Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 18)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No testing in a stateless society? Says who? Why do some people assume technology would vanish if there wasn't a government?

I don't. I am saying you would have to kidnap a child you did not know was yours, in order to test it. Think about it.

Also, without a state to regulate against fraud, a genetic lab would tend to tell you whatever it thought was in its financial interest to say.

And you have not a dressed my point about how a stateless society would make it safer for a woman to kill you in your sleep that to break up with you.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I said: " You could take your biological child by force but you might be taking someone else's child and you would not know, since there was no testing. "

Seneca replied:
,TE]Originally posted by Seneca:
No testing in a stateless society? Says who? Why do some people assume technology would vanish if there wasn't a government? [/QUOTE]

I made no such assumption. I did not say that the tech would not exist. I said no testing would occur without either coercion or permission of the noncustodial parent. Either you have her consent or you are a kidnapper who doesn't even know it's his kid.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^permission of the CUSTODIAL parent ^^^
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, this thread got weird.
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It started weird. And when you peel away the layers, what's really complained of in the Utah law is a perceived loss of power to take away from single.moms the only tiny little bit of choice and power they have in their lives.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Pyrtolin, there is no such thing as adoption without state authority.

Hogwash and balderdash. Adoption pre-dates the idea of statehood, occurs within states without state authority, and even occurs in other species of the animal kingdom.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are no rights in a stateless society. There is only power.
Wrong. Natural rights exist. It becomes every individual's job to police and protect their own rights, but just because they have to do it themselves doesn't mean those rights cease to exist...
My right to survive is present whether or not I am successful at fighting off a bear from eating me...

quote:
Even if somehow people had developed advanced technology without something like a state, which I'm not granting, WHY would there be testing without a state? What incentive would the woman have to agree to genetic testing? And if she doesn't agree to it, then we are right back to coercion.
Really? You can't think of a way to get genetic material from someone without coercing them? There must be dozens, if not hundreds of ways to do this. Ever see a trashman coercing a woman to give up her trash every week? Nope...

quote:
I don't. I am saying you would have to kidnap a child you did not know was yours, in order to test it. Think about it.
Really? Since when do you need to have the child in custody to test its DNA? I guess kids don't generate trash either and carry around everything their saliva has ever touched...

quote:
Also, without a state to regulate against fraud, a genetic lab would tend to tell you whatever it thought was in its financial interest to say.
Absolutely ridiculous. To labs, the samples are numbers, they aren't even people. They also have no way of knowing if the parties involved want the test back positive or negative. Utterly ridiculous. It also ignores what a truly free market without state oversight would do, shopper discrimination. If a private lab in a stateless society was churning out completely random results, word would get around and people would stop using them and they'd die out. To assume that quality cannot exist without a state government to "watch over" people is the single most statist thing I've read here.

quote:
And you have not a dressed my point about how a stateless society would make it safer for a woman to kill you in your sleep that to break up with you.
Women can kill you now just as easily in your sleep. Knives and sledge hammers abound, and when someone is sleeping they are an easy target. Since we don't have pre-crime to stop murders before they happen, I don't see much of a difference here. If you are going to argue that less mothers kill their childrens' fathers today merely because of the thought of jail, I have to laugh at that. The kind of twisted and sick mentality it takes to murder someone in your family whether its official or they're just the unmarried parent of your child, is a special, sick kind of mentality that would kill regardless of laws or not.

quote:
I made no such assumption. I did not say that the tech would not exist. I said no testing would occur without either coercion or permission of the noncustodial parent. Either you have her consent or you are a kidnapper who doesn't even know it's his kid.
Absolutely ridiculous. In the years ahead, there will be tons of testing that people don't object to OR consent to because they will have no knowledge of it.

quote:
It started weird. And when you peel away the layers, what's really complained of in the Utah law is a perceived loss of power to take away from single.moms the only tiny little bit of choice and power they have in their lives.
Women have just as much freedom in their lives as men. And if they want even more freedom and they have a child, then they can turn that child over to the father who wants it and get even more freedom when they aren't responsible for the child anymore!

quote:
Hogwash and balderdash. Adoption pre-dates the idea of statehood, occurs within states without state authority, and even occurs in other species of the animal kingdom.
How often do you witness any kind of "consent" or "chain of custody" in the animal world?

Adoption in a stateless world would consist of the adopting parent taking the child and succeeding at that, or not. Nothing else. One may argue this is just "might makes right" mentality, but you are forgetting something, just because it may be someone's responsibility to uphold their natural rights and no one else is around to help them do it, doesn't make those natural rights any less real or valid. Fathers have a natural right to their children.

[ February 23, 2014, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My right to survive is present whether or not I am successful at fighting off a bear from eating me..."

Assuming you don't just go kill all nearby bears preemptively, which would be easier.

"You can't think of a way to get genetic material from someone without coercing them? There must be dozens, if not hundreds of ways to do this. Ever see a trashman coercing a woman to give up her trash every week?"

So your imagined jackboot anarchy has regular trash routes too? Go figure.

quote:
Women can kill you now just as easily in your sleep. Knives and sledge hammers abound, and when someone is sleeping they are an easy target. Since we don't have pre-crime to stop murders before they happen, I don't see much of a difference here.
The difference is motive, obviously. The situation you idealize gives the woman more MOTIVE to murder, not more opportunity.

"Women have just as much freedom in their lives as men. "

Straw man. I was talking not of women in general but of pregnant single women. Or do you not recognize that being pregnant and single creates certain restrictions?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Fathers have a natural right to their children.

Fathers don't even naturally know that they are fathers.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Assuming you don't just go kill all nearby bears preemptively, which would be easier.
That has nothing to do with the fact that natural rights are not subject to whether there is a successful enforcement mechanism for them. They exist regardless.

quote:
So your imagined jackboot anarchy has regular trash routes too? Go figure.
You can't envision privatized trash collection? It's already happening in some places.

quote:
The difference is motive, obviously. The situation you idealize gives the woman more MOTIVE to murder, not more opportunity.
Says who? Why? I disagree. I think in a stateless society a woman would be LESS likely to kill her child's biological father for a whole host of reasons.

quote:
Straw man. I was talking not of women in general but of pregnant single women. Or do you not recognize that being pregnant and single creates certain restrictions?
Straw man right back at you. We're not talking about pregnant women, are we?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fathers don't even naturally know that they are fathers.
Yes they do. Depending on the diversity of males around, physical appearances of children even from birth can be telling, as well as the number of males. There are many variables that even without complicated technological testing, a male could be reasonably certain whether a child was his.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Seneca. Fathers don't even naturally know that there's such a thing as fatherhood.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We're not talking about pregnant women, are we?"

If you're not, that explains why you haven't replied on point to my argument that in a stateless society, a woman in the Bride's situation would simply kill Bill the moment she found herself knocked up. Kill you in your sleep, if she didn't want to share custody rights with you. I talked to you about motive and you replied by saying opportunity hadn't changed. [Crying]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You can't envision privatized trash collection? It's already happening in some places."

Nice attempt to change the subject. I can envision privatized trash collection, assuming there's a working road system. But you had us talking about a stateless society. That means no public building or upkeep of roads, which in my mind stymmies the whole possibility of a private trash collection arising.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Says who? Why? I disagree. I think in a stateless society a woman would be LESS likely to kill her child's biological father for a whole host of reasons. "

Good gravy. Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? That's the worst "you're wrong because I say so" comeback that I've seen since [user name exempted for political reasons] shut down his account.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, Seneca. Fathers don't even naturally know that there's such a thing as fatherhood.
Ridiculous. This flies in the face of thousands of years of history and millions of years of natural history with regard to humans and their genetic predecessors.

quote:
If you're not, that explains why you haven't replied on point to my argument that in a stateless society, a woman in the Bride's situation would simply kill Bill the moment she found herself knocked up. Kill you in your sleep, if she didn't want to share custody rights with you. I talked to you about motive and you replied by saying opportunity hadn't changed.
We were talking about women who had a kid after they had given birth and the child was no longer a part of her. As for more killing in a stateless society, if that were true it would be true across the board and merely for greed and resource hoarding. So your argument is non-unique irrelevant.

quote:
Nice attempt to change the subject. I can envision privatized trash collection, assuming there's a working road system. But you had us talking about a stateless society. That means no public building or upkeep of roads, which in my mind stymmies the whole possibility of a private trash collection arising.
I can easily envision privatized road building and privately tolled roads everywhere too.

quote:
Good gravy. Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? That's the worst "you're wrong because I say so" comeback that I've seen since [user name exempted for political reasons] shut down his account.
A woman might hope to reconcile with said bio-dad for protection or resource reasons later.
A woman might be afraid of retribution from bio-dad's allies.
A women might be afraid of overall vigilante justice from any group of people that she may be living with, etc.

I could list another few hundred reasons, but I think that will suffice.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fathers have a natural right to their children.
Maybe I missed the part where people addressed prior issues with this kind of statement, but I'll say it again:

This idea is revolting nonsense.

Fathers do not have a natural right to their children. A person cannot have a right to another person.

Adults have responsibilities to children in general. Parents (however defined) have specific and more extensive responsibilities to children.

Anyone who is seriously trying to argue for changes to be made in laws pertaining to custody based on some supposed "natural right" of an adult to the person of a child is highly, highly suspect. That is clearly not a argument wherein the best interests of the child (a person with rights) are the top priority.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Fathers have a natural right to their children.
Maybe I missed the part where people addressed prior issues with this kind of statement, but I'll say it again:

This idea is revolting nonsense.

Fathers do not have a natural right to their children. A person cannot have a right to another person.

Adults have responsibilities to children in general. Parents (however defined) have specific and more extensive responsibilities to children.

Anyone who is seriously trying to argue for changes to be made in laws pertaining to custody based on some supposed "natural right" of an adult to the person of a child is highly, highly suspect. That is clearly not a argument wherein the best interests of the child (a person with rights) are the top priority.

