Mrs. Kramer Vs. Mrs. Kramer

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: sunflower777 @ 12/08/2008 10:34:02 PM

    Man, this Jenkins lady is one sick, sick, person. She did NOT have the child, and she did NOT provide the biological means necessary for Miller to get pregnant. Two women do NOT make children. Jenkins has NO rights whatsoever to the child. And yes, God will protect Miller and her daughter, because He stands for truth and righteousness. We are, and have been, praying for God's mercy and intevention for Lisa Miller and her daughter, and that He will take Jenkins out of the picture of their lives.

    • Posted By: GregOhio @ 12/12/2008 4:53:03 PM

      "He will take Jenkins out of the picture" How? By violence on the part of His supposed followers?

      I seem to recall Pat Roberson praying for the death of members of the Supreme Court. 88 year-old John Paul Stevens is still alive and upholding the Constitution.

      • Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/14/2008 4:12:31 AM

        Yeah... the prayer death squad misfired a little bit; Rehnquist died shortly thereafter. Oops.

    • Posted By: SilentObserver_intheCorner @ 12/09/2008 11:41:35 AM

      What about your stance on pregnancy out of wed lock, the fact she fornicated for years in a homosexual relationship, and and turned her back on God until her relationship failed?

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/09/2008 1:12:25 PM

        What does this have to do with anything? Everyone on the planet has turned their back on God at one time or another, does this disqualify them from coming back to Him?

        • Posted By: FE Chariot @ 12/11/2008 11:36:01 PM

          I will never turn my back on god again. or the Easter Bunny or Santa or any pink unicorns.

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 12/09/2008 4:55:02 PM

      wow, thats a very christian thing to say... have you looked in the mirror lately?

      • Posted By: delita24 @ 12/10/2008 12:41:11 AM

        is she sick for loving her daughter? wow, i don't know what to say to you. lisa miller would rather end up in jail then let janet jenkins see isabella that doesn't sound like a good mother to me and i do hope that lisa does end up losing custody and if she goes to jail even better.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:39:15 PM

      "Jenkins has NO rights whatsoever to the child."

      Then why has Miller accepted child support payments?

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/09/2008 3:01:38 PM

      If Jenkins has no parental rights to Isabella, I wonder why Miller had no trouble accepting child support from her. Perhaps she told herself it was afinancial gift from a former friend. You can't have it both ways! If you are receiving financial support from the person who was sharing a family life with you, you are conceding that this person is in some way the co-parent.

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/09/2008 2:57:03 PM

      If Jenkins has no parental rights, I wonder why Miller had no trouble accepting child support payments from her. Or was the money she received supposed to be a financial gift from a former friend. You can't have it both ways!

  • Posted By: MMomma @ 12/09/2008 12:01:08 AM

    You reference a Newsweek Poll that shows an increase in support for Gay Adoption. I believe the support increase is due to the paradigm shift in the quality and content of Newsweek and the general leanings of the ever shrinking remaining readership. As an example, you have a room with ten people in it, something begins to seriously stink, five people get up and leave the room, then someone decides to question the remaining people in the room about the stink and proclaims in amazement that truly the room doesn't stink because three of the five remaining people said the room didn't stink. The individual failed to calculate the fact that two plus five makes seven that definitely feels the room stank. Thus, the true general sentiment for your magazine and your slanted polls. I stopped reading Newsweek a few years back because of the paradigm shift and the loss of quality in the product that you produce.

    • Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/14/2008 4:09:25 AM

      Mmomma, what if the *** who finally got up and left were responsible for the stench in the first place? That would surely explain the shift just as well. Good riddance to you. The air smells a lot sweeter without you.

    • Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/14/2008 4:06:39 AM

      MMomma, what if the reeking *** who got up and left were the ones responsible for the stench?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:38:17 PM

      If the religious whackjobs want to leave the debate, who are we to stop them?

