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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  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 
Seneca: marriage doesn't significantly protect from govt intrusion.

Pete: shows that real families can use marriage to prevent government intrusion that would otherwise break up the family.


Seneca: changes the subject to talk about govt interest in stopping illegal immigration.

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 
No, you failed to understand what I was saying. We shouldn't have to rely on government licensed marriage to protect from government intrusion!

List a protection that you think government-recognized marriage provides to protect people from the government, and I will show you a way to change government so that intrusion doesn't even exist at all and therefore government marriage isn't needed for it.

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 
Tell you what, why don't you just pretend I haven't already answered your question and declare victory, repeating the questions I already answered.
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 told you, name a protection for CITIZENS that you think government licensed marriage provides. Why won't you do that?
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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No, you failed to understand what I was saying. We shouldn't have to rely on government licensed marriage to protect from government intrusion!

List a protection that you think government-recognized marriage provides to protect people from the government, and I will show you a way to change government so that intrusion doesn't even exist at all and therefore government marriage isn't needed for it.

Now you REALLY sound like a lefto-statist. "Just get rid of marriage and let me rewrite the whole govt and society, and allwill be dandy."
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 
Where is marriage or the power to regulate it listed in the Constitution?
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 
Madison wept, man. Are you seriously taking the position that STATE govt powers need to be enumerated in the US constitution?
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 
Is there some reason that "to the states or to the people respectively" was put into the 10th? Why not just say "the states" and call it quits?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Pete

> Your whole argument is affirmative apartheid, based on ****ing over single moms to compensate for historical injustices for single dads.

It's not historical injustices for single dads. This is going on right now as this whole drama proves beyond any doubt.

Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm confident that if one of these cases made it to the Supreme Court this law would be found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment because it doesn't grant the equal protection of the laws to fathers.

This won't be the first time a state is proven to have violated the Constitutional rights of its citizens. But it is certainly the most heinous conceivable type of violation since slave babies were brutally separated from their parents. And the rationales behind it aren't that far removed either.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose I should mention that this is nothing personal against you Pete or the Mormon Church. I'm just looking at the bare bones facts of the situation and calling it exactly as I see it. I would feel the same way no matter what state this happened in and no matter what religion supported it. I'd feel the same way if it was in a different country. There is a principle involved here. I still bristle at the memory of being in the hospital when my first son was born and the nurse asking my wife if she wanted my name on the birth certificate. I will fight against that type of evil no matter who, no matter where, and no matter what.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  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 cherrypoptart:
I suppose I should mention that this is nothing personal against you Pete or the Mormon Church. I'm just looking at the bare bones facts of the situation and calling it exactly as I see it. I would feel the same way no matter what state this happened in and no matter what religion supported it.

I don't think you are aware of the facts when you accused the church of kidnapping Indian kids back in the mid 20th century. You were carelessly repeating what you heard on Fox news. They lie.
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 cherrypoptart:
I suppose I should mention that this is nothing personal against you Pete or the Mormon Church. I'm just looking at the bare bones facts of the situation and calling it exactly as I see it. I would feel the same way no matter what state this happened in and no matter what religion supported it. I'd feel the same way if it was in a different country. There is a principle involved here. I still bristle at the memory of being in the hospital when my first son was born and the nurse asking my wife if she wanted my name on the birth certificate. I will fight against that type of evil no matter who, no matter where, and no matter what.

I sympathize with your feeling on that experience. But you're jumping to conclusions about the church being behind that law as the church being behind that law. And I agree with you that the law needs exceptions and that the specific boys in that story deserve relief.

What state were you in when the nurse asked hour wife if she wanted your name on the birth certificate?

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:
I saw what you originally wrote, then your edit, then your third iteration. Very amusing.

on reflection I apologize for the professional cheap shot I put into the edit and then withdrew in the next edit.
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 
This might, or might not, seem totally unrelated to the foregoing argument, depending on your perspective:

A huge pet peeve of mine is when documents discussing history, or heaven forbid current events, talk about what the people of some-country-or-other do with their women and children.

