Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have zero sympathy for rapists or men who choose to have unprotected casual sex with female strangers and then protest when the birth mother chooses to give away the infant for adoption.
I find interesting that you equate male rapists with males who engage in one-night-stands. How are these two sort of men even remotely similar?
I'm assuming here that your one-stand-night was a consensual act. If so, a man who chooses to have unprotected casual sex with a female stranger is having sex with a female who is also choosing to have unprotected causal sex with a male stranger. They were both equally responsible for being irresponsible, if you will. And if the female involved gets pregnant from that encounter and decides to not have an abortion, why shouldn't the father of the child have a right to raise that child? It took both of them to tango after all.
Rape is an act of violence. A criminal act of violence. And measures should be taken to protect the victim and resulting child from further violence. This is quite different from a consensual one-night-stand.
I find interesting that you equate male rapists with males who engage in one-night-stands. How are these two sort of men even remotely similar?
I'm assuming here that your one-stand-night was a consensual act. If so, a man who chooses to have unprotected casual sex with a female stranger is having sex with a female who is also choosing to have unprotected causal sex with a male stranger. They were both equally responsible for being irresponsible, if you will. And if the female involved gets pregnant from that encounter and decides to not have an abortion, why shouldn't the father of the child have a right to raise that child? It took both of them to tango after all.
Rape is an act of violence. A criminal act of violence. And measures should be taken to protect the victim and resulting child from further violence. This is quite different from a consensual one-night-stand.
Men who have casual sex don't have a right to have a say in what happens to the baby. If she wants to give it away for adoption or have an abortion, he should keep his mouth shut. Meaningless flings don't have weight.
Men who have casual sex don't have a right to have a say in what happens to the baby. If she wants to give it away for adoption or have an abortion, he should keep his mouth shut. Meaningless flings don't have weight.
Babies do though.
Since this is an adoption forum, let's assume there was no abortion and that the woman who had casual meaningless sex decided to have the child but didn't want to keep it. The father decides the sex was meaningless but the child isn't and wants to keep it. Why shouldn't he?
Men who have casual sex don't have a right to have a say in what happens to the baby. If she wants to give it away for adoption or have an abortion, he should keep his mouth shut. Meaningless flings don't have weight
.
I totally agree.
The basic logical flaw in what many people are saying is this. Because both men and women play a role in fertilizing an egg, both should have equal rights when it comes to determining what happens to the baby.
The fallacy is that the man and woman are not equal in this situation. A woman not only contributes her egg to reproduction, in addition she gestates for nine months. She than goes through the experience of birth. The man simply contributing his sperm is not equal in that situation. Particularly, when he can simply vanish and if he chooses, never be heard from again.
The courts recognize the difference in the position of the woman and the man. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "Putative Father Statutes" when it comes to adoption. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). For those who need a definition of a "Putative Father Statutes" it is best to simply remember that in some situations they allow a mother to place her child for adoption without the birth father's consent. This is typically allowable when:
1. The identity of the birthfather cannot be ascertained.
2. The pregnancy resulted from rape or sexual assault.
3. The birth father showed no interest in acknowledging the child and/or paying any child support.
4. Some states put the burden on unmarried birth fathers to step forward if they wish to avoid having their child placed for adoption and filing a Notice of Paternity or getting on a state's birth registry.
In both our adoptions, the birth fathers signed a legal consent. However, I do not believe that birth mothers should be prevented from placing a child for adoption unless: (1) a birth father steps forward and acknowledges paternity in a legally specified manner; and (2) the birth father offers and is able to pay at least some minimal amount of child support.
Such laws work for the benefit of birth mothers, adoptees, and society. The law gives those birth fathers who want to be a real parent the opportunity to do so. However, they do place the burden on him to make certain inquiries and take action.
There is nothing unequal or discriminatory about such laws. They simply take into account the fact that men and women are positioned differently in these situations.
The basic logical flaw in what many people are saying is this. Because both men and women play a role in fertilizing an egg, both should have equal rights when it comes to determining what happens to the baby.
The fallacy is that the man and woman are not equal in this situation. A woman not only contributes her egg to reproduction, in addition she gestates for nine months. She than goes through the experience of birth. The man simply contributing his sperm is not equal in that situation. Particularly, when he can simply vanish and if he chooses, never be heard from again.
The courts recognize the difference in the position of the woman and the man. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "Putative Father Statutes" when it comes to adoption. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). For those who need a definition of a "Putative Father Statutes" it is best to simply remember that in some situations they allow a mother to place her child for adoption without the birth father's consent. This is typically allowable when:
1. The identity of the birthfather cannot be ascertained.
2. The pregnancy resulted from rape or sexual assault.
3. The birth father showed no interest in acknowledging the child and/or paying any child support.
4. Some states put the burden on unmarried birth fathers to step forward if they wish to avoid having their child placed for adoption and filing a Notice of Paternity or getting on a state's birth registry.
