This thread is FAR too serious. I feel obligated to lighten the mood.

JustErin said:

How much do you know about adoption? Are you aware that many adoptive parents don't want the mother even KNOWING they've adopted her child? In such cases, how could the birth parents be expected to be held responsible for child support? And if there were some system put into place in which the birth parents had to pay support to anonymous parents, what's the point in giving up the child for adoption in the first place? Better to just keep the kid and let the little slugger go without. Great solution, huh?

Anx said:

Well, perhaps it is you that does not know a lot about adoption or parenthood, for that matter. Maybe you are a father, I dunno.

Anyway, there is a hell of a lot more to raising a child than having to support it financially. Speaking as a woman and a mother, making a better financial life for you and your child is very doable, however, if you are not mentally ready or capable to be a mother it can be impossible taking care of a child. Monatary reasons are often not the reason for giving up your child for adoption.

Children have the right to know that they are adopted. Witholding that from them is not fair and does not help them in any way. Even if they did withold the info from the child or the adoptive parents (at the biological parents request), the biological parents could still be held financially responsible (in some part at least) thru the agency that placed the child in their adoptive home in the first place.

Again, this whole dialogue was brought to light because the laws, as they exist, are gender biased. I can't think of any other solution that would make it gender equal while putting the best interest of the child first.

Anx said:

As I said above, if she is financially able and both agree he'll have no part in the child's life, then great for everyone.
I think he should be given the option to be in the child's life, barring a very good reason (abuse issues, etc.).
But if she does not have the means to financially raise the child, he should be held responsible as well. What are the alterniatives? Public assistance (now tax payers are paying for his 'mistake'), or force her to give the child up for adoption (which I don't think anyone will agree with...)? Anythig else you can think of?
It's a tough situation all the way around. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place (by comprehensive sex education, availability of contraception, etc.) is the key, as has been said by a few above.

Anx said:

I don't get it at all either. The point of giving a child up for adoption is giving to loving parents who can support a child.

JustErin said:

actually, as someone who has a lot of friends in the LGBT community who have pursued adoption (and as someone who has years of job experience at an LGBT community center), i've picked up a modest but fairly significant amount of knowledge about adoption.

also, speaking as the only child of a woman who gave birth to me at the age of 19 and who found herself a single mother about 7 years later, i know a few things about parents making sacrifices for their children. we were never anywhere close to wealthy or even "comfortable", but my mom worked three jobs to keep food on the table if that's what it took.

so i'm not just talking out of my patoot here.

based on what i know, adoptive parents can ask to have birth parent information withheld from their child until a certain age, at which point the child is legally entitled to access birth parent information. in the meantime, i think the birth parent is only obligated to be in contact with the adoptive parents if there is some kind of medical issue in which the birth parents' medical history is needed.

now, i'm not an expert about adoption, but i've had many conversations over the years. what i wrote above is what i understand to be true. results may vary.

when a mother gives up her child for adoption, she gives up a relationship with that child to the extent that she may not even be given information about the child's whereabouts. if the birth mother is barred from being a part of the child's development, even as a secondary adult role model, then why should she be held responsible financially? it makes zero sense, and it seems to me that it would be a deterrent from women opting for adoption as a way of giving their child a better life. it could certainly make abortion look a little more practical as an option.

and in this adoption scenario, where is the father's financial obligation in this? what if the birth mother was impregnated by an act of rape and didn't believe in abortion, and so decided to give her child up for adoption? she should be held responsible for child support for a child she didn't even have the option of carrying?

the world isn't so cut-and-dried. many situations lead to many circumstances. this is why we have options. maybe our disagreement stems from one of us having a pragmatic point of view vs. one of us having a moralist point of view.
[Edited 5/15/06 13:11pm]

JustErin said:

The way I understand it, men pay child support to the mother who is raising their child. I dont think that parents who give their child up for adoption should have to pay the adoptive parents anything. When parents give up their child for adoption they give up all responsibility for him or her, including financial, and basically every other right you can think of that parents have. I doubt making the biological parents pay would achieve anything but perhaps that child remaining in a home that is detrimental to his/her childs upbringing. Nobody wants a scenario where parents cant afford to give up their child for adoption..I dont see how that places the childs interests first.

..
[Edited 5/15/06 13:17pm]

JustErin said:

I don't agree at all with holding parents who give up children for adoption responsible. Isn't that what an adoptive parent is agreeing to? Becoming responsible for that adopted child?