Absurd. Fathers and mothers both have a right to their biological children.

Otherwise your argument is grounds for taking babies from every woman who gives birth and handing them out lottery-style to pre-approved "good households."

You cannot argue that there are many mothers that while not triggering CPS removal of their children, still have worse living conditions they provide for their kids than others.

Don't try to claim this is all about the welfare of the child primarily, if it were, then it would not be an automatic given that every mother would get her own child, she would have to prove she is better for the child than every other eligible mother nearby who put in a claim for the child.

[ February 23, 2014, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
". Otherwise your argument is grounds for taking babies from every woman who gives birth and handing them out lottery-style to pre-approved "good households."

You have a listening problem, and have misrepresented the issue. The issue is whether parenthood has to do more with custody or with genetics. If a man has raised a child as his son and suddenly a man and woman pop out of nowhere and say, hey we are the genetic parents, we just got out of prison, give us the child.back, you would be q flat idiot to paint the issue as natural rights of gene parents v state power. Custodial non genetic parents have rights, and a far better natural rights argument than the nincuatodial genetic parents.

Do you think an egg donor (I.e.a genetic mother who isn't a birth mother) should be able to prevail over a non genetic nlbirth mother in a custody dispute?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A woman might hope to reconcile with said bio-dad for protection or resource reasons later.
A woman might be afraid of retribution from bio-dad's allies.
A women might be afraid of overall vigilante justice from any group of people that she may be living with, etc

Things a mom won't do when she thinks it's for the good of her child ...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
". Otherwise your argument is grounds for taking babies from every woman who gives birth and handing them out lottery-style to pre-approved "good households."

You have a listening problem, and have misrepresented the issue. The issue is whether parenthood has to do more with custody or with genetics. If a man has raised a child as his son and suddenly a man and woman pop out of nowhere and say, hey we are the genetic parents, we just got out of prison, give us the child.back, you would be q flat idiot to paint the issue as natural rights of gene parents v state power. Custodial non genetic parents have rights, and a far better natural rights argument than the nincuatodial genetic parents.

Do you think an egg donor (I.e.a genetic mother who isn't a birth mother) should be able to prevail over a non genetic nlbirth mother in a custody dispute?

I was first dismissing the idea that the primary concern is the welfare of the child. After all, many birth mothers with horrible living conditions don't get their child removed even when there are willing and able parents looking to adopt who have better living conditions. If this was primarily about the welfare of the child many mothers who keep their kids would not. So lets dispense with that fantasy right now.
Because as much as a child may have a "bond" with a child, a child would still be "better off" being moved to a household where the parents don't constantly smoke around the children.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Things a mom won't do when she thinks it's for the good of her child ...
And this is proven by modern society? Don't think so...

Forget killing, many women hang around extremely dangerous and abusive men who are often the fathers of their children. We see stories about this every day.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Things a mom won't do when she thinks it's for the good of her child ...
And this is proven by modern society? Don't think so...

Forget killing, many women hang around extremely dangerous and abusive men who are often the fathers of their children


Ah. Well then the fact that SOME women stay in abusive relationships explains why you argue for laws that would force ALL women to stay in them.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not arguing for women to stay in bad relationships at all. We have situations of shared custody between divorced spouses. This situation isn't functionally different than a couple who were married and then got divorced before their child was born.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's appropriate for ex spouses because it's part of the agreement entered into with marriage. Marriage involves a contract between the husband, wife, and the state. Part of that contract involves recognizing husband's parental rights in case of divorce. If a woman doesn't want a man to be father to her children, she should not marry him.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's appropriate for ex spouses because it's part of the agreement entered into with marriage. Marriage involves a contract between the husband, wife, and the state. Part of that contract involves recognizing husband's parental rights in case of divorce. If a woman doesn't want a man to be father to her children, she should not marry him.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From a moral perspective or a pragmatic perspective a piece of paper shouldn't grant a biological father any more rights or privileges than he should have otherwise. A decent man who fathers a child is going to care about that child and want to be involved with it regardless of his relationship to the mother. The idea that fathers can only gain access to their children through the child's mother is about as absurd to me as the faiths that believe women can only gain access to God through their husbands. Both are sexist methods.

[ February 23, 2014, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From an educated perspective, anyone who refers to an agreement such as the marriage arrangement "a piece of paper" needs to be sent back to kindergarten. A paper is merely evidence of an agreement. The agreement is the understanding or meeting of the minds.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" A decent man who fathers a child is going to care about that child and want to be involved with it regardless of his relationship to the mother."

A decent and competent man would have secured his legal right to access his right to access his child before bringing it randomly into the world.

"The idea that fathers can only gain access to their children through the child's mother is about as absurd to me as the faiths that believe women can only gain access to God through their husbands"

Any idea seems absurd if you foolishlshly misrepresent it. The actual idea which you refuse to address is that a NONCUSTODIAL parent can only access a child through the CUSTODIAL parent

" absurd to me as the faiths that believe women can only gain access to God through their husbands"

Who the **** believes that? That doesn't sound like a real religion; that sounds like some lie told.to drooling fools about a hated religion, like the idiot on my son's bus who had been taught that Mormons have horns.