      • Posted By: MMomma @ 12/09/2008 8:24:09 PM

        I wish you all would stop and see the vitriol of your comments. The bias that Newsweek has progressively moved toward has made rational discourse impossible. Whatever happened to "just the facts" leaving the opinion and emotion/drama on the opinion page. Newsweek has become a glossier version of the National Enquirer, but with far less accuracy in reporting. Your protests over a democratic election was nothing more than watching a spoiled child's tantrum. The irony of watching vicious words spewing from faces that were writhing with anger while holding "Down with H8" signs was definitely not lost on most viewers and readers of the news. You did your cause a great disservice by doing so.

        • Posted By: Clairefish @ 12/09/2008 11:12:16 PM

          "Vicious words," MMomma?
          The people I was standing next to were chanting "What do we want? Equal rights! When do we want it? Now!" "Give love a chance!" and "Love not hate!"
          You have an interesting idea of viciousness.

        • Posted By: Clairefish @ 12/09/2008 11:07:38 PM

          "vicious words" ?
          The people I was standing next to were chanting "Give love a chance!" and "What do we want? Equal rights! When do we want them? Now!"
          You have an interesting idea of viciousness.

    • Posted By: SilentObserver_intheCorner @ 12/09/2008 11:37:44 AM

      But is seems that you read long enough to whine about "quality". I find it amusing that so many times on these opinion blogs people can contradict themselves in a single sentence.

  • Posted By: cheesehead42080 @ 12/13/2008 3:52:22 PM

    First of all evidence say homosexuality is not a choice mainly the fact the pheromone receptors in homosexuals work much different then in heterosexuals. Second an infringement against one is an infringement against all. Third Occum???s Razor in this case is a woman that will stop at nothing to get her way she is just going about it different way but this is not uncommon in messy divorces. Last if court sides with Miller in this case it sets a bad legal precedence because it is telling people to shop the courts when a child custody case does not go the way you want it to. It also saying if solo custody find a church that has a problem with something your ex does and then join that church but religion can justify just about any thing.

  • Posted By: cheesehead42080 @ 12/13/2008 3:51:54 PM

    First of all evidence say homosexuality is not a choice mainly the fact the pheromone receptors in homosexuals work much different then in heterosexuals. Second an infringement against one is an infringement against all. Third Occum???s Razor in this case is a woman that will stop at nothing to get her way she is just going about it different way but this is not uncommon in messy divorces. Last if court sides with Miller in this case it sets a bad legal precedence because it is telling people to shop the courts when a child custody case does not go the way you want it to. It also saying if solo custody find a church that has a problem with something your ex does and then join that church but religion can justify just about any thing.

  • Posted By: Lucifershammer @ 12/10/2008 2:11:44 PM

    My GOD! Hey sturzl: "She made a decision to have a child with Jenkins." (???). What an utterly STUPID statement! Do you consider that while Miller was havging the child, just because Jenkins was in the delivery room she was "having the child" with Miller? Or, they both agreed to have a child, and then Miller is the mother & Jenkins is the---WHAT???!! Sperm donor? I don't think so!!! Tell me, OH WISE ONE--- who determined Miller to be the mother? Did they BOTH agree that Miller would be the "woman" and Jenkins would be the ---WHAT??!!---MAN!!! LOL! Do you know how STUPID you & all like you sound!? The person I really feel sorry for is the little girl because she has done nothing wrong and yet has to be in the middle of this mess, and I hope & pray that she will not be forever scarred mentally & emotionally by this terribly distressing part of her life. I'm not a religious zealot; as a matter of fact, I'm not overly religious at all. But I do BELIEVE in God & the Bible & what it teaches, and I know I'm going to Heaven when I die. Thank God Miller saw the light and renounced her sinful lifestyle. But no matter how their pitiful "custody battle" turns out, there's one AND ONLY ONE "ABSOLUTE": Miller will ALWAYS be the child's mother, but Jenkins will NEVER, EVER be her FATHER!

    • Posted By: MegSnape @ 12/13/2008 1:45:16 PM

      You, my dear, are a bloody idiot. First off, look up the definition of a 'religious zealot', I think you'll find that you fit quite nicely. Secondly, I myself am a Catholic, and I beleive that one of foundations of the religion is to love your neighbor as you do yourself and that God loves EVERYONE not just a few select people who choose to go about damning others for not sharing their beleifs. As you profess to be familiar with scripture, let me remind you, that in the time of Christ, he and his followers were punished for their beleifs as well. I belive that the ulltimate lesson we should draw from that is that we should never judge or persecute others for their beleifs or lifestyles, no matter how different they are from what is 'normal'. Who defines normal anyway? Even if I am deviant from traditional church teaching, I think that I've walked away with some of the most important lessons, and that is to love rather than to hate.

      P.S.- In case anyone's wondering, I am completely on Janet Jenkins's side with this, Miller is completely off her rocker.

  • Posted By: tenzinchoekyi @ 12/09/2008 2:09:15 PM

    What both the mothers are doing is basically trying to get back to each other for things that didnt work between them. and in all this drama, the little girl is going to get affected and may end up like them if soomeone doesnt come to the rescue and take care of her. both the women seem to have gone through a lot of things in the their lives which has obviously affected them and made them in to who they are right now. I hope the little girl doesn't get affected by all this.

    • Posted By: GregOhio @ 12/12/2008 4:44:13 PM

      No, one mother is harming the child by illegally keeping her from her other parent. The other is seeking shared custody and visitation, which is not only her right, but her daughter's right. And, the best for the child.

  • Posted By: nhejl @ 12/09/2008 4:40:55 PM

    If women were supposed to procreate with other women or men with other men wouldn't our bodies have been made to do so?

    Just a thought!

    • Posted By: GregOhio @ 12/12/2008 4:38:24 PM

      If humans were supposed to live in cold places, God would have made us able to survive there without a coat. EVERYBODY IN CANADA, RUSSIA, SCANDINAVIA, JAPAN, OR THE NORTHERN U.S. IS GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Posted By: GregOhio @ 12/12/2008 4:37:56 PM

      If humans were supposed to live in cold places, God would have made us able to survive there without a coat. EVERYBODY IN CANADA, RUSSIA, SCANDINAVIA, JAPAN, OR THE NORTHERN U.S. IS GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Posted By: GregOhio @ 12/12/2008 4:37:15 PM

      If humans were supposed to live in cold places, God would have made us able to survive there without a coat. EVERYBODY IN CANADA, RUSSIA, SCANDINAVIA, JAPAN, OR THE NORTHERN U.S. IS GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 1:55:52 PM

      Well, then you are also saying that all infertile couples should just stop at that point and not consider fertility treatments or IVF. Since God obviously didn't intend them to have kids, why are they pushing the issue, right? Even if parts "fit together" you assume they can always create life without help.

  • Posted By: kylee @ 12/12/2008 9:25:52 AM

    Gays and lesbians are immoral people and irresponsible, they are sexually deviated people who do not have rights.
    Marriage is only between one man and one woman, period. Homosexuality is against nature, religion, and everthing right and good. They are digusting people.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/12/2008 4:02:15 PM

      Another member of the idiot brigade has spoken, and their name is kylee.

    • Posted By: sturzl @ 12/12/2008 1:48:58 PM

      Why are some Christians so unlike their Christ?

    • Posted By: FE Chariot @ 12/12/2008 10:06:27 AM

      Everyone has rights in this country. Even people as ignorant, uncompassionate and socially irresponsible as kylee have this liberty.

  • Posted By: vizier @ 12/07/2008 1:53:44 AM

    This whole situation could have been prevented if we never would have allowed the designer baby industry to exist. Track down the father of this turkey baster baby and charge him with something.

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 3:34:35 PM

      I'm not sure that the average person understands that the major clientele of sperm banks are heterosexual couples.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/08/2008 11:30:51 AM

      Charge him with what?

      • Posted By: Wanda Woman @ 12/09/2008 12:58:36 PM

        For being a dead-beat dad! LOL

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:41:06 PM

          Donors to a sperm bank are protected from such litigation. So now the fundies are out to shut down sperm banks?

