Profiling for one. You are subjecting millions of people to investigation based on a profile, on some crazy ass law you made up, based on a the fantasy that women make the habit of skipping town on the father of their children.
It’s ridiculus.
I fill out form. I leave father’s name blank. You demand I tell you. I say unanimous donor. Do you believe me? Yes, no, why not? I’m assuming that your crack investigation staff will want proof?
You now tell me to produce my confidential medical information or go to jail. Violating the agreement I have with the sperm bank. Do you now require the sperm bank to release who the donor is, “because he might want to know…”? What crime I have commited save being female, alone and pregnant?
tries’ law…
I am a lesbian. The father donates. Part of our legal agreement is that he will remain out of the loop. I now must produce said documentation or you will arrest me. Perhaps I don’t want to be outed or part of the agreement is confidentially. He doesn’t want his wife to know, who knows…who cares? Why should the state, unless I’m using the state’s resources? After your incredible investigation; I relent.
Now what?
Do you correct the damage to my privacy? I’m fired because I’m gay…What If I’m sued for breach of contract, does the state defend my rights? I’m assuming such a well though out investigator enforcing tries’ law would verify that the contract is a real, correct? Do you contact him? What happens to me then, or I am just one of those things that happen, in the pursuit of treis’ law?
i can go on; as said there are many reasons for not disclousing the father’s identity and none of them have to do with denying the father access or trying some scheme.
You have no proof that I have committed a crime, save that I fit a profile. Single woman having baby in hospital, is not a crime and you can make up all the scenarios you want to in order to make it one.
Profiling is illegal.
So try again… unless of course you like tyranny and pissing on the Constitution.
Oh please I am applying the law equally to everyone
I say what do you mean unanimous donor?
A father who donates his sperm to a sperm bank doesn’t have parental rights to that child. Have the office fax over a form saying that you got the sperm from a sperm bank and you are on your way.
Outed to whom? Just send over the part of the legal agreement saying he relinquishes parental rights and you are all set.
How would your employer find out? All of this information is protected if a worker releases then they are commiting a crime. Its no more likely that it will be released due to this law than say from your lawyer or the sperm bank.
Then talk 30 minutes and show that the father gives up rights it ain’t that difficult.
There is no profiling involved. Fathers who are at the hospital don’t need to be informed that their child was born they saw it with their own two eyes. There is no crime in giving birth alone. The crime would come if you tried to lie or refuse to name the father.
As one of a majority of employers who follows employment laws WRT race, creed, gender, age and sexual orientation, I find this happening less and less to the point of this issue probably is in the same ballpark as the number of single mothers who are moving away from unknowing fathers, or the number of lesbians using donated sperm from a father who is contracted to stay out of the lives of the lesbian family.
Oh sorry, tries, I didn’t realize how all encompassing treis’ law is.
So now all ** women ** who are giving birth and refuse to name the father are to be arrested, unless they comply. I get ya.
That’s of course the one’s you can actually catch…somehow.
Let’s clarify this profiling issue, I’m a little murky on it.
Let say I have Holmes’ Law and Holmes’ Law states that all black men driving throught Holmesville must pull over, show ID and be checked for priors. The reason why is because well, some black people are criminals. So to catch the “some black people who are criminals”, ALL black people who drive past Holmesville must show ID and be checked for priors. If they’re clean, they’re free to go all they have to do is prove it. If they can’t or won’t, well…
Excuse me. All people who give birth are required to name the other parent of the child.
[/quote]
Let say I have Holmes’ Law and Holmes’ Law states that all black men driving throught Holmesville must pull over, show ID and be checked for priors. The reason why is because well, some black people are criminals. So to catch the “some black people who are criminals”, ALL black people who drive past Holmesville must show ID and be checked for priors. If they’re clean, they’re free to go all they have to do is prove it. If they can’t or won’t, well…
am I profiling? Is this Constitutional?
