Ken wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 11:37 amIt is exactly the same legal process as for a straight couple that uses a sperm donor and artificial insemination. The father (who is not the biological father) is deemed to be the co-parent and listed on the birth certificate even though the child is not his biological child. This makes the process of adoption redundant and unnecessary. That is how the law works for both straight and gay couples who choose to use artificial insemination.
I believe this is just as improper when a heterosexual couple does it.
A child has a mother and a father, and barring special circumstances where a child is given up for adoption, they should be with their biological father and mother. Tragedies do happen. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes parents give a child up. But we aren't talking about that.
Intentionally fathering a child with a plan to have zero contact between the child and the father is an immoral, disgusting, selfish act.
Josh wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 9:03 am
Yet in LM’s case, it was not a normal adoption. Instead she intentionally became a single parent by making sure the father and she would have no idea who each other are.
This is an unnatural state of affairs, regardless of “statute”.
God knows the father.
In time, he may be known to anyone seriously seeking him out. God-created DNA and new science unravel puzzles.
The father was an intentional bio father. No doubt about that.
“Daughter of fertility doctor who fathered more than 50 children using his OWN sperm to inseminate patients without their consent
says she fears an 'avalanche of siblings' will emerge as new Netflix documentary is released” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... eries.html
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 6:22 pmNone of that changes the fact that substantive due process was never invoked (insofar as i know, anyways) for blacks or women because the 14th Amendment clearly applied to them.
The same cannot be said for abortion rights and gays rights.
Their being recognized as rights to be covered by the 14th Amendment is due to their being created under the substantive due process doctrine. There's simply no denying that fact, imo.
Also, I am not arguing here whether or not substantive due process should be "ditched!"
I'm only pointing out that how it was used in Roe v Wade and Obergfell will likely be the issue if and when either of those cases are ever overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Maybe they will try to save it in accordance with principles similar to these espoused by the Stanford Law Review —
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:27 am
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
Yes, I never really even entertained the idea that such a thing might happen.
1 x
Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily. -Heb. 13:3
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:27 am
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
Yes, I never really even entertained the idea that such a thing might happen.
Agreed. On this forum, it was discussed that RvW was an established accepted non-issue. (i might find the topic, not sure.)
Even after “The Leak,” it was no sure thing.
The most convincing flag was how some states (like mine, the state of Chicago) were industriously+preemptively passing pro-corporate-abortion laws, and building new abortion clinics NEAR STATE BORDERS.
PRO-CHOICE: Before conception. Think about it. For your sake and others.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:27 am
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
I guess I can no longer say that republicans have failed to do anything about abortion in my lifetime.
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:27 am
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
I guess I can no longer say that republicans have failed to do anything about abortion in my lifetime.
Same here. It took a crazy man like Trump to be bold enough to do it. Other Republicans would have been John Robertsesqu.
RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:27 am
Unbelievable. After all these years, all the prayers. All the work. Oh me of little faith. A couple years ago I would have said that this day would never come. Amazing.
I guess I can no longer say that republicans have failed to do anything about abortion in my lifetime.
Same here. It took a crazy man like Trump to be bold enough to do it. Other Republicans would have been John Robertsesqu. Too scared, and no real convictions on the issue. And the abortion status quo served both Republicans and Democrats well.
At least Trump wasn’t scared.
