"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Tmy]

How so? To relinquish your responsibility of parent hood is to terminate your parental rights. The same goes for adoption or for a young, unwed teen father forgetting to sign a registry that enables his parental rights.

"terminating rights" is a legal term. An abortion doesnt terminate the right cause you havent created the right yet.

The 2nd example "forgettinng to sign" is also not a termination of rights. Dad still can activate those rights later, even if he doesnt do so at birth. In fact he kinda has some rights when the child is born. Before mom can give up a kid for adoption she has to tell the court who she belives the father to be. He needs to be given notice before kid can be adopted. Dads have more rights than people realize.

 

[JamesDillon]

The 2nd example "forgettinng to sign" is also not a termination of rights. Dad still can activate those rights later, even if he doesnt do so at birth. In fact he kinda has some rights when the child is born. Before mom can give up a kid for adoption she has to tell the court who she belives the father to be. He needs to be given notice before kid can be adopted. Dads have more rights than people realize.

That's really not true. Read the NY Times article I posted a page or so ago. Unwed fathers' parental rights are much more fragile than I had previously believed.

 

[Tmy]

That's really not true. Read the NY Times article I posted a page or so ago. Unwed fathers' parental rights are much more fragile than I had previously believed.

Im sure there are slight variations from state to state. But fathers do have plenty of rights even if they are unwed.

 

[Tmy]

That's really not true. Read the NY Times article I posted a page or so ago. Unwed fathers' parental rights are much more fragile than I had previously believed.

How do you figure. The article says that they have to send notice to dad. Once dad has notice hes free to object. The rights of the natural parents are alot stonger than you think.

 

[JamesDillon]

Im sure there are slight variations from state to state. But fathers do have plenty of rights even if they are unwed.

Again, did you read the article before making that statement? Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/national/19fathers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ("Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed.")

Apparently it is quite easy for unwed fathers to lose their parental rights if the mother chooses to give the child up for adoption. Many states apparently require the father to sign a putative father registry within 30 days of the child's birth, and, of course, most men have no idea that such a registry even exists, or that signing it is necessary to preserve their legal rights.

Until recently, I would have thought your above statement was correct, but, if you do a bit of research on the matter, you'll find that it isn't.

 

[JamesDillon]

How do you figure. The article says that they have to send notice to dad. Once dad has notice hes free to object. The rights of the natural parents are alot stonger than you think.

Where does it say that? It actually says that only Indiana requires notice:

In many states, fewer than 100 men register each year — not surprising, adoption experts say, because most young men have never heard of the registries. One exception is Indiana, where men are notified of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father, and 50 men register a week.

 

[Tmy]

I dont know about FLA but in Mass its different. Hospitals infor mom and dad about paternity and dads aknowlegeing the child.

Heres what really happens 80% of the time. Dads choose NOT to sign off the kid cause they dont want to leave a paper trail that leads to child support.

 

[Tmy]

Where does it say that? :

I was reading the thread that mentioned the adoption website.

 

[chris epic]

"terminating rights" is a legal term. An abortion doesnt terminate the right cause you havent created the right yet.

Okay, she terminates her parental obligation, will that work. See, here's how it changes again. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy and the ability to terminate her parental obligation. A father does not have the right to terminate his parental obligations. His only obligation is financial.

Dad still can activate those rights later, even if he doesnt do so at birth. In fact he kinda has some rights when the child is born.

Read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/national/19fathers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

 

[chris epic]

That's really not true. Read the NY Times article I posted a page or so ago. Unwed fathers' parental rights are much more fragile than I had previously believed.

Oh crap, we posted the same article....better dig up another one

 

[chris epic]

Im sure there are slight variations from state to state. But fathers do have plenty of rights even if they are unwed.

Do your research, you're making an assumption. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't have over 400 posts on it

 

[Tmy]

Do your research, you're making an assumption. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't have over 350 posts on it

I have to spit for a while. But Im gonna check on that FLA law. I bet theres some sort of notice going on. I Dont trust news articles to be that accurate.

 

[jj]

JJ, I'll be happy to argue with you in the science forum. This thread isn't the appropriate place for that.

Why? If this is about the right to terminate fatherhood obligations, and that termination of pregnancy is involved, the subject is germane.

And there is no good argument I'm aware of that a fertilized egg, with all the "nutrients" in the world, can develop into a baby without some of the guidance from mom's body.

 

[JamesDillon]

I dont know about FLA but in Mass its different. Hospitals infor mom and dad about paternity and dads aknowlegeing the child.

The NY Times article uses Florida as one example, but illustrates that the problem is common nationwide. I don't know what Massachusetts is like specifically-- I wouldn't be surprised if it's not as bad as the national norm, since Massachusetts is one of the more enlightened spots in the country. But that doesn't diminish the reality of the problem for many unwed fathers in the rest of the country.

Heres what really happens 80% of the time. Dads choose NOT to sign off the kid cause they dont want to leave a paper trail that leads to child support.

Can you cite your source for that statistic, or is it just "common sense"?

I have to spit for a while. But Im gonna check on that FLA law. I bet theres some sort of notice going on. I Dont trust news articles to be that accurate.

Ok, you do that. I'm sure your intuition is far more reliable than the New York Times.

 

[chris epic]

Why? If this is about the right to terminate fatherhood obligations, and that termination of pregnancy is involved, the subject is germane.

And there is no good argument I'm aware of that a fertilized egg, with all the "nutrients" in the world, can develop into a baby without some of the guidance from mom's body.

I was simplifying it- I'll rephrase: The mother is the child's incubator in many different ways even outside of supplying nutrients. No, the baby cannot survive or develope without the mother...that doesn't make it less human. If you are talking about viability, which I already clarified in a previous post, that's a poor arguement because A baby isn't even viable after its born and healthy. Look, I thought I gave you a pretty good analogy but you didn't even respond to that, you just want to have a war of "words" which is something, I'm afraid, the english language can't sufficiently support.

 

[chris epic]

I was simplifying it- I'll rephrase: The mother is the child's incubator in many different ways even outside of supplying nutrients. No, the baby cannot survive or develope without the mother...that doesn't make it less human. If blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah- you just love getting me off track don't you. Honestly- if we were to discuss fathers' rights AND the biology of unborn babies this whole thread would get all discombobulated and I'm sure others would agree- FYI I started an abortion thread so we can move that orguement over there....and then were can start a biology thread in "Science" for the other part of the arguement. Here- fathers rights v mothers rights, okay?

 

[Tmy]

The NY Times article uses Florida as one example, but illustrates that the problem is common nationwide.

Can you cite your source for that statistic, or is it just "common sense"?

Ok, you do that. I'm sure your intuition is far more reliable than the New York Times.

Hey, my intuition happens to be kinda right.

Turns out that Florida has this wacky law The Florida Adoption act. No surprise that the NYT used FLA since their laws are the most screwed up.( no surprise) They wanted to make the story more interesting. Kinda yellow jounalism-ish, using the worst example and implying its commonplace.

Turns out the FLA law used to force mom to give rather detailed sexual laced notice in the paper before she could adopt out the kid. circa 2002


http://www.missouri-miner.com/media...603212103&sourcedomain=www.missouri-miner.com


"The statute states that any mother wishing to put her child up for adoption and is at all uncertain of the father's identity or location must place an ad in newspapers in each city or county in which conception might have taken place. The law requires the female to publish a physical description of herself, her sexual history, and a description of every possible father, the dates of those sexual encounters, along with the child's name, as well as its date and place of birth. The ad is required to run for four weeks in each of those newspapers"


Fast foward a few years. the above law was a little too unconstitutional. So FLA went the other way with this crazy registration law.

http://bastardette.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_bastardette_archive.html

The Act starts by stating that the mother can conceal her pregnancy from the father and defraud the court.1 Consequently, simply because he had sexual intercourse, the father has a duty to file with the Florida putative father registry.2 To register, however, he must swear to be the father of an existing child.



Im all for dads having notice by the way. I think biologicals should be the first resort.

 

[JamesDillon]

Hey, my intuition happens to be kinda right.

How so? Everything in your post suggests that the NYT's characterization of the Florida law is accurate. What about the law of New York, Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, Utah, and Indiana, which are also referenced in the article?

 

[Tmy]

There's an interesting article in today's New York Times about the rights of biological fathers to prevent the adoption of their children.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/n...&en=9f1afc8c10fcac31&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Hopefully we can all agree that the system as it currently exists gives insufficient regard to the rights of unmarried biological fathers who want to be involved in their children's lives?

Well JD uses the article to impy that the whole country has a screwed up system. A handful of states do not make up the country.

I agree that those states do have some messed up laws. Im somewhat familiar with how Paternity works in Mass. Its not like some of these outragous example.

Adoption isnt much of the issue anyways. Isnt this really about the money. The thread didnt start about an adoption, but rather a dad who wants NOTHING to do with the kid.

 

[JamesDillon]

Well JD uses the article to impy that the whole country has a screwed up system. A handful of states do not make up the country.

So how many states does a short newspaper article need to survey to persuade you that a serious problem exists for a significant portion of unmarried men?

I agree that those states do have some messed up laws. Im somewhat familiar with how Paternity works in Mass. Its not like some of these outragous example.

So one relatively small counterexample rebuts the general point that, for many men in many parts of the country, legal parental rights can very easily be lost?

Adoption isnt much of the issue anyways. Isnt this really about the money. The thread didnt start about an adoption, but rather a dad who wants NOTHING to do with the kid.

You raised the issue of a father's paternal rights:

Dad still can activate those rights later, even if he doesnt do so at birth. In fact he kinda has some rights when the child is born. Before mom can give up a kid for adoption she has to tell the court who she belives the father to be. He needs to be given notice before kid can be adopted. Dads have more rights than people realize.