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 Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I saw what you originally wrote, then your edit, then your third iteration. Very amusing.

on reflection I apologize for the professional cheap shot I put into the edit and then withdrew in the next edit.
Thank you, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth Pete, I also don't necessary blame "Mormons" for this, though the official church may have contributed to the passage of the laws in the state legislature, I'm not researched enough on the legislative background to know.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
[QUOTE]Ridiculous. You could plan to marry a woman, she could say yes, you could conceive then she could change her mind. Or she could divorce prior to the birth.

Indeed. That would be rather undeniable evidence of a failed relationship. Relationships (of the kind in question here) exist entirely on the basis of uncdefaultoerced mutual consent. No amount of planning, effort, or what have you on past of either party entitles them in any way to the consent of the other person in question.

quote:
Besides, I'm not a fan of state-recognized marriage anyway, marriage should be a private relationship among parties, and I'd rather get the state out of the marriage business altogether.
Well, then, you're in luck. You can have your own such private marriage whenever you want without involving anyone else at all now, under current law, and you don't have to give others to conformto your desires in order to do it. Of course, as with many other things, you actually seem to be saying that what you want to do is to unilaterally dictate conformance with you ideals to others.

Especially keep in mind here, that your position, as I think Pete has also tried to point out, only works with very active state intervention- both in assignment and recognition of property rights based on biological relationship, and then by actively limiting the freedom of the mother based on that assertion of rights. There is literally no way to restrict a woman's freedom to choose to surrender the child (and otherwise cut the man out of the process entirely, without very active state intervention, particularly if you've removed the very public instituition that the state created to formalize the default assignment of such rights.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
You seem to be confused. The problem here is not my asking for state intervention into protecting the father's rights, I am wanting the state to stop going out of its way to help the mother remove the child from the father's life. IE: in the story the hospital threatened to call the police, and if said police had arrived they would have arrested that guy for trying to get to his biological child. Instead, the hospital should not have been able to do that, and the police should be powerless to come between a law abiding father and his child. Also, in Utah, the system is going out of its way to cover mothers' tracks to the detriment of others. The state needs to stop doing that.

[ February 16, 2014, 04:25 AM: 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 
Cover mother's tracks? How does that even apply?

To detriment of others?

I'd say affirm mother's judgement to benefit of the child.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is anyone else bothered by the rhetoric of a child belonging to their parents or of parental rights? I'd prefer it to be constructed as parents have responsibilities to their children, and powers to help them fulfill those responsibilities. I'm not comfortable with the idea that they have rights over their children in the same way a person has the right to freedom of speech.

Parents get power and authority over their children because they are presumed to be the best custodians of their children's best interests. Not because they have an inherent right to control and influence the life of another person.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Is anyone else bothered by the rhetoric of a child belonging to their parents or of parental rights? I'd prefer it to be constructed as parents have responsibilities to their children, and powers to help them fulfill those responsibilities. I'm not comfortable with the idea that they have rights over their children in the same way a person has the right to freedom of speech.

Parents get power and authority over their children because they are presumed to be the best custodians of their children's best interests. Not because they have an inherent right to control and influence the life of another person.

Couldn't agree more. "Parent's rights" are ultimately incompatible with the human rights of children. In practice, I don't think there is a big problem in this country, but it is indeed a dangerous framing. People have rights, but they can never include dominion over another person.

What parents can and should have is broad liberty in the execution of their parenting responsibilities. That *responsibility* is theirs by default, and the state should have a compelling cause (and the burden of proof) to intervene. But it's not a "right" to parent, or a right to control the life of a child. Rather, its a prerogative to raise their own children, and the legal authority to do so and make the important decisions that go along with that role.

In terms of the thread title, I highly doubt it has anything to do with raising kids in mormon families; my suspicion is that its about abortion: give women a no-questions-asked adoption option to make it easier to choose not to terminate their pregnancy. Obviously, not a well-thought-out position...

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  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 remember discussion surrounding this law was based on stats comparing the mother's life after abortion v after adopting out vs after single parenthood and the adopting-out moms did the best in medium and long run. Kids did as well. So I agree the law involved abortion issues, but I think it was based in good faith on doing what lawmakers thought was best outcome for baby, for mom, and for society at large.

As to whether it's thought through I agree that today with genetic testing available some exceptions should be crafted.

I think that what some.men have proposed -- that a woman who tried to get her baby adopted out should lose all rights to the child and have to pay child support to the single dad, is a dispicanlbly evil proposal, on a Moloch scale.

As to Adam's contention that the law was not thought through, that depends on facts not in evidence. Is Utah's adoption rare higher than in surrounding states? Is its abortion rate lower than in surrounding states? Is its single motherhood rate lower than in surrounding states? If the law achieved its goals, then it's well thought through, even if you disagree with its goals and think our society needs more abortion and kids born with daddy issues to stock our nation's prisons and whorehouses.

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 cherrypoptart:


Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm confident that if one of these cases made it to the Supreme Court this law would be found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment because it doesn't grant the equal protection of the laws to fathers.

This won't be the first time a state is proven to have violated the Constitutional rights of its citizens. But it is certainly the most heinous conceivable type of violation since slave babies were brutally separated from their parents. And the rationales behind it aren't that far removed either.

You can't "separate" someone from a child they arernt with to begin with. You cant "deprive" a biological dad of custody that he never had to begin with.

If dad had been with and cared for the child for nine months then I would agree that taking it would be monstrous. But your treating him as a full fledged parent in the legal sense just because of one trivial DNA contribution is just stupid.

This isn't an equal protection matter, since a mere genetic parent is obviously not equally vested in terms of life/liberty/property in the child's life as a birth mother or a long term caretaker.


If a woman donated an egg to another woman who uses that egg to become the birth mother, should the egg mother be assumed to have rights superceding those of the birth mother? I say BS. This isn't a male vs female thing. It's Horton the elephant against lazy maisy the genetic parent.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two people have sex, baby is born, mother raises baby alone, father is required to pay child support; completely fair.

Two people have sex, baby is born, father decides to raise baby alone, mother is required to pay child support; Molochian injustice.

Okay then

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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:
Cover mother's tracks? How does that even apply?

To detriment of others?

I'd say affirm mother's judgement to benefit of the child.

Pete, the Utah system goes out of the way to legally cover up and protect all the paper trail of where she gave birth, the child's identity, the identity of the adopting parents and threatens to jail the father if they catch wind and try to get down there while their kid is on the premises and waiting to be stolen away forever. I call that massive interference.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Pete, the Utah system goes out of the way to legally cover up and protect all the paper trail of where she gave birth, the child's identity, the identity of the adopting parents and threatens to jail the father if they catch wind and try to get down there while their kid is on the premises and waiting to be stolen away forever. I call that massive interference.

No- that's prevention of interference on the privacy of the people in question. Giving an otherwise uninterested 3rd party access to that information based only on genetic association is active interference. Without government involvement the private default state of the parties involved would be to not be obligated to divulge any of that information to someone that's doesn't have legal fiat on their side saying they can get into it.

You are not arguing for non-interference, you are arguing for explicit interference to assert that genetic relationships create property rights. Property rights in and of themselves are a public construct and don't exist outside of state intrusion on private lives to impose them. You can't make any argument about a positive individual right to claim something as property without implicitly saying that the public should actively override the will of others to sanction and privilege that claim.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Is anyone else bothered by the rhetoric of a child belonging to their parents or of parental rights? I'd prefer it to be constructed as parents have responsibilities to their children, and powers to help them fulfill those responsibilities. I'm not comfortable with the idea that they have rights over their children in the same way a person has the right to freedom of speech.

Parents get power and authority over their children because they are presumed to be the best custodians of their children's best interests. Not because they have an inherent right to control and influence the life of another person.

Slowly but surely we're making adjustments in that direction, but per the marriage discussions we're having in another thread, our entire legal concept of custody right now is founded on thousands of years of legally assuming children to effectively be chattel (of their fathers, if they had property rights, or of those that explicitly or effectively owned their parents (the distinction between slave and serf is narrow) if they did not)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that what some.men have proposed -- that a woman who tried to get her baby adopted out should lose all rights to the child and have to pay child support to the single dad, is a dispicanlbly evil proposal, on a Moloch scale.
First I disagree. Second, what about if they lose all rights but are exempt from child support?

quote:
If the law achieved its goals, then it's well thought through, even if you disagree with its goals and think our society needs more abortion and kids born with daddy issues to stock our nation's prisons and whorehouses.
What if you think the goal is to swell the ranks of a religious institution who can’t make a compelling pitch to people over the age of consent? This is just like the Catholic church’s problem with contraception. Indoctrination of children is the best proven method to keep the faith alive. Anything to swell the ranks is cool. After all, they got it right and are doing us all a favor anyway.

What I wrote above is intentionally viewing things in the worst possible light. Just like Pete did.

If the mother doesn’t want to raise the child, step 1 is ask the father if he does. Then explore other options. Not that freaking difficult if you don’t have another agenda. If you can justify NOT allowing the father the option, how far are we from the state placing all our children in “good homes”? Maybe you need a license to raise a child now and we can generate some revenue by charging fees to get the training required for a license. Then only those financially stable and able to support a child will end up with one.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
Your worst spin is bringing more kids to be raised in a religious family, and that's an evil you hold parallel to more men in prison?

Would it make any difference to you at all if this law was shown to reduce suicides among pregnant singe women by 20%

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 DJQuag:
Two people have sex, baby is born, mother raises baby alone, father is required to pay child support; completely fair.

Think harder.

Who the **** said that was completely fair?

It's unfair and harsh for all three people involved, and it's precisely the situation that the Utah law sets out to avoid.

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 
f the mother doesn’t want to raise the child, step 1 is ask the father if he does. Then explore other options. Not that freaking difficult "

It's not a ****ing pet, DW, it's her kid who she carried for nine months. It's nihilistic to act as if her only interest is to legally rid herself of the obligation. Her life is connected to this kid through the pregnancy and she needs to see it cared for in order to let go.

If mom had dumped baby on dad and he'd cared for it for nine months without a visit from her, and he decided he wanted to choose a couple GI five it up for adoption, I'd support him in that. The All Sharptons in this thread don't seem to grasp that this isn't about man v woman but about an ongoing custodial relationship.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your worst spin is bringing more kids to be raised in a religious family, and that's an evil you hold parallel to more men in prison?
No, the father being denied the opportunity to raise a child he wants is the evil that counter balances it. I was just being inflammatory.

quote:
Would it make any difference to you at all if this law was shown to reduce suicides among pregnant singe women by 20%
Do you believe that this 20% would be killing themselves strictly because they can’t stand their child (which they are giving up) being in the care of the father rather than in the care of a family they may or may not have some part in choosing? I don’t buy it. I’m not suggesting that the rest of the law has no advantages. It may even reduce suicide attempts by 20%. I don’t buy that avoiding contact with the biological father to make things easier for themselves is a worthwhile trade. Not in a legal, moral or child welfare sense.


quote:
It's not a ****ing pet, DW, it's her kid who she carried for nine months.
She is giving up the child. The instant this decision is made, she is irrelivent. She is the one treating it like a pet the man has say over. I'm the one suggesting the contrary.

All I want is for both parrents to opt out of child raising before the child is handed off as if it were a "****ing pet" as you put it.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Two people have sex, baby is born, mother raises baby alone, father is required to pay child support; completely fair.

Think harder.

Who the **** said that was completely fair?

It's unfair and harsh for all three people involved, and it's precisely the situation that the Utah law sets out to avoid.

Then this is a point where we differ, apparently. I don't think it's necessarily harsh and unfair for anyone; if a mother chooses to raise a child alone, fine. If a man fathers a child, even though I certainly feel sympathy for the difficulties lower income men may have in financially supporting two different households, I hesitate to call that unfair. As for children being raised in single parent households, while that is not ideal, there are plenty of situations which aren't ideal. You still shouldn't have mothers stealing children away from fathers in order to give them up for adoption. Single parenthood makes things harder, it is not a guarantee of failure.

I'm with the majority here; unless the state can establish unfitness in the father, he should have the opportunity to raise his child.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 
". Second, what about if they lose all rights but are exempt from child support"

Only slightly less evil

Why should she lose all right? She was willing to surrender her rights in exchange for being able to choose an environment forher child. Why penalize her for that?

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 
". mothers stealing children away from fathers "

"Away from fathers" presupposes that baby was ever with father to begin with. If baby was ever with father, that's the sort of evidence that I was asking for that he's a real father and not merely a biological father.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Away from fathers" presupposes that baby was ever with father to begin with.
I feel that a biological father can very much be emotionally invested in the wellbeing of his child before it is born. I find it totally absurd that you could reject his opportunity to “be a father for the child” and somehow suggest that it’s ok because he hasn’t yet had that opportunity.

Being "merely a biological father" should be enough when the mother has opted out of parenthood.

quote:
She was willing to surrender her rights in exchange for being able to choose an environment for her child. Why penalize her for that?
Because I don’t feel she should have the right to choose anything for her child after she determines to give it up. If the biological father wants the child (probably a small fraction of these cases unfortunately) and he is unfit to parent the kid it probably wouldn’t be that burdensome to terminate his parental rights. When one parent wants the child and the other doesn’t, there is zero reason for the state to get involved unless the one who does want the child is a danger to the health and wellbeing of that child.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
". men may have in financially supporting two different households, I hesitate to call that unfair"

I think it's unfair that a former college roommate of mine has to pay child support to an adult.woman that molested him when he was 14. That's Washington State, BTW. (Tosses ball to Seneca)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Statutory rape and he still has to pay child support? Wow... (or am I reading that wrong?)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 feel that a biological father can very much be emotionally invested in the wellbeing of his child before it is born"

I don't question that. I'm simply asking for evidence of it. I don't think we should presume that he is invested.

I also thin it's possible that a man can become very emotionally invested in a child that turns out not to be biologically his. I'd rather recognize him as the father than an univested bio-dad.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do you PROVE you really want to be a daddy when you've never been permitted the opportunity to even see your child and the mother wants nothing to do with you or the baby and just wants it all to go away like it never happened? The father with the child would just be an inconvenient reminder to her of that whole inconvenient pregnancy thing and that she wasn't ready (or not capable) of being a mommy. They may even be in the same social circles! How awkward... Better to pass off the kid to some anonymous family and be done with it.

Oh, and it's what's best for the child. Repeat until belief settles in. For the mom, not the child this time. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 D.W.:
How do you PROVE you really want to be a daddy when you've never been permitted the opportunity to even see your child and the mother wants nothing to do with you or the baby and just wants it all to go away like it never happened? The father with the child would just be an inconvenient reminder to her of that whole inconvenient pregnancy thing and that she wasn't ready (or not capable) of being a mommy. They may even be in the same social circles! How awkward...

If biodaddy can prove that those are the facts, rather than some stereotype that DW dredged out the more of his
prejudices to win an argument, then he's got a decent case. BC to prove that he'd be showing how his efforts to be there for her in the pregnancy and for the baby after birth were rebuffed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  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