Woman appropriates child in her uterus

I don't know who is right or wrong here, but this statement, from a judge, takes the cake:

Quote:

In December, when she was seven months pregnant and already sparring with Mr. Miller about their future relations, Ms. McKenna moved to New York to start school. . . . Ms. McKenna says she wanted a new start and that Columbia offered the best support for a new parent, admitting her through a program the university describes as for “talented women and men who follow an untraditional path to higher education.” By last fall, Mr. Miller was taking action to secure a major role in his future son’s life, filing a declaration of his paternity and interest in custody in San Diego. Once the boy was born, Ms. McKenna filed in New York for temporary custody. But on May 30, a Family Court referee refused, rebuking Ms. McKenna for “unjustifiable conduct” and “forum shopping” and making the unusual decision to leave the case in California even though the baby was born and lived in New York. While Ms. McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” the court said, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.”

Custody Battle Raises Questions About the Rights of Women



It was "irresponsible" and "reprehensible" to "appropriate" the child in her uterus, by moving to another state to attend university?

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269171&goto=newpost