  • Posted By: Shoshanna @ 12/07/2008 9:11:57 PM

    In reading this article one can't help but feel very worried for Isabella; her biological mother sounds seriously unstable, extreme, willing to take any measures necessary to get her way, and is no doubt capable of justifying to herself whatever actions she deems suitable by claiming that God is on her side. A very scary woman who has no business having custody of a young child. I truly hope that the courts not only support Ms. Jenkins' petition for visitation, but also recognize that Isabella would be much better off with Ms. Jenkins as the custodial parent. Of the two women, she's the one who actually sounds willing to put Isabella's interests ahead of her own.

  • Posted By: draco_nite @ 12/09/2008 12:39:38 PM

    How about we cut the baby in half? It all worked out when Solomon suggested it.

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 3:08:39 PM

      Yes - the baby is always in the middle of a custody disagreement. Hence a problem arises wherein the court must get involved. It doesn't matter whether the parents are gay or straight. And yes, it's always unfortunate.

  • Posted By: jeffrey1234 @ 12/09/2008 4:00:22 AM

    Hopefully these state constitutional amendment embarrassments to the American system will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the US. American Law is based on equality and liberty and these certainly go against that. Our system is to ensure that we all stand before the law as equals and we are all guaranteed due process. We cannot have this with a separate system for gay Americans. We are one country and one people and the laws, rights, and obligations that marriage provides must be applied to all citizens equally.

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 2:57:20 PM

      HERE HERE! What happened to "separate but equal"... it was supposedly discouraged for the simple reason that it does not work. Not ever.

  • Posted By: Wanda Woman @ 12/09/2008 12:55:27 PM

    This is just one of the many reasons why the Lord has prohibited same-sex marriages

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:37:13 PM

      Because this never happens in heterosexual marriages, right? LOL.

      • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 2:55:33 PM

        right. Which couldn't be the reason the Uniform Parentage Act exists in the first place, could it? How many dads have been unilaterally cut off from their kids by the biological mom? Ridiculous - regardless of the gender of the parents.

    • Posted By: kruedawg @ 12/09/2008 6:30:18 PM

      The Lord hasn't prohibited same sex marriage... His close minded followers on Earth have tried, and in some areas failed, to prohibit them. If anything, this is a perfect example why there should be federal recognition of committed same sex relationships.

    • Posted By: otakulord89 @ 12/09/2008 1:38:52 PM

      Um...like this doesn't happen to straight couple.

      I went to a school where my parents were the only straight pair still together, and most of my peers were being used by their parents as pawns. But the kids with LGBT parents were always willing to take care of them and when they argued they never did it in front of the kids, because there was always going to be someone out there saying that they were unfit parents, even if they were the best of parents. My parents may be still together but they have been skipping out on my social worker visits to work for yes on 8, I am pretty sure that is not the christian thing to do, even if they maybe in denial of my current diagnoses.

  • Posted By: sigzero @ 12/09/2008 2:30:25 PM

    There is ZERO reason the non-birth mother should have anything to do with the girl in this case. ZERO.

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 2:52:09 PM

      Right then... according to what you're saying... no reason any non-biological parent should ever have any involvement in a child's life if that relationship with the biological parent is extinguished. Again, here is someone who has a fundamental problem with the Uniform Parentage Act. I'd talk to the child custody "two parents" proponents and their lawmakers, not gay rights activists.

    • Posted By: kruedawg @ 12/09/2008 6:27:59 PM

      Except that Ms Jenkins is her other mother. But I suppose that doesn't matter in your mind.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:36:14 PM

      Why?

  • Posted By: freedomnerik @ 12/09/2008 4:36:59 PM

    this case is a joke.i know several couples who are caring for children who are not theirs biologicly my good friend and her husband are sole custodians of his exgirlfriends daughter why? becouse he was there at her birth and was involved in her life.the mother is in an unhealthy place so they took it to court and won so why cant this have the same outcome? there was no news story about my friends is it becouse they are hetrosexual is that realy more important then a healthy happy upbringing for this child?

    • Posted By: lvan @ 12/10/2008 4:26:21 PM

      But if the birth mother were capable of caring for the child the boyfriend would not get custody since he is not the biological parent nor would he have any right to. If the child was not adopted by Jenkins I do not see how she has any legal right to that child. My husband legally adopted my daughter from my first marriage. If we (heaven forbid) split he would have legal grounds to her because of the adoption. If he had not adopted her, eventhough we are married he would have no legal grounds. Thank you.

      • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 2:47:49 PM

        Actually, then your specific problem is with the Uniform Parentage Act in general (the document that decides what makes a parent in custody issues) - not with gay people.

  • Posted By: SYWanda @ 12/12/2008 2:30:59 PM

    II think the biological mother just doesn't have all of her sandwiches in the picnic basket. The woman is obviously using the Religous Right to further her personal vendetta. I hope she gets thrown in jail, I hope she loses custody, and I hope she has to pay. Period.

  • Posted By: nhejl @ 12/09/2008 5:15:46 PM

    And we sit in amazement wondering what the hell is happening to this great country. This "anything goes" mentality is disgusting. If we were supposed to be man with man and woman with woman, then why did God create both?

    Being a Christian doesn't mean never disagreeing with someone. Just because I don't agree with the majority of you people on this liberal site doesn't make me hateful. It just means I don't agree. Relax! It's o.k. to question the herder leading you to slaughter. The herder being the main stream drive by media. And in case you missed it Prop 8 was voting on BY THE PEOPLE and they said marriage was between one man and one woman.

    • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 1:47:47 PM

      "If we were supposed to be man with man and woman with woman, then why did God create both?" Seriously? Well, then why did God create homosexuals along side of the heterosexuals? Isn't is possible he made us all and loves us all exactly the way we are, regardless of sexual orientation, no strings attached? If the odds are showing 1 in every 10 people is gay, then how exactly that is that recurring - many from "good, God-loving" families?? Need I remind you, heterosexual couples have been having gay children for EONS... does that mean they all did something wrong raising their kids? Please.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:17:37 AM

      We are talking about US law not religious belief. God, even if he was something other than a creation of the human imagniation and the bible something other than a man-written text, is of no relevance in US law.

      And the majority has no say in equal rights issues since the majority tends to be ignorant of what the US Constitution says. THAT is why the courts get to be the final arbiter of what is legal and Constitutional.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 12/09/2008 10:15:42 PM

      Well said and spot on!

  • Posted By: 77Wells @ 12/09/2008 11:01:03 PM

    If homosexuality is going to continue to gain legal ground in the U.S., I suggest that all homosexuals who work in engineering, contracting, or any other mechanically oriented field be required to register their sexual choice publicly.
    That way, if I want to have a house built or my car worked on, I can at least be sure I'm hiring people who know how pieces are designed to fit together. I imagine going to a hardware store is probably the most confusing shopping experience in the world for a homosexual: "Why can't I get these two wingnuts to hold together?"

    • Posted By: BIAWanker @ 12/10/2008 2:40:59 PM

      If your theory is correct, then you're going to have to use a better analogy. You honestly think they cant figure out how to put a widget in a hole? Need I remind you Christian fanatics what it is you preach against? It`s butt sex, and if they can figure that one out, then they can fix a damn car
      Homosexuls are not retards

      • Posted By: 77Wells @ 12/10/2008 8:39:45 PM

        No, my analogy is fine. I said, "how pieces are DESIGNED to fit together." I know what homosexuals do, but the penis isn't meant to go into the anus.

        • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 1:42:13 PM

          So the unmentionable number of heterosexual men who have anal intercourse are just plain wrong, in your opinion?

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:36:47 AM

      77wells,

      Your comments are banal as best. You have no way to prove that a penis is not designed to go into an anus. The bible is not a valid answer, as that man-made text is NOT relevant to intelligent or scientific discussion. When you consider that our erogenous organs (and both the penis and anus have that as one of their purpses) can be aroused through a variety of stimulations, and that stimulating the prostate can result in pleasure for some men, and that anal sex is appareently pleasurable for both men and women, then one of the purposes of the penis obviously IS to be inserted in the anus.

      But that is also not relevant to this specific case since women do not have penises in the first place.

      Also, FYI, not all homosexual men engage in anal sex. Manual and oral stimluation is also used (in both heterosexual and homosexual sexual acitvity), or would you argue that fingers and lips/tongues are also not erogenous organs? (I can assure you that they are, and I have personal proof based on the mutual erotic ministrations that my girlfriend engage in as part of our love-making.) FYI the entire body can be an erogenous organ if one is intelligent enough to realize it.

