Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    
    Cal, why do you presume that this child's life will be
    "torn apart" by her biological father having visitation
    rights?
    
    Deb
    

Deb,
The newscast did say that the child was becoming confused about whether she'd
be able to stay with her adoptive parents. It did sound like the court case was
raising issues that have usually come later in an adoptees development.
	Mez

    At the initial adoption hearing, when the baby was less then two
    weeks old, the father said that be wanted the baby. The state and the
    mother said no. This has been in the courts since then. This is not a
    new case.

    The father did not abandon the mother. They had a mutual separating.
    The mother only informed the father about the baby after she was
    born because she wanted him to sign away his rights (if any).

    The question is if the father wants the baby does the mother, who
    doesn't want the baby, have a right to keep the baby from him? The
    lower then scum is the woman who preferred the baby be placed with
    strangers then with a father who wanted and loved her.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    As I mentioned in the parenting notes file this case sounds very
    similar to the Bobby Molnar case here in Mass quite a few years
    ago. The father of a baby boy was similarly denied the right to
    custody of his son born out of wedlock. As a result of that case
    Mass now has a law that the father as well as the mother must
    relinquish a child before it can be adopted.
    
    However, the couple that adopted the little girl are not strangers.
    They are her parents. The bond between them that has grown over
    the years is an important one.
    
    Bonnie

    Did he, for a fact, abandon them?
    
    A male friend of mine had a "casual affair" with a woman and the
    result was a little girl.  When the woman found out that she was
    pregnant, she told my friend.  He wanted to do the "right thing"
    (marriage, pay for abortion, whatever) and she just told him to
    go away.  She even got a court order to keep him away.  A few (6)
    years later, he came back, saw how his daughter (as he had always
    thought her, as she was) was living (the mother was a major druggie
    living with a major troublemaker; fact not overreaction), he fought
    for custody and won.
    
    The best part was that the mother's parents stood with my friend
    on this.
    
    Moral of this story:  get ALL of the facts, and the result depends
    on so much more.
    
    P.S.  The reason my friend was gone for so long was respect of wishes
    until someone told him that it was his right to step forward.
    
    K.C.

    Bonnie,
    
    	Yes they are her parents *now*. What were they before they
    adopted her and her birth father was trying to get custody?
    I'll agree with anyone who says it's too late to give the girl
    to the father. The greatest harm has been done. But to deny him
    even visitation? Is that a great harm?
    
    			Alfred
    

    I seem to recall hearing on the radio this morning that the Court
    has (again?) refused the case.  Anyone else hear that?
                               
    If the father was indeed willing and reasonably able to take the child,
    and was not the indifferent "casual sex partner" that has Cal (rightly)
    upset, then in my view he should have been given absolute priority over
    any adoptive parents however well-qualified.
    
    It seems very likely that sexism and a rather callous indifference to
    human suffering is at work here somewhere, the only question is where.
    Until we have better information, we're not likely to be able to figure
    that out. 
    
    						=maggie 

What are the laws of adoptin (in Mass, and elsewhere)? Does a married, het
couple get dibs over a single person, even if they're related by blood? That
was the impression I got. Maybe the same adoption rules that discrimnate
against gay men and lesbians are at work here (though, without information, we
can't know...).
	Mez

    Alfred, 
    
    I think that it would be perfectly reasonable for the
    father to have visitation rights if the parents are comfortable
    with it. The problem is that the parents may not be able to
    handle the situation.  The whole thing looks like it has been very 
    badly managed. The father should have had at least had visitation
    rights from the start. I believe that the Mass law giving the
    biological father the right to custody of the child if her mother
    wasn't able to raise her is a good one. (Although there have been
    problems of children not being freed for adoption because the
    father could not be found or wouldn't either take the child or free
    her.
    
    My problem is really with the fact that this is now an established 
    parent child relationship and the parents may not be able to handle 
    the biological father's involvement. I think that Don and I could, tho
    it would be difficult, and would requite some professional help.
    I don't think that is true of all adoptive parents.
    
    Mez,
    
    In Massachusetts the biological father must decide if he wishes
    to take custody of his child before the child is placed for adoption.
    I do know that interested relatives do have some priority if they
    are interested, and especially, of course, if the parent(s) agree,
    but if there is any legal weight behind this I do not know.
    