[/QUOTE]
You are profiling. No its not consitutional and I don’t think I need to explain to you why.
C’mon now you’re just being unrealistic. There are millions of closted lesbians using donated sperm and signing non-disclosure agreements… you know and I know it.
treis since your law does not care about women’s privacy. Why don’t you just put cameras in all bedrooms, hotel rooms and the back seat of cars. That way you can just show the videos to identify who we fuck?
Right, but since only women can give birth, you’ve basically singled them out based on an accident of birth…like race.
Let say I have Holmes’ Law and Holmes’ Law states that all women having a baby in Holmesville must name the father of their baby or be arrested. The reason why, is because well, some women don’t inform the father. So to catch the “some women who don’t inform the father”, ALL women who have a baby in Holmesville must name the father. If they do, they’re free to go all they have to do is provide a name. If they can’t or won’t, well…
Regarding the browbeating of women in order to get them to talk: If women knew that they would be grilled about who the daddy was, and they were afraid to tell who the daddy was (or reluctant for any reason), they’d have rehearsed a pat answer. They wouldn’t go in unprepared.
People prepare for drug tests (if they are worried they’ll fail). Information and products aiding people in passing drug tests are available online and elsewhere. People just don’t go belly up and not try to be prepared and not try to protect themselves when they feel that their privacy is being compromised.
Same would happen if your bizarro alternaworld came to pas, treis. All that would happen is that women would become practiced liars. They’d rehearse what they would need to say in order to be left alone. They’d find technical loopholes, and they’d have a lot of help from privacy advocacy groups.
Of course, don’t let the REAL WORLD and what happens in the REAL WORLD get in your way.
So, a woman could take some sperm, go to a doctor, mix up some embryonic goodness, implant it into her partner (female) and they could comply with the law by stating that the non-birth-giving parent is the “other” parent. No spermy guy gets any rights? Women are the legal parents of children? What a boon for gay rights! (Sux to be the donor, though)
What problem?? There is absolutely no evidence that there are large numbers of men who want to raise children they didn’t know they had fathered because the mother hid the pregnancy and birth from them. An infinitely more common problem is getting fathers to take partial responsibility for the life they helped create. Why not fix the common injustices before focusing on the exceedingly rare ones? (Assuming of course that you’re actually interested in justice and you’re not just some pro-life nutjob with an agenda.)
You made no such specification. Shouldn’t you beep when you back up that fast?
Never said donate. Said take.
The other option is she uses the other woman as a surrogate - your model assumes that the surrogate can report who the “other” parent is, namely, egg woman.
I hate to break this to you, treis, but you don’t have a right to know who your parents are. Usually, you do know who they are as they raise you. If you are adopted and your birth parent(s) agree to the release of your name, you might know who both your biological and adoptive parents are. But it isn’t your right to know this.
You are trying to legislate morality. That never works. You can’t make people do what you believe is the moral thing.
You want all women to have to report the father of the child–regardless of their reasons for not wanting to. You say this is for the protection of the child’s rights in the very few cases where the mother just up and chooses not to involve the father. We’re telling you that this will result in more harm than good; that in general, we believe that most women only refuse to divulge the name of the father for a good reason or because she truly doesn’t know. We don’t believe it is cost effective, just, or fair that all women be required to divulge the father of their children if they feel they have a reason not to, just to protect the very, very, very few men who may be getting screwed out of knowing a child that they really wanted even though they never developed a relationship with the mother or even tried to determine if there was a child.
I think I understand what you want. I also think it is unworkable. No matter how you tweak it, it is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Can you understand what we are saying and why we believe your solution is utterly wrong?
Making changes in law is difficult and time consuming. And even if you get one law changed, or a new one introduced, that’s going to skew the interpretation and application of other laws.
Are you under the impression that all the changes you suggest can be brought about in your lifetime? Or did you see the “I’m Just A Bill” sketch one two many times?