In both our adoptions, the birth fathers signed a legal consent. However, I do not believe that birth mothers should be prevented from placing a child for adoption unless: (1) a birth father steps forward and acknowledges paternity in a legally specified manner; and (2) the birth father offers and is able to pay at least some minimal amount of child support.
Such laws work for the benefit of birth mothers, adoptees, and society. The law gives those birth fathers who want to be a real parent the opportunity to do so. However, they do place the burden on him to make certain inquiries and take action.
There is nothing unequal or discriminatory about such laws. They simply take into account the fact that men and women are positioned differently in these situations.
Agreed. There is a biological imperative that supersedes any attempt to find complete gender parity in this situation.
The woman has a greater involvement in the birth process than does the man. It's her body.
And her choice.
Mark, I actually do agree that the following is as it should be except that perhaps if the father is putting his name down on a registry, he should be given a list of state laws for ALL states - especially Utah.
Quote:
The courts recognize the difference in the position of the woman and the man. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "Putative Father Statutes" when it comes to adoption. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). For those who need a definition of a "Putative Father Statutes" it is best to simply remember that in some situations they allow a mother to place her child for adoption without the birth father's consent. This is typically allowable when:
1. The identity of the birthfather cannot be ascertained.
2. The pregnancy resulted from rape or sexual assault.
3. The birth father showed no interest in acknowledging the child and/or paying any child support.
4. Some states put the burden on unmarried birth fathers to step forward if they wish to avoid having their child placed for adoption and filing a Notice of Paternity or getting on a state's birth registry.
However, I do think Utah has laws which have been abused by some lawyers as you note the from the articles I linked to earlier in the thread. These men in the articles were more than ready to step and be parents, some thought they were going to be parenting with the child's mother. There were a couple of underhanded tricks, eg if your girlfriend calls you to tell she is holidaying in Utah, you better put well put your name down on the Utah putative father registry. If your baby is born in Virginia and spirited off to Utah, again, one needs to put one's name down on the Utah registry.
Originally Posted by StabbyAbby Men who have casual sex don't have a right to have a say in what happens to the baby. If she wants to give it away for adoption or have an abortion, he should keep his mouth shut. Meaningless flings don't have weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
.
I totally agree.
The basic logical flaw in what many people are saying is this. Because both men and women play a role in fertilizing an egg, both should have equal rights when it comes to determining what happens to the baby.
The fallacy is that the man and woman are not equal in this situation. A woman not only contributes her egg to reproduction, in addition she gestates for nine months. She than goes through the experience of birth. The man simply contributing his sperm is not equal in that situation. Particularly, when he can simply vanish and if he chooses, never be heard from again.
The courts recognize the difference in the position of the woman and the man. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "Putative Father Statutes" when it comes to adoption. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). For those who need a definition of a "Putative Father Statutes" it is best to simply remember that in some situations they allow a mother to place her child for adoption without the birth father's consent. This is typically allowable when:
1. The identity of the birthfather cannot be ascertained.
2. The pregnancy resulted from rape or sexual assault.
3. The birth father showed no interest in acknowledging the child and/or paying any child support.
4. Some states put the burden on unmarried birth fathers to step forward if they wish to avoid having their child placed for adoption and filing a Notice of Paternity or getting on a state's birth registry.
In both our adoptions, the birth fathers signed a legal consent. However, I do not believe that birth mothers should be prevented from placing a child for adoption unless: (1) a birth father steps forward and acknowledges paternity in a legally specified manner; and (2) the birth father offers and is able to pay at least some minimal amount of child support.
Such laws work for the benefit of birth mothers, adoptees, and society. The law gives those birth fathers who want to be a real parent the opportunity to do so. However, they do place the burden on him to make certain inquiries and take action.
There is nothing unequal or discriminatory about such laws. They simply take into account the fact that men and women are positioned differently in these situations.
Mark,
I have found in adoption that many rules don't seem to apply - simple ones like "you can't have things both ways" - ah - only in adoption la-la land.
It's funny how a man who doesn't do any of the requirements during pregnancy to grant him the right to object to an adoption for his child - STILL has him on the hook for CHILD SUPPORT for 18 years if the mother chooses to parent...
Yet insert that magic word "adoption" and suddenly he has no rights...she parents - he is bound by law to support that child...
Only in adoption can they twist things so that yes, indeed, you can have something both ways.
Either a father has rights OR they have no rights. Only if they have rights do obligations follow...
Speaking as an adult adoptee who was placed for adoption against the will of my father (see earlier comment for details), I find it interesting that some people would encourage fathers to walk away from their own child.
Warren, you wrote:
Quote:
The woman has a greater involvement in the birth process than does the man. It's her body.
And her choice.
Again, speaking as an actual adopted person, it is my feeling that if a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy and not have an abortion, it then becomes about more than just her body. There is now another human being involved, the child. If the mother decides that she does not want to parent her own child, this is her right. But if the father decides that he does want to parent his own child, that should be his right as well. Because the child also has a right to be raised by his or her own family.
From personal experience as an adopted person, I can tell you that I'm proud of my dad for not willingly walking away from me. I'm proud of him for not giving up on me. I'm proud of him for fighting for me. He lost that fight. But at least he tried. Men who wish to raise their own children should be encouraged and supported. Warren, would you walk away from your own own child simply because the mother decided that she didn't want to parent?
And Mark, you wrote:
Quote:
The man simply contributing his sperm is not equal in that situation. Particularly, when he can simply vanish and if he chooses, never be heard from again.
There are men out there who have absolutely no intention of vanishing and never being heard from again. As I pointed out above, once the mother decides to continue the pregnancy and not have an abortion, there is another human being involved, the child. And some fathers actually do feel something for the children they create. Some fathers actually want to raise their own children. This should be their right and the child's right as well. If the mother decides she doesn't want to parent her own child, fine. But that child is also a part of his or her father. And if that father DOES want to parent his own child, this should be his right. Mark, would you also walk away from your own child simply because the mother decided that she didn't want to parent?
Having one or both of your parents walk away from you doesn't exactly feel all that great. Adoption doesn't change the fact that your own parents decided not to parent you. And some us struggle with how this makes us feel. It is my feeling that the potential effects on the child involved should be considered a priority once the decision has been made to continue a pregnancy. It is my feeling that if one of the child's parents is ready, willing and able to parent, this should be respected and made a priority over placing the child with people to whom he or she is not related. Because the child has a right to be raised with his or her own family.
Again, speaking as an actual adopted person here who was placed for adoption against the will of my father and paternal family. My father and paternal family members were ready, willing and able. And they were denied the opportunity. So I've actually lived this particular scenario as the resulting child and now adult daughter of the parents involved. First hand experience if you will.
I have found in adoption that many rules don't seem to apply - simple ones like "you can't have things both ways" - ah - only in adoption la-la land.
It's funny how a man who doesn't do any of the requirements during pregnancy to grant him the right to object to an adoption for his child - STILL has him on the hook for CHILD SUPPORT for 18 years if the mother chooses to parent...
Yet insert that magic word "adoption" and suddenly he has no rights...she parents - he is bound by law to support that child...
Only in adoption can they twist things so that yes, indeed, you can have something both ways.
Either a father has rights OR they have no rights. Only if they have rights do obligations follow...
This a great point Artful Dodger. When adoption is not part of the equation, the father is always legally held responsible for his role in simply providing the sperm. When the mother who engages in a one-night-stand and decides to raise the resulting baby, the father is legally bound to provide child support, etc. Even if he chooses to walk away, he can be tracked down and made to support his own child. And most people support the act of legally making a father responsible for his own child.
Now, once the prospect of getting another baby into the adoption machine enters the picture, suddenly the rights of the father and society's insistence that a father take responsibility for his ejaculation get thrown out the window. Fathers who actually WANT to parent their own children are often denied that right. And in turn, the right of a child to be raised by his or her own family is also denied.
So, are fathers responsible for their sperm or not? It shouldn't be one answer when adoption isn't involved and another answer if it is.
Mark, I actually do agree that the following is as it should be except that perhaps if the father is putting his name down on a registry, he should be given a list of state laws for ALL states - especially Utah.
However, I do think Utah has laws which have been abused by some lawyers as you note the from the articles I linked to earlier in the thread. These men in the articles were more than ready to step and be parents, some thought they were going to be parenting with the child's mother. There were a couple of underhanded tricks, eg if your girlfriend calls you to tell she is holidaying in Utah, you better put well put your name down on the Utah putative father registry. If your baby is born in Virginia and spirited off to Utah, again, one needs to put one's name down on the Utah registry.
Also a great point Susankate. The laws as provided by Mark should work as intended. But different states have different laws. And there are documented cases of those state-by-state laws being manipulated with the specific intent of denying a father his right to parent. The Baby Emma case is the one you refer to here. The father asserted his parental rights in the state of the child's birth, Virginia, within the legal time period. The mother then skipped off to Utah, however, to place the baby for adoption without his knowledge. As such, he was unable to assert his parental rights in the state of Utah within Utah's extremely short time period. So the mother was allowed place the baby with strangers in Utah despite the fact that the state of Virginia had awarded the father custody.
Because of cases like this, it is my feeling that the Putative Father Statues are a load of bunk. Because it is too easy to manipulate the laws to do exactly what the statutes are supposed to prevent. And as usual, the child involved ends up paying the price by being denied the right to be raised by his or her own family. Not to mention that the adoptees involved in the publicized cases will grow up with their entire narrative having been played out in the media and accessible forever on the Internet. This is hardly in the adoptee's best interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
