why do you need a whole new bureaucracy in place to check and
make sure he really meant that?
because people change their minds Robert. I am sure many people might wish
to see their biological kids, despite their feeling differently 30 years
ago. They should be given the option.
|
| |
| |
"Child" <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in news:vsbjhaer49oo66
@corp.supernews.com:
People's privacy needs to be respected yes.
But thats not an argument for sealed adoption, or sperm donation records.
Er...yeah, it is. And you have yet to present a counter argument.
--
--Robert
but also, there's a negative side
|
| |
