Listen, if you want to throw yourself a pity party about how tough it is to be an able-bodied straight white male in today’s society :rolleyes:, then go to GD or somewhere.
But in GQ give a cite or (I’ll say this politely) be quiet. Everything I’ve seen says that according to law the overriding concern of family court is always the welfare of the child. In a country of 300 million, single anecdotes (particularly second-hand without context) are not enough to make a claim to the contrary.
IANAL but in this case I believe that the woman could still give the child up for adoption. The courts would almost certainly terminate the kidnapping father’s parental rights.
I don’t think you can assume that. Courts are very hesitant to completely terminate parental rights–custody, sure, but rights, no. As mentioned above, even rapists maintain parental rights and can sue for visitation.
Furthermore, you can only give a child up for adoption if you can find someone to take him/her. If the child is a baby, that’s easy, but if the child is four and grew up in an abusive household, it might not be so simple. The state won’t take the child into the foster care program/try to place him or her until the custodial parent has actually done terrible things: they won’t take them just because you don’t want them anymore.
Saying a father shouldn’t have to pay child support if their sperm was stolen is akin to saying a woman should only have the right to an abortion if she was raped. The child is the biological child of the two parents, and has the right to parental support regardless of the circumstances of its conception.
In cases where a gestational surrogate carries the fertilized egg of another woman and her partner and then sues to keep the child, it has always been determined that genetics wins over biological pregnancy.
Sounds pretty similar to right wing Republicans who think that women who are raped should give birth to and be responsible for a child. :o
Not entirely true. If you abandon your child, the courts will have to intervene. There are also cases where the CHILD has done terrible things and the PARENT can no longer “control” the child.
Not quiw. If she doesn’t want to or is incapable of supporting the child, she should be forced to carry it, give birth, and then turn it over to be adopted by a to a (Christian, hetereosexual) couple like a sack of laundry and then go away and forget the whole incident ever happened.
The judges first considering legalizing abortion called this idea “an abomination.” I could not agree more with that assessment.
One of the ways the court will intervene is to send you to jail for abandoning your child. Someone–the child or parent–has to commit a crime for a child to be removed from a parent’s house, unless another family–that the courts approve of–steps forward to take the child.
People complain about fathers being compelled to pay support, but mothers are often compelled to maintain physical custody as well as provide support.
so how many women got sent to jail for abandoning the child nowadays? The principle of abandoning unwanted babies “on church doorsteps” or the equivalent is as old as the Western civilization. Whereas the principle that men are supposed to give money to women that they are married to and not to random ladies of easy virtue and fertile womb has been basically abandoned.
A bit OT, but I find it interesting that the die-hard liberal Der Trihs does not realize that it is precisely the unjust liberal State that is screwing the men in this particular fashion. But maybe he is liberal because he thinks of himself as one of the designated victim groups in other respects and hopes for benefit there even though he clearly is a designated oppressor/ATM to be mistreated at the whim of the State based on his gender.
Ah, trollbait. The last refuge of someone losing an argument.
Child abandonment is very much against the law (pdf). Unless you are in a “safe haven” state, they will come get you, and in no state can you abandon an older child. Now, if a fifteen year old leaves her baby at the hospital they will talk to her without arresting her (though they will use the threat of arrest to get her to take the baby) but if a 22 year old never picks the kids up from daycare? You bet your ass she’s getting arrested and charged with a felony.
And safe haven laws usually only apply to infants. A few years ago Nebraska passed a safe haven law without specifiying an upper age limit. Parents started coming in from all over the country to drop children as old as 17 years off. That’s since been corrected, though I’m not sure what happened to all the older kids
“dropped off”. I doubt it would be possible to charge & convict any of the parents of abandonment since what they did was briefly made legal.
well, the older children are beside the point. Women do have a mechanism for getting rid of unwanted babies that they have brought to term, which is as it should be, to discourage them from killing them in the womb or shortly after birth. It need not be called “abandonment”, it can be called “putting up for adoption”.
One, why are older children beside the point? The fact is that women and men are required to provide support for any children from birth to 18, and how those children were conceived or why they exist is beside the point. A woman who was physically restrained from getting an abortion by the father of the baby or anyone else will be responsible for that child until he/she is 18. This is exactly analogous to a person having their sperm stolen, and I think is probably a lot more common (though I doubt either happen very often).
A woman does NOT have the unilateral right to give a baby up for adoption. The father must also sign away his parental rights, and if he is not willing to do so, they both remain on the hook for supporting the child. Even an abusive father will probably not have his parental rights terminated–he likely would not get custody, but he wouldn’t lose his rights.
And, at least in theory, the birth mother must get the biological father’s consent. In practice it isn’t all that hard to skip this step, especially if she never informed him of the pregnancy in the first place. Depending on how much time has passed it can be anywhere from difficult to impossible for him to get any kind of custody or even visitation if he finds out years later.
I had to smile on this one. I won’t comment on the issue of embryo’s right/women’s freedom for now, it’s the bolded parts (bolding mine) that caught my attention. Why would you think Christian heterosexual couples are more preferable as potential parents? Are they perhaps more ‘moral’ or ‘enlightened’ than the heathens?
Someone once told a parable of a dying man on the road. A priest and a Levite passed him by, and at last it was a man from a hated social group who attended to the man and helped him back to his feet. Just something that might be relevant.
Yes, that’s the general idea behind such practices. Which has historically gone as far as governments kidnapping children so they can be placed in such “morally superior” homes. You didn’t think she was making it up, did you?
Oh, those diabolical women! If they’re not going around impregnating themselves with stolen sperm and then sending you a bill, they’re having your babies and putting them up for adoption without telling you! (But how do they send you a bill in that case, I wonder? Get cracking on how to do that, ladies and liberals!!)
Money
how many unmarried women were unable to put up child for adoption because of father intransigence? I mean, seriously? Why obsess about “what if a meteorite hits a woman” cases while ignoring the more real “what if a car hits a man”?