From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re:Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:12:21 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug20.072005.6256@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

|> Mike,
|> 
|> The world must look pretty rosy through those glasses, because it is
|> just not so peachy-keen from the perspective of many others.  And, I
|> take offense to the language you have used to make your point.
|> "Voluntarily absent parents"  Hmmm?  Would you say that every mother who
|> puts her child up for adoption is a "voluntarily absent parent?"

Maybe I should have made myself clearer.  I do not feel that putting a
child up for adoption is the same thing as having one of it's parents
voluntarily leave.  Adoption, for the most part, provides children
with a chance at a better life.  How can a childs life be improved by
having one of its parents decide he/she wants nothing to do with them.
I know what you're going to say, that that is the same as adoption.
It's not.  People put their children up for adoption more other
reasons then they don't want it.  I have no problem with anyone not
being a part of their childs life, as long as the child is well taken
care of by the remaining parent.

  You
|> should, you know.  Because that is exactly what they are.  But it is
|> also a rather narrow view.  Oftentimes they are giving up that child to
|> parents who can provide a better, happier and healthier life.  Since
|> when did it become a crime?

As I stated above, I agree that adoption is good.  But that is not the
same as having a parent voluntarily leave.  How does having one parent
leave help the child.  It doesn't.  Adoption provides a child with a
chance at a better life.  I don't think you could convince me that
having a parent voluntarily leave will accomplish the same thing. 

|> Also, do we, as a society, force these "voluntarily absent parents,"
|> otherwise sometimes known as biological parents who sometimes put their
|> biologicla offspring up for adoption, to pay for their children?  What's
|> that?  We don't.  Hmmmm.  Why don't we?

Because an adopted child has new parents to take the biological
parents place.  A child who has been abandoned by a parent does not
have anyone to take his/her place.
 
|> 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...).

-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Newsgroups: soc.men