I'm not sure about the ruling on giving back child support, however.

Because the mother had an abortion or because she had sex?

We know he paid for sex and probably abused his wife.

That would be the only thing I can think of

and the other member doesn't mention it.

She had sex and an abortion. Why does that make her not a good parent? Did we turn the clock back to 1953 or something?
On edit:
I get it now only us guys can have flings.

of information otherwise, I see no reason to second-guess it.

Would you explain why you think the judge's ruling is wrong?

It is in fact a right as determined under Roe v. Wade. The judge ruled the abortion relevant and the husband's use of prostitutes irrelevant. The husband also has a battery conviction against his wife.

So what if the judge is a woman? Clarence Thomas is African American. It means exactly fuck all.

and an abortion but doesn't care that the man paid for sex - which is illegal most places - and apparently abused his wife.

How is the father in this case the more fit parent? How is the judge's ruling correct?

she can't be wrong?

Judges are always right.

If you believe that, then you have to also believe that the outcome of the 2000 election was legitimate, ae well as the Citizens United ruling.

This judge is apparently one of them. Plenty of women on the anti-choice side. Plenty unfortunately. Seems as though this case has landed before one of them.

That doesn't change the law.

How in the fuck does any of that reflect on her fitness as a parent?

I'm open to other views, but I don't see why anyone should believe custody shouldn't be granted to the father.

That men are inherently superior to women and therefore better parents.

that the woman having had sex and an abortion post marriage was relevant to her parenting, but the man having had sex at massage parlors was not relevant.

disgusting beyond words and sexist dog shit.

"I'm open to other views..."

Interesting, yet unsupported allegation you got there, little fella...

than having sex and an abortion for some damn reason....

material? REALLLLLY? REALLLLLLLY? wow. . . .just. . . . wow.

and so the children she be no where near him. In fact he should be in jail serving time. Oh but men just have to beat their wives on occasion, and then the kids...

My goodness- are you serious? You would send kids WITHOUT their mother to an abusive man?

Are you judging this woman for having a life after her divorce was finalized?

When you're done with that you can explain how one might give back money that's presumably already been spent on the care of the children.

knowing the facts intimately as opposed to commentators here and elsewhere. I'm inclined to believe it, unless you have information to second-guess the ruling.

I already stated that ruling on giving back child support is not as clear, and if the money was spent on the care of the children, then no, I do not believe she should necessarily be ordered to pay it back.

if that judge is also a woman.

Do you think the Bode Miller judge liked it when her Phyllis Schlafly impression got exposed?

This judge appears to be cut from a similar cloth.

stemming from Lisa Mehos’ subpoenaed medical records “purely for credibility issues alone relating to her prior sworn testimony, and not due to the content contained therein” ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-abortion-raises-questions-divorcee-credibility-article-1.1469017

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

An abortion is a medical procedure. It had absolutely nothing to do with any credibility issues she had, any more than if she'd had a tooth pulled.

It was regarding her testimony about men in her apartment. If there had been testimony about actual abortions, don't you think the judge would have referenced that specifically if that were causing the credibility issue?

stories accurately unless I can find fifteen or twenty entirely independent reports or unless I read primary documents

if you think they're going to just make up stories out of whole cloth like that? Because basically that's what they would be doing here, to just basically completely leave out such a detail, and replace it with another one. If you think the judge might have possibly actually ruled for a completely different reason, but the journalist is just making it up? I doubt it.

The judge seems to think that a divorced woman's every action, throughout the day, is evidence, while the sex life of the father is 'irrelevant'.

do you think his views on civil rights and affirmative action are right because he's blacK?

if the judge had been male. That's not a hard and fast rule without exceptions, but again, I have seen no information about this female judge evidencing misogyny or sexism.

Anyway, this is not an argument that is going to be allowed to stand, so I think I'm done here. Cheers.

You need more than her decisions in this case?

Which he posted downthread in post #60.

Women judges are no friend of women and seem a lot less understanding. Maybe they do that because they don't want to be accused of being more lenient to women.

We can't assume that because she is a woman her ruling is just.

"even it if is..." followed by "necessarily"

smdh!

The question being why you agree with the judge. Why the judge was correct. All you have said is that the judge was a woman and she's a judge so she must be correct. Tell us why you think she is correct based on the facts of the case.

That is the information we have to second-guess the ruling. It was partly based on a complete load of crap. We have more evidence to doubt the ruling than you have to trust it.

Impossible. It must have been something else having to do with alimony or property settlement.

check it out

got "revenge" on a woman...

The woman had an intimate relationship with someone she's known for 20 years. The man hired prostitutes – strangers. Unless I'm mistaken only one of those activities is still illegal. So apparently you think the kids are better off with the lawbreaking father.

I would love to get into the brain of that judge to see exactly what she's thinking.

You know that insults the chef, right?

Or because he's ruthless?

and do tell if you think that her having had an abortion was a legitimate reason for her losing custody.

Combining issues-- custody, abortion and child support? This is a very strange story

Ex-husband needs to be quietly put down for a dirt nap.

"You wouldn't like me when I'm mad."

Reminds me of that buffoon in our state and the baby Richard case. That guy ended up out on his ear.

It has been a while.

Just don't post as much as i used to.

The linked stories state the abortion was done during the first trimester. To characterize what she did as a 2 to 3 months late abortion is clearly not reading the facts of the case and biased. It also, unfairly, introduces that term "late" as if this were some sort of late term abortion. That is usually propaganda used by the pro-life organizations; not by a judge who is supposed to be fair and impartial.

I certainly hope Miss Mehos' attorney is preparing charges against this judge.

in this case needs go be removed and replaced with someone who's sane.

When I was initially reading it, I thought that they were going to rule based on her having relations with someone.

Then I read that it was after a year that they have already been divorced, then basing it on having an abortion and how it undermines her being a Catholic.

That is complete and utter bullshit.
I am sorry.

Especially since they did not consider it admissible that the guy has been taking services from massage parlors and escorts? Which would then escalate her risk for disease? No, uh-uh... I have to support the lady in this case.

Dark Ages beliefs of the Corrupt catlick church

There appears to be some lack of info here. I do not know for sure, but I highly suspect that there is more going on here than what this article states.

5k a month is a HUGE amount of child support.

and 5K would mean the his annual income is in the neighborhood of 250K. The article states that he's a banker and if he works in Manhattan that income level is not unusual.

and it says there that her estranged husband's lawyer got hold of her medical records.

Well, who knows what else is in those records?

Maybe there's some mental health information which would be relevant with regards to her ability to adequately parent her other two children.

We don't know that.

So I would take with a grain of salt the claim that her ex is using her abortion against her. I mean, he could, but it could also be along with some other really serious issues...


Oh, and they're both fuckwits if they think their nasty little war with each other isn't affecting their two children.

that's all.

as more plausible evidence as to her level of parental fitness.

It wasn't. Those are quotes from the courtroom in that article.

and sometimes they don't.

Not things that were never brought up.

simply "brought up."

Interesting phrasing.

why is that "interesting phrasing", exactly?

I had three children. I lost one.

The surviving children are my "two other children".

She didn't want a pregnancy. She didn't have a child.

Two children.

because she had an abortion, you're assuming she never thinks of it as being a child?

My daughter had three of them and still thinks of them as children.

And something else...

the child I lost was 3 months old. I was originally going to have an abortion...went to the clinic, got all the papers, etc.

I didn't want another pregnancy, but I didn't want an abortion either. I didn't know what I wanted.

But I can tell you now that had I gone through with the abortion, it would still have been my child.

So. I'm wording it the way I would see it, and you're telling me I'm wrong?

Nice.

You call it what you want, and I'll call it what I want.

The End.

And no, I don't think of them as lost children. I have a child. He's about to be thirteen. He's on my couch playing PS3 right now and I need to go make his lunch. He has a personality and opinions and twelve years and change of experiences. He's a person. Pregnancies that didn't come to fruition are nothing like him, and saying they are would be disrespecting HIM and his humanity.

Your pregnancy loss is not a license to define another woman's unwanted pregnancy and early abortion as a child.

this game, are we?

You're just not getting it.


What I choose to call an embryo or a fetus is my business, not yours.


And if that woman were standing in front of me and chose to call whatever she aborted whatever she wanted to, then I would not presume to "define" for her what she SHOULD call it instead.

Just like Women's Rights are about personal choice, they're also...or should be...about a woman's right to think of an aborted being as a child. Or a cat. Or a rabbit's foot.

Again...you call it what you want, I'll call it what I want.

And you certainly don't get to use your redefinition of her pregnancy to judge her parenting.

You were the one climbing up on the cross, because you assumed a pregnancy loss rendered your noxious post immune to criticism. It doesn't.

No. Sorry. I wasn't.

I was calling her two children her "other children". That. Is. All.


And, in your view, that somehow equates to calling whatever she aborted a child, also.



What do you think anyone should call that bunch of cells she aborted?

How would YOU define the casualty of an aborted pregnancy?


Are you some kind of psychic who knows exactly how she would refer to that bunch of aborted cells?

You are not.

Nor am I.

So

You call that bunch of aborted cells whatever you want to.

I referred to her two living children as "her other children", suggesting to you that I thought of her aborted whatever as a child
also. So be it.

Until that woman comes to me...or you...and says to one of us that she wants to call that bunch of cells a "bunch of cells"...or "George" or something else, I don't have the right to say you are wrong and you don't have the right to say I am wrong.

Call it what you want. I will do likewise.

That was some really awful twisting by pipi.

get to define for other women that their aborted fetuses are children. And that IS what you are doing.

but we don't have the right to make that assumption for other women. If she didn't want to be pregnant, she might very well not think of it as a child, and it scientifically certainly wasn't, though women who miscarry often feel that way about a wanted pregnancy.

Why is this so hard to understand?


How the hell does anyone know what a woman wants to call a bunch of aborted cells?

Some would be offended by that term.

Others would be offended by "embryo"

And still more would be offended by "it"


I wasn't speaking to that woman.


She can define it any way she wants to. I'm not defining anything for her. I referred to her two children the way it came out:

Her "two other children".


If she doesn't like what I said, then she...not anyone else...can come here and tell me so.

Anyone who wants to disagree with you can disagree with you. Period. If you don't like it then go blog and disallow comments.

This is (supposedly) a progressive message board. It is definitely a Democratic message board according to the TOS. The Democratic Party is pro-choice. So you are going to get push back when you try to equate first trimester aborted fetuses as children.

disagreement.

What I DO mind is when people see things through their own shitty little filters and make up crap that never got said.


And this issue isn't even about facts that either can, or cannot, be verified.

This is about opinion.

Well you know what? Nobody has the right to tell someone their opinion is wrong.

Facts, yes. Opinion, no.


And here's a scoop for you. I am about as Pro-Choice as anyone is going to find. So don't even go there.

But being Pro-choice doesn't automatically mean that I'm going to see the results of an aborted pregnancy the same way someone else does.

I'm virtually certain that she would not define her two living children as her "two other children" as if they were some sort of afterthought in relation to the aborted fetus.

There is a very strong tendency among RW "pro-lifers" to fetishize the fetus, while relegating born children to the realm of the utterly insignificant and unimportant. Based on your use of language, it appears that you share in that view.

A woman who is locked in a custody battle over the only two children who can possibly be affected by the outcome probably does not regard those two children as afterthoughts.

It seems like these sorts of posts really bring certain types of posters out of the woodwork.

And you certainly can't force others to think of their aborted fetuses as children.

claim it was scientific???? I'm not stupid. I KNOW it's not scientific.

Good god almighty!!!


And I never tried to "force others to think of their aborted fetuses as children" either!

Whom did I "force" to do that???

People can think of their aborted fetuses however they want to. Or not.

I really don't give a shit.

I merely referred to her "other two children" and all of a sudden there's this big goddamned shitstorm.

What, are people having a crappy day? Nothing good on TV? Gotta find someone to dump on?

forced to testify about her abortion and nothing else.


http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/new-york-court-forces-woman-to-testify-about-an-abortion/#more-273414

there's nothing else there.

It might only mean that's what her ex's lawyer chose to use against her.

It could mean there is information in there that might also be detrimental to the ex husband if it were brought to light. If it's detrimental enough to both of them, I would imagine both attorneys would point it out to their clients and ask, "Look...do you want your kids to be put into a foster home because you both suck as parents?"

The fact that both of these people are making their kids' lives a living hell in this divorce business leads me to believe that they both suffer from some very serious mental health issues.

I'm sorry, but they are both acting like assholes of the highest order.

statement here is,

"at least as far as was presented legally"


Which I already understand and which wasn't my point at all, but thanks anyway.

so why the fuck would you bring up this shadowy "other stuff" nonsense?

it's how my mind works as a result of seeing all the "This happened to this person because of this" crap threads.

And because life is never as simple as it seems.

Is there some reason why my "nonsense" is so bothersome to you?


I think we're done here. I don't bother with people who can't be civil.

I don't understand why you think anything other than what was submitted as evidence in a court of law was used to determine the case. Honestly, why are you even saying that? It makes absolutely no sense. Unless you don't understand how courts and evidence work.

I'm stupid.

Happy now?

But I'm not the one claiming the decision could be made based upon things that were never brought up in court.

for going to prostitutes be called into question?

Medical records are PRIVATE. This stinks to high heaven.....