      On a side note, having a tattoo says nothing at all about one's intellect. There are many highly degreed academics and scientists who have tattoos. In fact, that population is apparently one of the fastest growing demographic among those acquiring tattoos. They have realized that the old biases against tattoos were just one more example of human ignorance.

      • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 1:40:37 PM

        Not only that - I think it's hilarious that people talk about "butt sex" or "parts not fitting together" as a reason that gays shouldn't practice sexual behaviors. Really? Cause I know a ton of guys who love "making love" to their women in the rear end. What the heck is that then? How does that compute... Is the heterosexual man not putting his junk into a butt? So crazy what people will say to further their hate and disguise it as fact.

    • Posted By: cmyhtrod @ 12/10/2008 4:18:32 PM

      77wells, why dont you get a tatoo on your forehead that say HOMOPHOBE!!!???

      • Posted By: 77Wells @ 12/10/2008 8:51:24 PM

        Where to start? First of all, I'm too smart to deface any part of my body with a tattoo; I have enough strong qualities that I don't need to paint or pierce myself to get attention. Second, the word "homophobe" describes someone who is afraid of homosexuals, which I'm not. And finally, if you want to appear intelligent and be respected when posting on the World Wide Web, you need to learn to spell and use punctuation correctly.

  • Posted By: BIAWanker @ 12/10/2008 2:45:52 PM

    And by the way 77Wells
    If your theory is correct, then you're going to have to use a better analogy. You honestly think they cant figure out how to put a widget in a hole? Need I remind you Christian fanatics what it is you preach against? It`s butt sex, and if they can figure that one out, then they can fix a damn car
    Homosexuls are not retards

    • Posted By: 77Wells @ 12/10/2008 8:58:37 PM

      Like your counterpart who also replied to my post, you can't spell or use proper punctuation either. And your disrespect of handicapped people (who, unlike homosexuals, can't help the way they are), is reprehensible.

      • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 12:12:29 PM

        Homosexuals have no choice to their sexuality, any more than a heterosexual person does. So, I have to ask - at what point did you DECIDE you were heterosexual and had a CHOICE to express your sexuality with the opposite sex? At what point did you DECIDE you had complete control over your desire to express yourself sexually at all? And then what then of the celibate heterosexual - loves the opposite gender but is not with one by choice. Just as uncommon, could there not be a celibate homosexual? What exactly would that do to these theories that homosexuals have a choice?? And the really crazy thing is... I'm sure the celibate homosexual exists. But to ask an entire group of people to make that CHOICE to be celibate (since anti-gay rights activists propose that it is the ACTIONS and not the FEELINGS of a gay person that makes them reprehensible) is just as ridiculous as asking that of the entire heterosexual population. Think about it. You think that would fly - or even make sense? Chances are, you'd get heckled for that one.

  • Posted By: asturm @ 12/10/2008 3:08:30 PM

    Blood is thicker than water and I think the person with the genetic heritage on the line should raise their own offspring.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 1:51:34 PM

      Not if they are obviously mentally unabalanced, which it appears Lisa Miller is.

      • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 11:49:55 AM

        At one point did you understand Lisa Miller to be mentally unbalanced? because she's openly gay?

        • Posted By: lowprofile @ 12/12/2008 12:02:32 PM

          Ooops sorry - got the names mixed up. I actually agree with ghostmasseur. Sorry for the confussion - too bad there is no way to delete your own posts! LOL

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 4:22:30 PM

      Ok so if a woman has a child and a man adopts that child when he and the woman are together...then the woman leaves him...should he have no parental rights because he is not blood related? A parent is someone who loves and guides their children and puts the child's best interests at heart. Clearly Ms. Miller does not know what that means. She is putting her own selfish interests in front of her child's--a child who had no say in being brought into this world.

    • Posted By: cmyhtrod @ 12/10/2008 4:26:08 PM

      What if the chid has been adopted and then the parents split? Neither one contributed their DNA. Now what?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse