|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having a child raised by a biological parent would seem to be a good thing, so as to not add unnecessarily to the increasing load of overworked adoption agencies.
Knowing who you are and where you came from would seem to be a good thing - all the advocates of open adoptions say so.
A child, incase of needing blood, or a transplant, would have blood relations; a likely match, available. This would seem to be a good thing.
I thought it was all about the good of the child. We always hear this pious pronouncement that men have to sacrifice what they want for the life they engendered, but their wants and needs are secondary, as the good of the child has to come first.
Ooops. Clumsy me. Here I have my handbook of pheminazi code phrases and right here it defines "good of the child" as "a means to subordinate the wishes and rights of men, not to be used against women." Just a somkescreen. Just empty words. Gynocratic shaming language to have men just "Suck it Up!"
One standard for women, a higher standard for men. So what else is new?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @12:47PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing who you are isn't a good thing when your mother is an ugly whore, and your father is some halfbreed fuck who picked her ugly ass up in a bar and never would have fucked her ugly cunt if he wasn't shit fucking drunk. Mom's a cunt and a whore, dad hates her because she's ugly and fat and a fucking lying cunt. Because you were born of a fucking ugly cunt, you're a piece of shit who deserves nothing because you are half that ugly fucking whore. The good of the child my ass. The child doesn't need to know its mother is a cunt a whore and an ugly fucking slut. You want the kid to know to punish it. Your own mother is probably some ugly fucking cunt slut whore bitch and your daddy hates her ugly fucking face and wishes he'd never stuck his cock in her rotten snatch. Just because you were told you dropped out of some cunt doesn't mean everyone else wants to know that too asswipe cuntfucker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have money that says according to the rules of this law, where the women does not have to advertise if the child is a product of an assault, that the allegations of such assaults will balloon by about 1000%. Oddly right around the time that no evidence can be incured and before an adoption. blah blah blah
I'll bet two dollars.(at least I'll double my money)
Here's a feminist version of the same issue.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorid a/sfl-padopt080702.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support the intent but this is just a ill conceived law. I can't see how it can be enforced. Furthermore, I think it will increase the incidence of abortion. Logically, if a father had wanted to take custody of his child, then it follows that he wouldn't want the child to be aborted. So father's rights aren't being protected that I can see by this law.
Also, men's names may also be displayed in the paper, with the assumption of his fugitive status. I can't see how that could be a good thing for men, since logically some of them would be incorrectly named.
I want fathers to have equal say in adoption but this law just seems dumb. There has to be a better way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 26, @06:38PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's enforcement for you, if you really mean enforcement:
Any woman who shall withhold information on who a father is for a child given up for adoption shall be charged with kidnapping in the first degree, no plea bargains, and if convicted shall serve the maximum sentence.
There. That doesn't punish the child. It doesn't necessarily help the man, but it addresses the guilty party, and makes her responsible for her own actions. I'd also mandate prosecution for paternity fraud, and mandatory jail time. Being felonies it would also count towards the three strikes and you get life with no parole laws.
Since only dishonest women would be subject to these laws, and we know they are as rare as hen's teeth, those would be okay, right? Or do you still want to have your female privilege and no accountability for women who choose to use men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't see how it could be worked out legally. If a woman doesn't know, she doesn't know. If she won't tell, she won't tell. How would we know the difference?
Would it be equal to require men to name all his sexual partners? What if he didn't know their names? How would we get this information?
In all this, I don't see the child's interest being served no matter which way you look at it. If the woman can't put the baby up for adoption because she can't or won't name the father, then what becomes of the child? Does the State take charge and the child loses his chance to go to a loving family?
I do think it is rare that a woman (who was not raped) wouldn't know who the father was, or at least have it narrowed down to a few individuals. Perhaps if she were a prostitute this might be truly the case, but the vast majority of women know. But what if she didn't know? How would the child's interest be served by waiting for information that will never come? The child is in limbo.
As for paternity fruad, that would be mostly solved (except in the same cases, rape or the woman really doesn't know the father's identity) by requiring a father's name on a birth certificate and backing it up with DNA testing if there is a dispute.
I don't know why a woman wouldn't give the name of the father if she knew it. I can't see any reason why she wouldn't. But I suppose it does happen. I'd very dubious about claims that this is a common occurence.
But if she says she doesnt' know, doesn't have any idea, it would seem to take a lot to prove she does know and is just not telling. You'd have to find independent proof that she did know and present that in court. Very difficult to prove, plus taking up a lot of time to prosecute, meanwhile the child is in limbo waiting for a loving family to adopt him.
The only thing I can see happening is more decisions to abort. If a woman was basing the decision to carry through with the pregnancy on the assumption that she could put the baby up for adoption, and she was intent on not involving the father, then this law would sway her toward abortion. This is the only logical alternative, and one which is perfectly legal. So, the law seems to me to be coercing some number of women toward abortion. I would oppose it on that reason alone, as I think the child is better off born than not at all.
I definitely agree that the father should be notified and have the ability to raise his kid. I agree totaly with the stated intent of the law. I just don't see that this law will achieve what it is intended to achieve.
It seems to me to hurt men more than it helps them, and in the meantime also hurts the child. The child will end up either aborted or in State custody limbo while everyone figures out what to do. The law seems to work counter to its intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" definitely agree that the father should be notified and have the ability to raise his kid. I agree totaly with the stated intent of the law. I just don't see that this law will achieve what it is intended to achieve. "
I will tell you what it was intended to acheive. The agencies are tired of ending up in court fighting a custody battle over and over because the father wasn't informed of the child.
Im sure they *know* the score, where the girl really did know who the father was but just wasn't saying.
The bogus law will force someone to play a hand, most likely the fembots will pick up on this. In the end it will become uncontested by men or the men's side. The law will now allow a woman to give a child away without the father's conscent as he wasn't around and it will be unlawful to ask the mother who daddy is.
In the end, the adoption agencies will get what they want, the fembots will get what they want and father's will get squat.
Don't be fooled this has absolutely fuck all to do with men's or father's rights. It has to do with the *adoption agencies rights*.
No matter how they get it all to work out, the adoption agencies do not want to end up in court after giving children away. That real father thing is just a nussence to them and gets in the way of their big money operation.
But as far as its enforceable, something tells me that when a woman has to go public like that she will *suddenly* remember who she slept with.
,
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me, Dan, that what a lot of the current whining coming from the "Gang of Six" and their pheminazi lawyers and sympathizers is that the dog they have used for so long to chase we "mere males" around has turned around and bit them.
Some poor un-re-educated fool decided somewhere that the "good of the child" really meant the child, and didn't check his or her "Gloria Steinem Secret Decoder Ring" to realize that it stood for "The convenience of the female."
Sure, it's the adoption agencies pushing it, but because they are getting hit with lawsuits and bad publicity; and because they are getting hit in their pocketbooks. People are going to private adoption, because they can know all the principals and not have to worry about a father turning up later and trying to assert his rightful place with his child. Clients are spending big money on these actions.
Adoption agencies have been sued for not exercising "due diligence," and in a typically cowardly big business fashion want to piously intone, "We're so sorry, we have to follow the law," rather than do the right thing on their own initiative.
Adoption agencies are tired of the bad PR they get.
What is so frustrating to these people filing the lawsuit, and so amusing to me, is they are in a no-win situation. If they lose, a step is made closer to forcing women to play under the same rules as men. If they lose, it will either become more clear to more men (strengthening our movement) that women once again are given a free pass at the expense of men; AND/OR there comes an issue that trumps the previously sacrosanct "Best Interests of the Child" doctrine, that men can pick up and use as a new weapon.
I hope we get some men's rights groups filing some amicus curia briefs here, as the predicted tactic will be used to limit this for women's use alone. Declarations of unenforcability is just the first salvo in this insidious movement to strip men of yet more rights and confer them on women. We can expect a trotting out of the "Father didn't want them anyway or he'd have been there and known" card, the "Most fathers don't have time to raise a child alone (because they are too busy being some welfare queen's wage slave)" card, and of course the ever present "Men are Pigs, and this is another example of THE MAN trying to subjugate women" canard in some variation.
Remember another thing - many women giving up children for adoption can expect a fee for it, a nice fat juicy check. This isn't *ALL* about the big agencies, especially in the arena of private adoption. No daddy, no commodity to sell; and if daady says "I want my baby" she watches that check sprout wings and fly out the window. Follow the money, my man, follow the money. Amazing how women's memories are so good when they get drooling over a fat support check, and they suddenly grow forgetful when they need that lump sum payment.
Yeah, are there some women who are going to scurry off to a city where nobody knows them once they are pregnant, have the kid, have an adoption go anyway by claiming "I just don't know!"? Absolutely. You Betcha. What strikes fear is that if they do this, they have now committed perjury, and a big-money lawyer with connections who arranged the adoption and now has egg on his face, or a well-heeled agency that makes political contributions is going to face writing out a settlement check to someone. And then the greased political wheels will turn and someone is going to tap a prosecutor on the shoulder, and say "This woman. Perjury. Make an example. And make her give the money back."
Women's accountability for women's actions. There's what strikes the chord of fear in the hearts of the pheminazis.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @12:48PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Most mothers are ugly cunt bitches. Do any of you love your mothers? Nope because they're ugly fucking bitches, same reason your fathers hate the fucking cunts and wish they'd drop dead, the whore sluts. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