[ February 24, 2014, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wait a minute, you've been saying the only way someone becomes a 'legitimate' father is by the mother's appointment, so answer the question. What if she is indifferent?
quote:

If she's indifferent, then we're operating in a completely different scenario. The current context is of a woman that is going out of her way to avoid putting the child into the custody of its sire. If she didn't care, then the entire issue would have been moot from the get go.

[quote]That's a dumb definition. Because anyone who takes the baby becomes the parent. If it's another woman then the biological mother ceases to be a mother because she no longer has possession. That's ridiculous.

If another woman takes and raisins the child, then, so far as the child knows and forms social relationships to account for, that woman is the child's mother, sure. That's how adoption works. The active role of mother and father as social ones defined by an ongoing custodial relationship- the only part that biology plays in is through the unavoidable physical fact that the woman who birthed the child is initially the only person to actually have possession of it. It's a completely incidental factor to that physical fact. The mothers and fathers of the child are social roles defined after that point by who takes custody of the child after that point for long enough to establish themselves as such in the child's life, unless they actively distance themselves from the title and choose a different one.

quote:
In a stateless society might is the ONLY thing that makes right... it's not a matter of preference or me liking it, it simply is a matter of hard fact.
You're asserting that might is the only natural right? The why even bother paying lip service to any other rights? For all your protestation otherwise, you've just taken the prize for the most blatantly statist comment made on this board.

The statement:
quote:
If someone violates your natural rights, in a stateless society you WOULD have every right to respond with force to correct the situation yourself.
Becomes completely redundant in that context. The only limit on your ability to apply force to others to get what you want buy such a rights is their ability to apply force to you. And the winner of that contest gets to assert whatever rights they deem to exist by virtue of being the one with enough power to force everyone else to comply.
quote:
The child would not exist without the father's property making up half its genetic code...
What property. Excretions that he left behind in someone else's care? By you own logic on this thread, he ceased to have any right to determine how it was used and what was don't with it i the future as soon as he surrendered custody of it. If he didn't want it to be used to make a child for someone else, he should have kept it for himself.

{quote]
No testing in a stateless society? Says who? Why do some people assume technology would vanish if there wasn't a government?

A pre-state society is well pre any technology that was only able to be developed through human coordination. That's not even getting into the fact that all modern technology requires, as a baseline, a level of social and commercial organization that's impossible to maintain without some degree of enforceable societal contract between the people. One person, on their own, cannot build and operate a genetic testing facility from raw materials; you need a group of people governed by, at the very least, an agreement to undertake the operation. And, if they're not doing that within the context of a larger social agreement, that agreement becomes their de facto governing system for whatever duration it exists and is enforceable.

quote:

The mother is exercising her freedom to transfer custody, not to control anything. The sire loses no freedom here. He can continue to act exactly as he has in the past with absolutely no impact on his choices. In fact, you're actively asserting that a positive freedom should be applied to him- that he should be granted the freedom to forcefully take the child, something that he not would have not been allowed to do to any other set of parents that had custody of a child.

[quote]This is silly logic. Under this insane logic any woman can accost any other woman and claim she stole her baby, but we should ignore people who make this claim because they don't have possession? Or does this somehow not apply to females?

Anybody can accuse anyone of anything. Without proof of the accusation, it's just empty air. If the woman can prove that the child was taken from her against her will, then she has a case- if she has no proof of the claim then on what basis should her claim be validated?

quote:
We have laws to grant joint custody to fathers who don't want to be with their child's mothers, why should this matter whether they were ever formally married or not? Does a piece of paper change the fact they had sex and created a life together?
A piece of paper is how we track who is granted a title. It could be a social agreement without documentation as well, but having sex to don grant anyone any title to anything without a social convention or law that says that it does. The woman who birthed a child is usually granted the title of mother, but she can, by way of adoption choose another woman or women to get that initial title instead, unless there is some external force that forces her to do otherwise by the same manner she can, by default determine when man or men gets the initial title father.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We have laws to grant joint custody to fathers who don't want to be with their child's mothers, why should this matter whether they were ever formally married or not?

Seneca, informal marriage or common law marriage is one of the MANY points I have raised that you have refused to address. Once again:

Utah is one of the only states left that recognizes common law marriage.

It there are facts showing an informal marriage (the man and woman have manifested an exchange of promises to remain. Together for life) then that's a FACT that the man can and should bring to the court.

It seems hypocritical for you to get angry when I say the biodad's rights depend on the facts, but then you keep throwing out "what if" facts that add to the case of a particular dad having rights. An informal marriage-like arrangement is one of those facts that makes biodad more worthy of fatherhood rights than some random hookup.

It's the hookup I refer to as a sperm donor.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" The child would not exist without the father's property making up half its genetic code..."

