Sperm donor wins child support battle

Good news men! Well, potentially at least. Hopefully this sets a legal precedent.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

For those who don’t know, it is normal for a man who donated his sperm with the understanding he would not be liable to provide for the child, to then be sued for child support and be forced to pay regardless. Like what happened to this idiot.

“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record number of Abortions

More disastrous consequences of the government/ feminists war on families…

Drunken New Year one-night stands will bring record number of abortions

Drunken one-night stands over New Year will bring a record number of abortions among teenagers. A lethal mix of binge drinking and unprotected casual sex will also mean a sharp increase in sexually-transmitted diseases.

The warning from the Marie Stopes International organisation, which carries out around one in three UK abortions, comes as Ministers admit their £138million drive to reduce teenage pregnancies is failing.

It is no surprise that this is happening at the same time the nuclear family is being destroyed.

A target of halving the rate by 2010 now looks well out of reach.

There are fears that some girls see a termination as just another form of contraception.

Well how else would you explain almost 1 billion abortions worldwide since 1920?

Global Warming?

This article has a part 2, which can be viewed here.

Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (Edit: I should say ‘changing’). I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans. Consider this article in the context of a court presentation. To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any doubt that humans are directly altering the latent temperature of the planet then all of the taxation, depopulation and energy price schemes that are being pushed through are being done because of another reason.

The main thrust of this hysteria about man-made global warming stems from the UN IPCC report. In order to give their report credibility to the ignorant masses, the UN frequently mentions that large majority of scientists endorse the report.

This is a lie.

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

…Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.

Women’s Aid – The definition of DV. Part 1

I visited this website recently for some research into an article I was writing. I was interested to know how these ‘charities’ market themselves to people.

These days I tend to view these organisations more like corporations. Nothing particularly noble about them. They exist, they get money, they need more victims so they can ask for more money, because dwindling victims means less money. Simple really.

Now we should all know by now that domestic violence affects both men and women. That is to say, they can both be perpetrators in equal amounts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Now you would think Women’s Aid would cater to women, fair enough, every bloody organisation in the country caters to the poor victimised little helpless things. It goes one better though, it’s tag line is ‘until women and children are safe’. You see, women and children are seen as one, inseparable unit, men are superfluous. Man is a evil brute lurking in the shadows outside of the house with the poor woman inside trying to protect HER child from HIM.

We all know the standard politically correct myth.

That tag line also, by exclusion, presents a subtle statement regarding men. Men don’t need to be made safe because obviously ‘they’re not in danger as they’re the ones committing all the ‘violence’.

Remember men and women are victims in equal amounts. Keep that in mind always. Because this site chooses to represent one half (or less) of the victims. Not only that, but it markets itself in a way which presumes men are very rarely victims.

Lets quickly look at the page titled ‘About Domestic Violence‘.

They call female victims of domestic violence ‘survivors’. They don’t call male victims anything because, well, they’re irrelevant. I could be wrong but