Anx said:

Your understanding of adoption is the same as mine.

I see this as being a deterrent to getting pregnant in the first place, not a deterrent to giving up your child for adoption. Whether you give it up or not, you'd still be financially responsible so I can't see how it would deter you at all. There are men who are not able or allowed to see their children but are by law forced to pay support. By using your argument, why should they have to pay support if they are not able to be in their lives?

As I said pages back, I was talking about this on a purely superficial level so there would be a lot more "what ifs", such as rape, that would have to be addressed.

I also said all along that both the father and the mother should be financially responsible. I think a woman who witholds information about who is the father is being totally irresponsible.

Yes, I certainly know that the world is not so cut and dry.

And I believe that both of us have pragmatic and moralistic views on this issue.

JustErin said:

a. People are going to continue to mate and breed, no matter how much modern society tries to regulate it. Simple birds and bees. Nature. If you're not used to it by now, better fasten your seat belt. But you knew this already.

b. When a parent is denied custody/visitation rights to his or her child, it's the result of a court deciding what is in the best interest of the child (which, I believe, is the crux of your argument). By contrast, when a woman gives her child up for adoption, she is making a DECISION based on a certain number of OPTIONS given to her. She COULD keep the child and try to give it the life she thinks it deserves. She COULD abort it. She COULD give it up for adoption to a couple with the resources to offer a wonderful upbringing. The parent being denied rights to his or her child by a court does not have options, usually because of that parent's unstable or abusive behavior leading up to the separation. Two different scenarios completely.

JustErin said:

I can see what you are saying BUT....to me this is part of the problem...people need to stop trying to make "laws" to deter behavior....it's not a model that works IMHO.

also, looking at justerin's proposition from the side of prospective adoptive parents, you're giving them an incentive other than the responsibilities and commitment of raising a child, and a potentially disingenuous incentive at that.

"let's adopt five children! they can do all the housework and we'll be pulling in five support checks a month!"

and yes, there are people in the world like this.

Anx said:

Yes, I understand all this. Unfortunately, a lot of guys get shafted in the courts. It seems that a woman's word is valued more than a man's. It can be a total he said/she said situation. Yes, there are some horrible men out there that should be denied access, but there are some men that are shut out unfairly.

This is why were are talking about this in the first place. The woman gets to make all the decisions on what happens to the child, men don't. The woman gets to decide if he will be a father or not - even if that child is born. This is what is wrong with current laws. This is what people want to have changed.

Other than making the same laws apply to everyone, there is no solution to the gender equality.

And btw, I do not think that the current laws will ever change. I'm just stating my humble opinion on it.

Anx said:

Of course there are. But this is no different than a woman that has five kids from guys to get five support cheques.

JustErin said:

so two wrongs can make a right in this situation? what about the children?

Anx said:

Of course not, come on I didn't say that.

My responses are addressing the gender bias in the current laws. So how do you solve this issue? You can't take away everyone's rights, you can only make the law appy to everyone.

So keeping that in mind I gave my opinion on how I felt it should be applied.

Like I've already said, I do believe that nothing is going to change. Men will always get the short end of the stick, and that is totally unfair.

JustErin said:

i do believe in addressing the gender equality in parent rights issues, but i don't think the solution is in making life harder for the parent who has custody of the children. i think the solution is in making both parent's roles INCLUSIVE, regardless of which parent has custody. i know there are divorced dads advocacy groups that do a lot of work for gender equality in parental situations, and i think the work that those groups do should get a lot more attention. i also think there should be more incentive for men to take their commitment as fathers seriously, which i don't think can be accomplished by an "...OR ELSE!!!" attitude, but rather by peer support, education, encouragement, etc. i think we need to hear more positive stories about single dads in the media. there are a lot of POSITIVE things that can be done to foster gender equality in this area, which i think is the best direction of all for the sake of the children.

Anx said:

Agreed. Gender equality in parenting will happen when everyone takes responsibility. When people have the self esteem NOT to have sex when they are putting themselves at risk. When everyone has the education and access to make informed and appropriate choices on contraception.
It's all about education, prevention and preparation.
But we also need to live with the reality we have now.

CarrieMpls said:

Yes, yes. I agree with what you both are saying. I too am a strong advocate of prevention and education. It's really the answer to so many problems today.

jerseykrs said:

Anx said:

I think we'd see a rise not only in abortions but in slain pregnant women as well (assuming the male biological father would be held as financially responsible as the female biological mother would)

Anx said: