Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and,
wonder of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant
from a man without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...

So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is
it about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it
necessary to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...

[sanctimony deleted]

Ah, can't take criticism...I see

The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is
in adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are
willing to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...

Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government
agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that
task. But yes, it has to be done.

Yes, that's "adoption"...it's *not* legal abandonment...

... in safe haven/drop off situations there is no such requirement,
you just dump the infant and walk away...no strings attached and the
child becomes the ward of the state. It's interesting that the primary
objection by many to allowing fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an
objection to the state "paying for" someone else's child yet this is
*exactly* what occurs in a "safe haven/drop-off situation for
women....hummm

Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the
child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the
child die in a dumpster.

This fallacy is called a "red herring". It deflects the discussion away
from the real point which is that the application and implementation of
"safe haven" laws allow the mother a method to legally abrogate her
parental obligations without allowing an equivalent legal method for the
father to do the same thing. Since this means that men and women are
being treated differently under the law, it is a clear violation of the
Section I of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial
responsibility.

No, what we want is to be treated *equally* under the law. If the
mother has legal methods to abrogate her parental obligations and to
control her reproduction and her socio-economic situation, men should
have equal or equivalent legal mechanisms allowing them to accomplish
the same thing.

I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would
certainly rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I
am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and
no one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO
NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural
"reproductive rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and
probably unconstitutional to boot...


Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you
like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing
interests to consider.

The basic issue is fairness and justice. Will we extend to men, legal
mechanisms to allow them to control their reproductive lives and their
socio-economic situation which are equal or equivalent to those we have
ALREADY extended to women...it's doesn't get any more complex than that
Fred.
All the rest, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over saving
children or supporting children seems to me to be simple strawmen,
erected to deflect discussion away from this basic issue. They're just
crying crocodile tears since we *ONLY* seem interested in these things
when it's the MAN who has to lose his freedom or his rights or, yes, his
money...when it's a woman, we bend over backwards to accommodate her and
to hell with the "best interests of the child"...

....Ken