Yet another question I asked earlier in this thread that yo u ignored and failed to answer:

If you eat a peach and toss the pit into a neighbor's yard, and your neighbor cares and waters it and it grows into a tree, can't your neighbor sell that tree? Absolutely. You abandoned the peach tree in his property. Unless you can show facts that you had an agreement with the neighbor to share ownership of the tree, it's just your neighbor's tree, period.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

From an educated perspective, anyone who refers to an agreement such as the marriage arrangement "a piece of paper" needs to be sent back to kindergarten. A paper is merely evidence of an agreement. The agreement is the understanding or meeting of the minds.

We were discussing hypothetical stateless societies. No need to throw insults out... Where are the courts that are going to uphold that agreement?

quote:
A decent and competent man would have secured his legal right to access his right to access his child before bringing it randomly into the world.
Because no decent or competent men have ever gotten involved with a woman who turned out nasty or nutty later? Seriously? Come on...

quote:
Any idea seems absurd if you foolishlshly misrepresent it. The actual idea which you refuse to address is that a NONCUSTODIAL parent can only access a child through the CUSTODIAL parent
That's ridiculous. You are defining custody as people who happen to be around the child the moment it pops out. That's very unproductive. In your definition a divorced father who isn't at the hospital when his kid pops out doesn't have custody because he wasn't there when it was born, so in order to get custody he'd have to move toward. Of course you claim that divorcees have certain rights that others don't, but if someone divorces prior to the birth of a child then it seems they are in the same functional situation as an unmarried father.

quote:
Who the **** believes that? That doesn't sound like a real religion; that sounds like some lie told.to drooling fools about a hated religion, like the idiot on my son's bus who had been taught that Mormons have horns.
Any reason you flew off the handle with profanity and insults? I was speaking hypothetically.

quote:
If another woman takes and raisins the child, then, so far as the child knows and forms social relationships to account for, that woman is the child's mother, sure. That's how adoption works. The active role of mother and father as social ones defined by an ongoing custodial relationship- the only part that biology plays in is through the unavoidable physical fact that the woman who birthed the child is initially the only person to actually have possession of it. It's a completely incidental factor to that physical fact. The mothers and fathers of the child are social roles defined after that point by who takes custody of the child after that point for long enough to establish themselves as such in the child's life, unless they actively distance themselves from the title and choose a different one.
Wrong.
Under that crazy definition, the mother who is emotionally and physically exhausted after birth isn't the mother. The nurse/doctor/midwife who grabs the child as it comes out and holds it/takes it away for a while becomes the parent because they have possession. See how unproductive this definition is? Can you guess how long it is sometimes for mothers with health complications before they get their children? Longer than Utah's waiting period or potential reversal time on adoptions... Sick isn't it?

quote:
You're asserting that might is the only natural right? The why even bother paying lip service to any other rights? For all your protestation otherwise, you've just taken the prize for the most blatantly statist comment made on this board.

The statement:
quote:
If someone violates your natural rights, in a stateless society you WOULD have every right to respond with force to correct the situation yourself.
Becomes completely redundant in that context. The only limit on your ability to apply force to others to get what you want buy such a rights is their ability to apply force to you. And the winner of that contest gets to assert whatever rights they deem to exist by virtue of being the one with enough power to force everyone else to comply.

You're not getting it. The only method to pursuing your rights in a stateless world would be might. It doesn't mean your rights disappear, it just means there may be no one to help you get them.

quote:
A pre-state society is well pre any technology that was only able to be developed through human coordination. That's not even getting into the fact that all modern technology requires, as a baseline, a level of social and commercial organization that's impossible to maintain without some degree of enforceable societal contract between the people. One person, on their own, cannot build and operate a genetic testing facility from raw materials; you need a group of people governed by, at the very least, an agreement to undertake the operation. And, if they're not doing that within the context of a larger social agreement, that agreement becomes their de facto governing system for whatever duration it exists and is enforceable.
Who is talking about pre-state? I used the word "stateless." That includes post-state as well. It's easy to conceive of a break-down in government where we still retain much of our technology and infrastructure.


quote:
Anybody can accuse anyone of anything. Without proof of the accusation, it's just empty air. If the woman can prove that the child was taken from her against her will, then she has a case- if she has no proof of the claim then on what basis should her claim be validated?
So in your PRE-state, PRE-testing scenario, any woman who successfully kidnaps a child and the original mother can't prove it becomes the de-facto right? Your answer to this may help construct a logic pattern that shows how fathers DO have a logical claim to their kids.

quote:
A piece of paper is how we track who is granted a title. It could be a social agreement without documentation as well, but having sex to don grant anyone any title to anything without a social convention or law that says that it does. The woman who birthed a child is usually granted the title of mother, but she can, by way of adoption choose another woman or women to get that initial title instead, unless there is some external force that forces her to do otherwise by the same manner she can, by default determine when man or men gets the initial title father.
Unless of course the bio-father disputes the "papers."
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Utah is one of the only states left that recognizes common law marriage.
There are nine left. Not the majority but not a mere handful.

quote:
It there are facts showing an informal marriage (the man and woman have manifested an exchange of promises to remain. Together for life) then that's a FACT that the man can and should bring to the court.
The point is that men and women can be equally changeable and capricious, and a couple that get along one day may have the inseminated mother decide the next day she wants nothing to do with a nice, caring father despite all the effort he may put in.

quote:
It seems hypocritical for you to get angry when I say the biodad's rights depend on the facts, but then you keep throwing out "what if" facts that add to the case of a particular dad having rights. An informal marriage-like arrangement is one of those facts that makes biodad more worthy of fatherhood rights than some random hookup.
We're not talking about a "random hookup," we're talking about two people intending to have a child and then one deciding she doesn't want anything to do with the guy even though he still wants to be part of the child's life.

quote:
Yet another question I asked earlier in this thread that yo u ignored and failed to answer:

If you eat a peach and toss the pit into a neighbor's yard, and your neighbor cares and waters it and it grows into a tree, can't your neighbor sell that tree? Absolutely. You abandoned the peach tree in his property. Unless you can show facts that you had an agreement with the neighbor to share ownership of the tree, it's just your neighbor's tree, period.

Your own genetic code is different than food you purchased and were snacking on.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Pyrtolin, there is no such thing as adoption without state authority.

Hogwash and balderdash. Adoption pre-dates the idea of statehood, occurs within states without state authority, and even occurs in other species of the animal kingdom.
Well this is just sloppy language on both our parts. Animal interactions are not particularly relevant in a discussion of legal adoptions and the rights of intelligent parents. I mean honestly, plenty of animals will kill and eat their own offspring, or even selectively kill the offspring of thier mate that they didn't father. That doesn't provide us a usefull insight on laws around infanticide.

So like I said if you're discussing an enforceable adoption mechanism it requires a state or other form of power to be exercised on its behalf. You can't make sensible arguments from a state of anarchy about how adoptions in a state of law must be determined. And when you discuss laws, then we believe in a just exercise of state power so we have to measure the impact of laws against that measure.

There's a lot of logical inconsistency on this thread. Thinking for instance that a father can't have a natural law right, while a mother can, that's nothing more than an inconsistent opinion, however you may justify it.

Or the belief that having a baby in your hands should be the basis on which it's future is determined, rather than an kind of rationale or balanced determination of its best interests.

Or the apparent automatic assumption that every single mother is a saint acting in the baby's best interest, while every man is an abuser. If you're going to have a rationale law it needs to work when the mother's a bad person and the father's a saint as well.

There seems to be a tremendous amount of ignoring that the law provides for mechanisms to deal with abusers, and that we don't need this as cheat to fix them too. And ignoring that its settled law that biological fathers do in fact have rights, even in Utah, meaning its pointless to claim they don't or insist for extra proof so you can claim a case taht doesn't exist is the true base case.

In short, I feel like the in favor of this rule have been largely refuted, and we've been listening to page after page of reasserted assumptions and emotional appeal. Make the logical case justifying the termination of the father's rights without an adequate hearing, or just admit you can't.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's very easy to declare victory if you rattle off a list of things that no one has said, but you may as well not have even made the effort and wasted everyone's time

quote:
Thinking for instance that a father can't have a natural law right, while a mother can, that's nothing more than an inconsistent opinion, however you may justify it.
No such argument was made. The argument was that biological similarity is not the source of any natural rights. That a woman's right to initial custody comes from the physical fact of gestation establishing a strong existing relationship and direct physical custody as of the time of birth.

quote:
Or the belief that having a baby in your hands should be the basis on which it's future is determined, rather than an kind of rationale or balanced determination of its best interests.
No one argued that it should be done that way, or that it was ideal to do it that way, only that that is the default, natural state of things. Any external rule that overrides that is a legal power or entitlement to override that natural freedom. The issue there was not to say what _should_ be done, but rather explain clearly why the power to change that is an entitlement- a legally or socially created right to legitimize forcefully limiting another person's natural freedom, not any kind of naturally right (unless you want to assert might makes right)

quote:
Or the apparent automatic assumption that every single mother is a saint acting in the baby's best interest, while every man is an abuser. If you're going to have a rationale law it needs to work when the mother's a bad person and the father's a saint as well.
No such argument was made. Such assertions are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand at all, unless you want to suggests that you believe that the state should have preemptive power to declare someone unfit and claim custodial powers.

quote:
There seems to be a tremendous amount of ignoring that the law provides for mechanisms to deal with abusers
The law as it generally stands tends to favor abuser and act as an agent to further complicate abusive situations. You would do well to actually educate yourself on this matter before asserting such complete nonsense.

quote:
And ignoring that its settled law that biological fathers do in fact have rights, even in Utah
It's existing law that they have entitlements, sure. But the fact that a given legal entitlement has long been granted and enforced does not make it a natural right or suggest that it not inherently abusive or actively harmful.

I'm not sure if any are left where this is true, but there are some states that have only within the past decade updated their laws to acknowledge that marriage does not entitle a man to sex with his wife whenever he wants to- that having sex with a spouse against the spouse's consent is, in fact rape, even though it had long been established in law that they had the right to do just that.

Such a right as you describe exists in as much as there is a defined legal entitlement that creates it. It is not at all established as a natural right- you yourself even directly acknowledged that it's context is culturally limited at the very least, so there's no basis at all to argue that it is anything but a legally created entitlement, except that you seem to want to avoid acknowledging that fact, perhaps because it means that it only exists as far as the law allows it to extend.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Animal interactions are not particularly relevant in a discussion of legal adoptions and the rights of intelligent parents."

Well if you meant only legal adoption, saying that it requires a state is kind of a non-statement, neh?

"That a woman's right to initial custody comes from the physical fact of gestation establishing a strong existing relationship and direct physical custody as of the time of birth."

If that's what you meant then I agree.

"Or the apparent automatic assumption that every single mother is a saint acting in the baby's best interest, while every man is an abuser."

now THAT I never claimed or said. Classes such as saint and abuser obviously require some sort of code of conduct, if not a judicial body, to assign.

"Or the belief that having a baby in your hands should be the basis on which it's future is determined,"

The question of who has a baby in their hands clearly is the basis on which its future is determined, absent any intervening force. That's just cultural physics.

I'd appreciate if you'd make some effort to distinguish my arguments from Pyr's. Pyr and I may share some values and opinions, but it's discourteous if not outright fallacious to ask me to answer for his statements.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Utah is one of the only states left that recognizes common law marriage.
There are nine left. Not the majority but not a mere handful.
Please don't be a twerp. There are more than 52 separate jurisdictions in the USA, and considering that most of them at one time recognized CLM, it's perfectly accurate to say that Utah is one of the only states left recognizing it. And Scottland, the last European state to recognize it, ceased more than 10 years ago. You strain at a perceived technicality to evade my point: Utah is a holdout on old rules that made sense in their context, not a creator of new injustices. Stop competing and actually think for one ****ing moment: do you or do you not recognize that Utah's recognition of informal marriage mitigate the injustice that you were claiming?


quote:
It there are facts showing an informal marriage (the man and woman have manifested an exchange of promises to remain. Together for life) then that's a FACT that the man can and should bring to the court.

--------
The point is that men and women can be equally changeable and capricious, and a couple that get along one day may have the inseminated mother decide the next day she wants nothing to do with a nice, caring father despite all the effort he may put in.

If that's the point you're emphasizing then you either don't understand what I said or you care more about winning than about the substantive issues at play. The salient point is that the man's claim on the child is based on FACTS.

quote:
It seems hypocritical for you to get angry when I say the biodad's rights depend on the facts, but then you keep throwing out "what if" facts that add to the case of a particular dad having rights. An informal marriage-like arrangement is one of those facts that makes biodad more worthy of fatherhood rights than some random hookup.


--------
We're not talking about a "random hookup," we're talking about two people intending to have a child and then one deciding she doesn't want anything to do with the guy even though he still wants to be part of the child's life.

Good hell, Seneca, think! We are talking about Utah's adoption laws which YOU claim are "evil." I have pointed out that the laws which you demonize attempt (imperfectly I have admitted) to distinguish between a mere genetic father (aka sperm donor) and one with some sort of equitable claim on fatherhood based on FACTS, including but not limited to marriage status.

quote:
Yet another question I asked earlier in this thread that yo u ignored and failed to answer:

If you eat a peach and toss the pit into a neighbor's yard, and your neighbor cares and waters it and it grows into a tree, can't your neighbor sell that tree? Absolutely. You abandoned the peach tree in his property. Unless you can show facts that you had an agreement with the neighbor to share ownership of the tree, it's just your neighbor's tree, period.
-----
Your own genetic code is different than food you purchased and were snacking on.

How so? Abandoned property is abandoned property.

Look, whether you look at it through contract theory or unjust enrichment theory or property theory, your argument fails. I've dealt with these each individually above on this thread. You raise this amorphous "natural rights" theory, but in the end you have nothing to show but "because I say so." Joshua claims some magical connection between man and his genetic offspring, but magic is not a basis of our constitutional law. If there's magic, then let the magic work on its own without operation of law.

Have I missed any argument here?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It's very easy to declare victory if you rattle off a list of things that no one has said, but you may as well not have even made the effort and wasted everyone's time

We're on page what? You can really claim that I haven't made an effort? I think responded to you dozens of times, and yet you do nothing but repeat assertions without proof. You apparently are unwilling to argue from a position of knowledge about the law, so you expect others to accept your assertions as the "new baseline" and move on from there. Enough really. Show a basis to deny father's their rights, or just admit you can't.
quote:
quote:
Thinking for instance that a father can't have a natural law right, while a mother can, that's nothing more than an inconsistent opinion, however you may justify it.
No such argument was made. The argument was that biological similarity is not the source of any natural rights. That a woman's right to initial custody comes from the physical fact of gestation establishing a strong existing relationship and direct physical custody as of the time of birth.
So like I said, natural law rights for a mother but not a father. That you've justified by picking one basis as legitimate and declaring other not.
quote:
quote:
Or the belief that having a baby in your hands should be the basis on which it's future is determined, rather than an kind of rationale or balanced determination of its best interests.
No one argued that it should be done that way, or that it was ideal to do it that way, only that that is the default, natural state of things.
Where? When? What mythincal pre-law society worked this way? And really significantly why should anyone care?
quote:
Any external rule that overrides that is a legal power or entitlement to override that natural freedom. The issue there was not to say what _should_ be done, but rather explain clearly why the power to change that is an entitlement- a legally or socially created right to legitimize forcefully limiting another person's natural freedom, not any kind of naturally right (unless you want to assert might makes right)
So you made a state of nature, declared it the sole acceptable sources of right, made up an interpretation of how state power works that's completely contrary to how it actually works, then concluded that you must be right. Like I said, you've been refuted, and keep reasserting your assumptions.
quote:
quote:
Or the apparent automatic assumption that every single mother is a saint acting in the baby's best interest, while every man is an abuser. If you're going to have a rationale law it needs to work when the mother's a bad person and the father's a saint as well.
No such argument was made. Such assertions are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand at all, unless you want to suggests that you believe that the state should have preemptive power to declare someone unfit and claim custodial powers.
That assumption is in everything you say, including in your very next comments below where you claim that the default is the protection of abuse.
quote:
quote:
There seems to be a tremendous amount of ignoring that the law provides for mechanisms to deal with abusers
The law as it generally stands tends to favor abuser and act as an agent to further complicate abusive situations. You would do well to actually educate yourself on this matter before asserting such complete nonsense.
I'm not aware of any reasonable construction of law as "tending to favor the abuser". And your assertion that I should educate myself on this when you keep demonstrating no understanding for what the law is, how it works or the principals involved is a bit hilarious.
quote:
quote:
And ignoring that its settled law that biological fathers do in fact have rights, even in Utah
It's existing law that they have entitlements, sure. But the fact that a given legal entitlement has long been granted and enforced does not make it a natural right or suggest that it not inherently abusive or actively harmful.
No a long entitlement doesn't make a natural right. Of course no one but you said that occurred. Father's have rights, whether or not you accept them as natural law rights only impacts the degree to which they are violable. In any event, they exist, and your quaint arguments need to start from that premise to have merit.
quote:
I'm not sure if any are left where this is true, but there are some states that have only within the past decade updated their laws to acknowledge that marriage does not entitle a man to sex with his wife whenever he wants to- that having sex with a spouse against the spouse's consent is, in fact rape, even though it had long been established in law that they had the right to do just that.
And see, here you try to Godwin the argument with an appeal to marital rape. Funny, didn't you just claim not to be engaging in the meme that men are abusers? And yet you instantly bring it back up.
quote:
Such a right as you describe exists in as much as there is a defined legal entitlement that creates it. It is not at all established as a natural right- you yourself even directly acknowledged that it's context is culturally limited at the very least, so there's no basis at all to argue that it is anything but a legally created entitlement, except that you seem to want to avoid acknowledging that fact, perhaps because it means that it only exists as far as the law allows it to extend.
Well, philosophically, no matter whether rights are natural or not they can only exist where the state doesn't abuse them. That's not from some kind of failing in the naturalness of the right, but rather from the overwhelming power of the state. If the state chooses to execute citizens for political reasons, we view that as a violation of their rights, it could as easily be viewed as taking away of those rights. End of day it's a bit moot.

Fact is, the rights of biological fathers have well over majority support, notwithstanding your handwaiving.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Animal interactions are not particularly relevant in a discussion of legal adoptions and the rights of intelligent parents."

Well if you meant only legal adoption, saying that it requires a state is kind of a non-statement, neh?

Yes, I only really brought it up to address Pyrtolin's nonsense about the natural state, which he then tries to extrapolate into legal adoptions without adjustmet.
quote:
"Or the apparent automatic assumption that every single mother is a saint acting in the baby's best interest, while every man is an abuser."

now THAT I never claimed or said. Classes such as saint and abuser obviously require some sort of code of conduct, if not a judicial body, to assign.

***

I'd appreciate if you'd make some effort to distinguish my arguments from Pyr's. Pyr and I may share some values and opinions, but it's discourteous if not outright fallacious to ask me to answer for his statements.

I wasn't specifically addressing the whole post to you, apologies if that was unclear. In fact most of it after the initial point was directed at others.

As I understand the basis on your position fundementally its rooted in your belief that we should give overwhelming preference to marriages, that father's should get thier rights by being married and that any other situation is lesser and sort of they get what they deserve. That's probably a little harsher than what you mean, but that's kind of how it nutshells out to me.

Personally, I think the state shouldn't be terminating the rights of either biological parent without due cause, and don't see a reason that we should disfavor unmarried father's so grossly - I mean honestly, if there was a marriage here there's no question the father would be entitled to consent, even if they were separated for the last 8.9 months. How is that a better result, than an unmarried father who's girlfriend leaves him 2 days before the birth and adopts the child out before he has a chance to take action?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1