From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:55:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Aug20.131221.12296@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.072005.6256@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
...discussion deleted...
>
>|> But your point, as I understand it, is that fathers, who mistakenly
>|> impregnate a woman with a child that they did not want, should be
>|> forced to pay for that child to emanciapation.  Why does that strike a
>|> strange chord with me?  A mother can opt to become a "voluntarily
>|> absent parent" and get both her and the biological father off the hook,
>|> but a father has no such choice.  That's not equality - it's indentured
>|> servitude for the father when he makes one single mistake.
>
>I'll agree, there is no equality.  What can I say...sometimes life
>sucks.  But once the child is there it has to be taken care of.
>Either by you or by adoptive parents.  I'll agree that forcing a man
>to pay for a child he doesn't want is not fair to the father or the
>child.  You'll probably end up with a father and child who don't like
>each other.  But, in many situations, I still feel that is better than
>the alternative.  The money provided by a forced father could greatly
>improve the childs life (ie. better housing, better food...).

This is *precisely* the point put forth by the proponents of the view
that women, and only women, should have any say in anything to do with
the child, once there is a divorce (or when there was no marriage).
It is so easy to feel sorry for the child - and I do.  I feel sorry for
a child who has to grow up with a mother who has views that are so
provincial they don't allow for the natural father of the child to have
any say about ANYTHING.

A good friend of mine was on a jury once, where a child had been hit by a
car and the parents sued for damages.  The child was permanently disabled
by the accident and they were suing for what amounted to lifetime support.
It was a horrible case, and it was terrifically easy to feel sorry for the
child.  But the point was, it was the child (and the parents' lack of
supervision) who caused the accident - the driver had been going at or below
the speed limit, and the little girl (4 or 5, I forget) ran out from between
two parked cars in such a way that there was no possibility for the driver
to have seen her.

Two members of the jury, swayed by the emotional arguments and aspects of
the case, kept holding out for "something for the little girl".  But the
rule of reason finally prevailed, because the driver had not been at fault,
and penalizing him for the tragedy was not appropriate.

It's not too big a logical leap to draw some parallels here.  Yeah, yeah,
I know - you can claim "the man is at fault" in a paternity case.  But only
in terms of having been a co-participant in a sexual act, NOT a "perpetrator".
The mother was also a co-participant.  But once it comes time to decide
whether or not to have the child, the father CEASES to be a co-participant,
and the mother becomes the ONLY participant.  At this point, the father
is not allowed nor offered any say in the decision; why then should he be
penalized for 18 years (maybe more) for something he has NO SAY IN???!!!

>-- 
>Michael W. King


Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
			FREE
			National Council for Children's Rights
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr