From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Abandoment is not same as Adoption
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:32:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.185835.8099@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.233905.23184@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug20.131221.12296@meaddata.com> king@meaddata.com (Mike King) writes:
>|> >
>|> >I'll agree, there is no equality.  What can I say...sometimes life
>|> >sucks.  

>|> Gee, isn't it so easy and convenient to say "life sucks" when you're an
>|> apologist for the status quo, huh? Can we expect the same Stoic acceptance
>|> if and when the paternity child-support statutes are reformed or repealed,
>|> Mike, or might you just flip-flop into a wild-eyed reformer?

>I just don't see to many viable solutions for making this situation
>any better.  But you seem to have very strong views toward this
>situation, so please tell us how'd you make this situation more "equitable".
>But before you do, let me take a stab at what your answer would be:

>  -- You would change the laws so that whenever a father decides that
>  he doesn't wish to be a father any longer he could be released from his
>  responsibilites.  This would apply to minor children of any age,
>  born or unborn.  That way, even if you got divorced after the child
>  was born, you couldn't be forced to pay your child a cent.  To
>  hell with them, let the mother worry about it.


My favorite command:  s/father/mother/g  s/mother/father/g  ...

:  -- You would change the laws so that whenever a mother decides that
:  she doesn't wish to be a mother any longer she could be released from her
:  responsibilites.  This would apply to minor children of any age,
:  born or unborn.  That way, even if you got divorced after the child
:  was born, you couldn't be forced to pay your child a cent.  To
:  hell with them, let the father worry about it.

Isn't this pretty much the way the laws are now implemented?



>Am I right?  maybe not, but I bet I'm pretty close.  What a perfect
>world it would be if we could all stick our heads in the sand
>everytime we made a "mistake".  I certainly don't want to pay for a
>mistake for 18+ years, but it did, and always does, take two to tango.  

I don't think anybody who has chosen to have children should be
able to stick his/her head in the sand.  But if the law provides
the option to women, it should to men.  The natural correction:
(1) don't allow women unilaterally to give children up for adoption;
(2) if a woman gives a child up for adoption and the father is able to
take custody, then require her to pay support (in a gender-blind fashion).
Where the law +does+ provide this, we should enforce it, and not 
permit loopholes or societal prejudices.

The alternative "correction" is to allow fathers the same power to put 
their children up for adoption -- and to absolve them of fiscal duties
in the same way women +effectively+ are.  I don't like this one, but we 
should make one or the other.


>Like every man alive, I to, would like to have some say in what
>happens to my child before it's born.  Would I put it up for adoption,
>keep it, abort it, or forget about it.  Unfair or not that decision is
>not in my hands.  Would I like it to be?  Yes.  ...

Hear, hear.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.sex,sci.psychology,alt.polyamory,soc.couples