    Adoption is generally biased towards the married, het couples when
    it comes to infants (esp white couples and white infants. Other 
    potential adoptive parents of any description are accepted at the 
    discretion of the particular agency when it comes to parenting hard 
    to place children (older, emotionally disturbed, physically or
    mentally handicapped). One exception is that many agencies are more
    flexible about accepting potential Black parents because there are
    more Black babies/children needing families than prospective Black
    parents. Also couples like Don and myself who have children, and/or 
    have no fertility problem are not often considered as parents for
    white infants. As a couple in our 40s with 5 kids we would not be 
    considered for a baby, but would be for an eight year old mixed race kid.
    
    Bonnie

    My opinion is that since this little girl is already 7 yrs old,
    the most important thing is that she and her adoptive parents be
    left in peace to continue to develop their relationship as a family.
     If somebody had come up to me when I was 7 yrs old and tried to
    take me from my mother and father and make me go with a strange
    man who I was told was my "father" (just because he once had sex
    with a strange woman I didn't even know) I would have been terrified.
     It would have upset my entire life.  Maybe this kid is so well
    adjusted that she can deal with it but who knows?  Hopefully somebody
    will be sure of it before it happens.  I think the birth father
    should have to wait until the girl is older.  Then, if she wants
    to contact him and get to know him, fine.
    
    I have trouble dealing with the "rights" of birth fathers who are
    not married to the mother.  If the couple are not married or living
    together as a couple then the pregnancy was probably a mistake.
     I feel that if a man does not feel love for the pregnant woman 
     then he has no right to the child.  (Sorry!  I know those
    are fighting words to some men.  But it's how I feel.)

    If a woman gets pregnant she's pregnant, period.  She has to either
    get an abortion or have a baby whether the man wants to help her
    or not.  When a man gets a woman pregnant he wants the right to
    walk away if he feels like and say..."I told her to get an abortion.
     I don't love her.  I don't want that kid." ...and have no
    responsibility.  Women have had to deal with being abandoned while
    pregnant for years.  Now all of a sudden (probably in retaliation
    for women's liberation) some men want their kids they had by casual
    affairs with women they didn't give a hoot about.  I say, tough!

    Men have treated women (they didn't love) unfairly for years in
    regard to sex and pregnancy.  Now all of a sudden women are supposed
    to be so careful about being fair to unwed fathers.  I'm sorry,
    for all the abandoned women who have gone through hell, I'm just
    not ready yet.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I am having trouble with the term "birth father".  That term dosen't
    make much sense to me since men don't give birth. If they did maybe
    then they should have some input into the "rights" of the child.
    I kind of feel the way Lorna does, men have abandoned women and
    children for hundreds of years, denied paternity, used women for
    their sexual gratification almost since the beginning of time. Now
    they want rights, I have to step back and really think about this.

    re: .0 
    
    Would you be as upset if it were the birth mother who was trying
    to get visitation rights?
           
    Re: .10
    
   >      I feel that if a man does not feel love for the pregnant woman 
   >  then he has no right to the child.  (Sorry!  I know those
   > are fighting words to some men.  But it's how I feel.)

    Then don't come looking for support payments.
       
    >If a woman gets pregnant she's pregnant, period.  She has to either
    >get an abortion or have a baby whether the man wants to help her
    >or not.  When a man gets a woman pregnant he wants the right to
    >walk away if he feels like and say..."I told her to get an abortion.
    > I don't love her.  I don't want that kid." ...and have no
    >responsibility.  Women have had to deal with being abandoned while
    >pregnant for years.  Now all of a sudden (probably in retaliation
    >for women's liberation) some men want their kids they had by casual
    >affairs with women they didn't give a hoot about.  I say, tough!

    >Men have treated women (they didn't love) unfairly for years in
    >regard to sex and pregnancy.  Now all of a sudden women are supposed
    >to be so careful about being fair to unwed fathers. 
    
    First you decry the injustices committed by unmarried fathers in the
    past, and then when some men want to do the right thing, you devalue
    their desire to be a responsible father by saying some sort of claptrap
    about their motives being "in retaliation for women's liberation".
    Would you please be good enough to tell this very mystified male just
    what it is you really want? 
    
    >Men have treated women (they didn't love) unfairly for years in
    >regard to sex and pregnancy.  Now all of a sudden women are supposed
    >to be so careful about being fair to unwed fathers.  
    
    So to make up for some unfair sexist treatment by men you want to
    return the favor by giving men unfair sexist treatment.  Lovely.  Look,
    equality is something worth having, but it isn't worth a damn unless it
    applies to everyone.  Equal means equal.  
    
    >I'm sorry, for all the abandoned women who have gone through hell, I'm
    >just not ready yet. 
     
    I'm sorry for all those abandoned women who have gone through hell
    too.  I don't know why you aren't ready to grant men equal treatment
    yet, nor is it my business to know, but if the empowerment that
    true equality can give is to be yours, it must be ours too.
                                          
    Mike

    in re .12
    
    Pat 'birth father' is one of those awkward terms used by us
    adopted parents. (since I think it was me who used the term!)
    To say real father isn't right...since we feel that makes the
    adoptive father the 'false' father..and biologcial or natural
    sounds odd since all kids and fathers are biological or natural.
    So since we tend to refer to the women who conceived and bore
    our children as their birth mothers then birth father follows
    logically (or so it seems ;-} ). I correct people who refer
    my son by pregnancy and birth as my 'real' son, because that
    implies that the others aren't my real kids. (We use homegrown
    which was something that our oldest came up with at age five
    when asked if all the children in the family were adopted..he
    said, 'no, I'm home grown, the other kids are adopted'.)
    
    Basically we are in the process of creating new language around
    the adoption family. Those related by common genes and those
    related by living together and forming a family unit.
    
    Bonnie

	RE: .14

   	.10>> I feel that if a man does not feel love for the pregnant woman 
   	.10>> then he has no right to the child.  (Sorry!  I know those
   	.10>> are fighting words to some men.  But it's how I feel.)

    	.14> Then don't come looking for support payments.
       
    	Mike Smith, will you please do me a favor and try not to use
    	language that turns a general discussion into something
   	that sounds like you are giving an individual woman here (Lorna)
    	instructions on what she should do in the situation presented
    	(as if we are discussing HER personal life instead of a general issue.)
    
    	I seriously doubt that there is much chance that Lorna will
    	be looking for support payments from you for the support of
    	your child born out of wedlock, in other words, so please don't
    	direct your comments to her in the form of an ultimatim that
    	applies to her personally.  
    
    	Thanks.

    	Question:  If the law in Massachusetts requires that the birth
    	father give consent to an adoption, what if the Mother has had
    	multiple partners (and is not sure who the father is) and/or
    	what if the father cannot be located?
    
    	Is the adoption held up if there is (essentially) no father
    	available to sign?  What if the identity of the father is
    	discovered later (and he presents himself to the court)?
    	Does he have rights then, or is there a time limit involved?
    
    	Just wondering...

    re:.15
    
    Perhaps "genetic father" would be the most appropriate, then.
    There can be no ambiguity there.
    
    re:.17
    
    I would hope that there is *some* provision for dealing with
    cases in which the father cannot be determined or found. A time
    limit sounds reasonable, or a case-specific decision on the part
    of a judge that "reasonable measures" have been taken to locate
    the father.
    
    Yeah, there's going to be times and cases in which the father
    shows up later, anyways, and wants a "piece of the pie", but
    that has to be worked out separately, whether the final outcome
    is "fair" or not.
    
    After all, no one said that life was fair.
    
    re: Lorna's comment
    
    Lorna's comment bothers me due to its "original sin" philosophy.
    I don't feel that my rights should be determined based on what
    "men" in the past have done, men that I don't know, men whose
    actions I have no responsibility for.
    
    --- jerry

    	It would be great if we could resist the temptation to get
    	sidetracked by the discussions of whether we ought (or ought
    	not) to have our opinions on this issue influenced by actions
    	that some folks have committed against others in the past.
    	Suffice it to say that some people still harbor resentment
    	about past injustices, while others don't harbor such resentment
    	and/or question whether or not such resentment is valid in 
    	debates about issues such as the one brought up in the basenote.
    
    	(It just seems like we've gone round the bend about a zillion
    	times on this one point alone, so I doubt if any new light could
    	be shed on it.)
    
    	It seems to me that there are some other issues that might prove
    	to be more interesting.  Such as...
    
    	If, at some point in the future, abortions become outlawed
    	and more women are forced into the situation where their only
    	alternative will be to continue the pregnancy and give the
    	born child up for adoption, where do men's rights (as fathers)
    	fit into this?
    
    	Our newly-elected administration has already expressed the view
    	that while abortion should be outlawed, absent parents should
    	be pursued more persistently to pay support for their children.
    
    	If it turns out that men are more consistently obligated to
    	support unplanned babies, then I think that they should have
    	increased rights as fathers.  If the majority of men (IN THE
    	FUTURE) are going to continue to have the frequent option of
    	'walking away' from unplanned pregnancies, then I think that
    	our concerns need to lie more with the women (IN THE FUTURE)
    	who will be forced to carry pregnancies to term (without
    	help) and who will then face the possible trauma involved with
    	making decisions about the future (for themselves and their
    	children.)

    	If women are put in the position of being forced to carry
    	pregnancies (and then being forced to go along with the
    	desires of those who got them pregnant, with no guarantee
    	of help or support,) then women will become virtual baby-
    	factories.  Men will be able to continue to dominate the
    	workforce (by virtue of not being subject to unplanned
    	pregnancy,) and will have the finances to hire better
    	lawyers and show better support for future children (which
    	could influence the courts to give custody to more and more
    	fathers, in the interest of equality for men.)
    
    	Women will be left in the position of having *neither* the
    	freedom to pursue equal opportunity in employment *nor*
    	the benefit of being given first consideration when it comes
    	to custody of their children.
    
    	In other words, we could end up remaining disadvantaged in
    	the area of employment, and our culture could see our lessor
    	economic standing (and 'equal opportunity for men') as justi-
    	fication to have us *become* disadvantaged (as well) in the
    	area of being considered primary caretakers of our children.
        
    	All that will be left, for some women, is to work at low-
    	paying jobs and produce babies that would ultimately be taken
    	away from them.  
    
    	While I can surely understand the concerns of men about fathers'
    	rights, I'd like to point out that mothers' rights could
    	drastically change in the next decade or so (and we could very
    	well end up in the situation where women lose their rights
    	in employment *and* in motherhood.)
    
    	How does anyone else think that fathers' rights should be
    	affected if women end up losing their choices in childbearing?

    re: .19 (Suzanne)
    
>    	How does anyone else think that fathers' rights should be
>    	affected if women end up losing their choices in childbearing?
    
    	   As you may be aware, I feel the implications of the loss
    	of the option of abortion are much more far-reaching than
    	just the direct impact on the adults concerned.But, since that
    	is the way you framed the question, I'll toss in my thoughts.
    
    	   If abortion is made illegal, it will indeed strike a very
    	cutting blow for women's rights.  A strong anti-abortion law
    	could easily lead to the loss of the pill as a birth control
    	method (as it does, on occasion, function as an abortifacient).
    	IUDs would definitely be outlawed, as their only function is
    	as an abortifacient.
    
    	   What this means is a LOT more pregnancies.
    
    	   The implications are not completely obvious, however.
    	Let's remember that such a dramatic move as banning abortion
    	(and abortifacients) makes the social statement that women's
    	sex role of mother is more importnt than their social roles
    	as individuals.  The employment system would be subtly 
    	restructured to support this change, in that women would
    	be excluded, by default, from certain positions/lines of work.
    
    	   Thus, the men will once again become the dominant
    	'bread-winner', giving them more economic control over
    	women.  The courts will no doubt acknowledge this fact,
    	and begin enforcing more 'generous' child-support payments
    	in paternity cases.  It might also mean that more men
    	would win custody of the children, as the women will be
    	less likely to be able to support them.
    
    	   Abolishment of abortion means that we, as a society,
    	are reverting to the values of the 50's and before,
    	firmly establishing men as the dominant gender.  Equal
    	right for women would become a joke, and would subsequently
    	be overturned (subtly), one by one.
    
    	- Greg

    I would like not to see the rights of the *child* obscured in this
    discussion.
    
    I think it has been determined that both the birth mother and the
    courst system originally denied the birth father his rights as the
    father or the child who was willing to raise and support this infant,
    so yes, that part of the damage has already been done and the loss
    cannot be made up.  BTW, the term birth mother and birth father
    are terms that have been 'legitimized' by CUB...Concerned United
    Birth parents as terms that they (parents who don't have custody
    of their children due to adoption) feel comfortable with. 
    
    However, the current reality is that this child has been with her
    adoptive parents since she was an infant, and she is now 7 years
    old.  Emotionally, psychologically and in every other way, her adoptive
    parents (and not her birth parents) are her parents, and I do not
    believe it is in the *best interest of the child* to have this
    relationship disrupted.  It is important that this little girl have
    the freedom from conflict (i.e. choosing between her parents and
    her birth father) and be able to continue the bonding process that
    takes place in families.  At 7 years of age I do not think she is
    capable of handling the relationships of relating to her parents
    and then relating to her birth father.  And yes, this means that
    the birth father may lose out on a few more years of direct contact
    with his child, but this just points out yet another one of the
    tragedies/problems with closed/secretive adoptions.
    
    A possible alternative would be for the father to receive periodic
    updates and pictures as a means to keep him somewhat in the loop.
    This is not a perfect solution, but when dealing with this kinds
    of issues, everybody seems to want *easy* answers, but there just
    aren't any.  Adoption ain't an *easy* answer.  Abortion ain't an
    *easy* answer.  Being a single mother ain't an *easy* answer.  Being
    a father trying to fight the courts for custody ain't an *easy*
    answer.  It seems silly to present these kind of situations as "if
    *they* would just do X, everything would be perfect."  
    
    Frankly, as an adoptee, I'm sick and tired of seeing children treated
    like chattel, or real estate or some sort of 'property' that can
    be bought, negotiated over, transacted, transferred, ad nauseum.
    
    And as an aside, until there are *laws* on the books of every state
    that say the father of the child must have custody if he wants the
    child even if the mother wants to relinquish the child for adoption),
    then fathers will continue to fight for their rights, and sometimes
    they may win and sometimes they may lose.  
    
    So fathers or potential fathers, maybe you need to mobilize
    and lobby for your rights, because in this country, with the way
    our court systems work, no one is going to come give you your rights.
    Maybe you should join forces with CUB or AAC and lobby right along
    with them.
    
    Laura
    

    	RE:  .21
    
    	In regards to this particular case, I agree with you that the
    	damage has already been done (as far as giving the father his
    	rights when the child was an infant) and the loss can never
    	be made up, so at this point all consideration should be given
    	to what is best for the (now) 7 year old child.
    
    	Whatever needs the birth father (or adoptive parents) might
    	have, it would stand to reason that the little girl has the
    	need to continue the family relationship that has been built
    	for the past 7 years (and that her feelings are the only ones
    	that really count right now.)
    
    	I liked your idea about keeping the father updated with pictures,
    	etc.  Even if that idea turned out to be difficult for the adoptive
    	parents, if it would keep the child's mind/life at peace, then
    	it might be worth it for everyone who cares about her.

    And as long as we're talking about "rights", there is one "right"
    that hasn't been stressed enough here: the rights of the adoptive
    parents. They have invested time, money, and love in raising that
    child, and their rights are no less valid than those of either of
    the birth parents.
    
    As Laura says, the child should be numero uno. And, in fact, it's
    usually the primary factor in deciding custody cases (as least,
    that's the theory -- never having been involved in one, I can't
    say with certainty). But that aside, when it comes down to a
    conflict between adoptive parents and a birth parent, well, it may
    get sticky, but *one* party has to lose (visitation rights are,
    at best, a pyrrhic victory), and it's not fair to either side to
    be the one to lose.
    
    But, as I said, no one said that life was fair.
    
    --- jerry

>    I am having trouble with the term "birth father". 

How about "conception father"? Or "biological father"? Several other
alternatives come to mind, but they tend to sound like I'm swearing at him...
:-).
	Mez

    re.21
    
    Laura,
    
    The idea of periodic updates is a wonderful one!  I observed this
    in action in my cousin's life [she and her two brothers were adopted
    separately by my aunt].  Vicky was adopted as a 13-month old when
    her birth-mother approached my aunt & her husband when she heard
    they were planning to adopt when they got back state-side [they
    were living in Germany at the time].  (further details concerning
    circumstance are available upon request, it's quite a story).
    
    My aunt kept a journal and collected pictures that she sent back
    to Germany on Vickie's birthday and New Year's.  Vickie's birth-mother
    sent little cards and letters to Vickie periodically always just
    signed "Kathe" [her name, obviously]. Prior to my aunt leaving Germany,
    Kathe had given her a diary with the 'story of Monika' (l.k.a. Vickie)
    so that Jean [my aunt] could answer questions as they came up, and
    asked that the diary be given to Vickie to read her story herself
    when Jane felt she was ready.  Kathe also felt that they shouldn't
    meet face to face again until Vickie was 16.
    
    Sadly, they never met as Kathe died in an accident when Vickie was
    14. However, one of Kathe's later children did bring Vickie an album
    of photos and mementos from Kathe's life before she married his
    father, including a picture of her birth-father and Kathe on holiday.
     
    So while Vickie grew up with no _memory_ of her birth-mother, she
    went through a very minimal period of 'abandonment resentment'
    because she always had a _feeling_ for the person of Kathe and knew
    that she was greatly loved.
    

    
    Re.0 et al.
    
    If indeed the birth-father has been contesting this child's custody
    since she was two-weeks[months?] old, it makes me wonder how she
    can _just_now_ be facing a life disruption at seven.  If he is asking
    for custody, while I feel for him, I think after seven years this
    would be too extreme.  If visitation is all he is asking, and the
    child is wondering if she'll be able to continue living with her
    parents, then someone somewhere has really botched explaining. 
    What does _she_ want?  Seven is awfully young to be facing these
    issues and it's unfortunate that they have come up so soon, but
    they have.  She needs love and support from all involved.
    
      Ann
    
    

    re .18, Jerry, I don't think I have any concept of "original sin."
    
    I have a couple of comments to make in retaliation. 
    
    First, although, I am still bothered by past injustices by men towards
    pregnant women, my major concerns are stated perfectly for me by
    Suzanne in .19.  I'm afraid that "father's rights" is just one more
    way for men to run the world.
    
    You say that you don't want to be blamed for injustices commited
    by men in the past.  I do know how you feel.  I felt the same way
    once when a boyfriend said to me in an extremely bitter voice, "I'll
    *never* get married again!  I'll never give another woman a chance
    to rake me over the coals the way my ex did!"  I felt as though
    I were being blamed for the actions of a mean, bitchy woman who is nothing
    like me!  I said, "Oh, so you blame every woman in the world for
    the way *one woman* treated you!"  His answer was, "They're out
    there."  It may not be fair but when people get burned it affects
    their attitude in the future.  I've read and heard of too many women
    pregnant alone, dying during illegal abortions, single mothers raising
    kids in poverty.  
    
    I think men have to realize that they have to be responsible for
    the children they father all the time, and show concern for the
    mothers of their children, and not just when it happens to suit
    their fancy.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .14, "Would you please be good enough to tell this very mystified
    male just what it is you really want?"
    
    I want people to be nicer to each other, to try to understand each
    other instead of getting angry at each other as individuals (as
    opposed to anger at past wrongs).  I want people to treat each other
    the way they would like to be treated.  I don't want people to justify
    hurting others by saying It's a jungle out there - survival of the
    fittest - it's a dog eat dog world.  I don't want anybody to want
    anything so bad that they are willing to deliberately hurt somebody
    else in order to get it.  I know it's an oversimplification but
    maybe if people really did try to do this some of the other problems
    between men and women would be resolved.  I want men to acknowledge
    that sometimes, just sometimes, they, the man or men, might actually
    be *wrong* about something, and that a woman (even a housewife or
    waitress or secretary) might be right.
    
    I do want equality for men as well as women.  But, it seems to me
    that most white men already *have* equality.  I want to make sure
    that men's idea of having equality doesn't mean that women don't
    have any equality.  A good mother losing her kids because she doesn't
    make as much money as the birth father (who may really be more intent
    on hurting her for not having been a perfect wife than he is in
    raising his kids) is not equality for women.  And, that's the kind
    of situation I'm afraid of seeing happen.
    
    Lorna
    

                 
    re: .16

    >Mike Smith, will you please do me a favor and try not to use
    >	language that turns a general discussion into something
    >	that sounds like you are giving an individual woman here (Lorna)
    >	instructions on what she should do in the situation presented
    >	(as if we are discussing HER personal life instead of a general issue.)
    >
    >	I seriously doubt that there is much chance that Lorna will
    >	be looking for support payments from you for the support of
    >	your child born out of wedlock, in other words, so please don't
    >	direct your comments to her in the form of an ultimatim that
    >	applies to her personally.  
    
    Ms Conlon; 
                                                             
    My reply was, admittedly, an emotional response to Lorna's Flame. It is
    obvious to both Lorna and me that neither one of us will ever be
    involved in any sort of situation where I might be expected to pay her
    any money for any child she might bear.  Any reasonable person would
    also infer the same thing.  To suggest, then, my reply was really
    meant as a personal ultimatum to Lorna is ludicrous.  Anyway, if my
    emotional response is out of order, then so was hers. 
    
    Finally, why am I justifying myself to you?  My response was addressed
    to Lorna.  If she has a problem with what I wrote, I'm sure she and I
    can discuss it on a calm rational basis without anyone running
    interference. 
    
    Mike
                                                  

    Re: .28
    
    Put in those words, I understand now.  Not only that, I agree with
    you wholeheartedly.  No one should not expect their "equality" to be
    at the expense of someone elses.  Nor should people forget that just
    because they have a "right" to do something, exercising that right
    isn't always the right thing to do.
                                      
    If my past reply to you upset you, I apologize.  It wasn't my
    intention to attack you personally, but I can see where it might
    have been perceived that way.
    
    Mike
         

    	RE:  .29
    
    	Mike, my request to you (about watching your phrasing) was meant
    	as a general suggestion about relating to people in this
    	conference.

    	Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people have a tendency
    	to bring discussions about 'hot' issues to a personal level
    	(as if the person on the other end of the debate is one of the
    	actual people involved in the controversy in question, when
    	that is obviously not the case.)
    
    	Perhaps it makes for a 'stronger blow' in an argument if one
    	brings it to the level of a personal ultimatim (and believe
    	me, I often get the mental image of a noter poking another noter
    	in the chest in a staccato motion when arguments turn into
    	personal ultimatims the way yours did.)
    
    	I'm just requesting that you refrain from doing that (because
    	it brings things to the level of personal accusation, and that
    	sort of thing simply isn't necessary.)
    
    	It would be as if Lorna had said to you, "If you want me to
    	feel better about father's rights, Mike, then stop abandoning
    	women when you get them pregnant!"
    
    	See what I mean?

re: .29

>    Finally, why am I justifying myself to you? 

This is a good question. I often wonder about this myself (when the I is me,
not you). It's a public forum. We need to feel we came out clean. At least,
that's why I often have dumb impulses like that.

	Mez

    	RE:  .32
    
    	Actually, my remarks should have gone into the 'Hot Button'
    	topic rather than here.
    
    	Sorry for the tangent.  :-)
    

    Re: .31
         
    Okay.  Now that some of the smoke generated by all these flames
    has cleared, I see your point.  I will try to do better in the future.
    
    Mike
    
    (I can't remember the symbol for smiling, but I am smiling.) 

    In the case of both our two adopted children, the birth mothers
    would not or could not identify the birth fathers.  The court
    then requires certain procedures be done, involving advertising
    in specific 'lawyer' magazines for a certain amount of time.
    After this is done, the court will officially sever the birth
    fathers future rights.

    A birth father who sought custody of his child could attempt
    to locate that child by contacting a lawyer who would have access
    to these advertisements, assuming he knew approximately when the
    child would be born.  This is mainly a protection for a
    birth father who was abandoned and still sought custody.  When
    the birth father is identified, his signature is required for
    the adoption.  (I have no experience with what happens when this
    is contested).

    This case sounds quite complex, not a simple question of the
    birth father showing up after many years.
    bob

    re:.27
    
    � Jerry, I don't think I have any concept of "original sin." �
    
    I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I'm guessing
    that you meant that you didn't understand what *I* was getting
    at by referring to your "original sin philosophy". I was just
    alluding to the Christian concept that all human beings have an
    inherent tendency toward being sinful as an inheritance of sorts
    from Adam's disobeying God by eating that apple.
    
    I was interpreting what you were saying to mean that a given man's
    rights concerning custody of his child were at risk of forfeiture
    because "men" in the past did all sorts of rotten, nasty things.
    
    --- jerry

    Excellent column from the Globe.  In addition to being well written
    (as always) it also provides some important information about this
    particular case.     
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    The Boston Globe, Thursday, December 1, 1988
    
    A question of rights for an unmarried father
    Ellen Goodman
    
    Eight years ago, Edward McNamara had what is described as a "casual
    affair".  But in the way of the world, his brief romance had more
    than casual consequences.  Unknown to him, the 20-year-old single
    woman became pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl.
    
    On Aug. 1, 1981, over dinner in a San Diego retaurant, she told
    him about the baby and how she had placed it for adoption.  She
    asked him to sign away his parental rights.
    
    That vivid scene between man and woman, the news announced over
    the neutral turf of a tablecloth - here revelation, his shock -
    was a tableau of the essential difference between a biological mother
    and father.  Only a father could be "stunned," in his words, by
    the birth of a child.
    
    Despite all the birthing classes and self-conscious descriptions
    of "our" pregnancy, not even married men and women are truly equal
    partners in pregnancy.  Unwed and disconnected fathers haven't nearly
    the same investment as unwed mothers in a newborn child.
    
    But does that mean that there are no rights the come with a paternal
    set of genes?  Does a mother have the unilateral power to put a
    child up for adoption?  Can the state view unwed motners and unwed
    fathers wholly differently?
    
    These are some of the questions that came out of this casual affair.
    On Nov. 28, Ed McNamara brought them to the Supreme Court.
    
    McNamara never signed away his parental rights.  He had the ruled away.
    Months after the baby girl - now a seven-year-old named Katie - was
    placed in a foster home, the court allowed Robert and P. J. Moses to
    adopt the baby over McNamara's protests.  The girl had bonded with here
    new parents, the court ruled.  Adoption was in her best interest. 
    
    McNamara claims that the law violated his rights, indeed all father's
    rights.  An unwed mother could only lose her parental rights if
    she was unfit.  But an unwed father could lose them "in the best
    interests of the child."  He was denied equal protection of the
    law.
    
    This is not an isolated or freakish case.  One out of ever four
    children in the country is born out of wedlock.  Many of these children
    have a tenuous relationship with their fathers.  There are more
    women trying to get men into the lives of children than trying to
    keep them out.  There are more women than men trying to prove paternity
    in court.
    
    Indeed, that scene at the restaurant might have gone differently
    if the bioligcal mother had decided to keep the child.  The result
    of McNamara's casual affair might have been 18 years of child-support
    payments.
    
    But can a state hold a man responsible for supporting his children
    one day and cut off his right to those children the next?  Is a
    father who is liable for responsibilities to be denied rights?
                                       
    At the same time, this or any woman who carries a child alone for
    nine months may assume that she can decide the fate of her newborn
    alone.  Only 6 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are put up
    for adoption.  These mothers act in what the believe is "the best
    interests of the child."  How would the assess those interests,
    ake that decision, if the child could be claimed by a stranger-father?
    
    The Supreme Court has ruled that biology isn't destiny for unwed
    fathers exactly the way it is for unwed mothers.  If an unwed father
    wants to claim his paternity, he has to act like a father.  But
    neither the mother nor the California law ever gave Ed McNamara
    the chance to act like a father.
    
    This is a time of flux and confusion about familes and the rules
    that regulate them.  Family structures are more divers; family law
    is more complex.  As a society we are trying to strengthen emotional
    ties while our institutions weaken.  We are especially concerned
    about fathers and children.
    
    Ed McNamara knows something about changing familes and about
    maintaining relationships.  A divorced father of two, an unwed father
    of one, he doesn't ask for custody of Katie but rather the right
    to visit, the right to be known and named as her father.
    
    For all its good intentions, the state of California was wrong to
    sever this or any father's rights before he can make a case for
    his responsibility.  It may be rare, but a brief affair produced
    a tenacious father.  There is nothing casual about Ed McNamara's
    fatherhood anymore.
    
    
    Ellen Goodman is a Globe columnist.

    
    
    Excellent column.  Thank you for sharing. The final paragraph
    sums up my feelings on the subject.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    Re .36, Jerry, I was making a joke about "original sin" because
    I don't believe in it.  (I just can't take those Christian phrases
    sometimes.)
    
    I don't really want to deny "birth fathers" their rights.  If a
    woman doesn't want to keep her baby and the birth father wants it,
    I guess I don't see why he shouldn't have it if it's an infant.
    (Unlike the case of the 7 yr. old girl who is already bonded with
    her adoptive parents.  To take her away now would be cruel to her
    and them.  I think it would also bring into question whether adoptive
    parents have any rights at all, if a birth parent can come along
    at any time and want the kid back.  Who would want to adopt a baby
    and get attached if that can happen?)
    
    I'm just afraid that so much concern for birth fathers will result
    in poor women once again being denied their rights, as in Suzanne's
    scenario.
    
    I actually know a guy who got custody of a child by a woman he had
    a casual affair with.  He found out about the baby after it was
    born and was about to be put up for adoption.  He showed up and
    said he wanted it (in the meantime he had gotten married and she
    couldn't have kids and they decided they wanted the baby), and I
    guess nobody contested it.  So, now they are raising the child as
    theirs but I don't think many people know the real story.  I thought
    his wife showed a lot of open mindedness in being able to accept
    the baby.  He, the little boy, thinks she's his real mother so far
    I guess.  The little boy happens to be absolutely *adorable*.  But,
    if I were the wife I really don't know if I could do it - accept
    a child my husband had by another woman as mine.  For them it seems
    to work though.  
    
    Lorna
      

I read a few notes lately as I was staying home sick, and now I am addicted.  I
could not pass up this subject that caught my eye today. I learned recently a
lot participating with other families in a group of teenagers my son is
attending, and most emotional problems of the youngsters had to do with the
mixup of biological and adoptive parents.  I read some of the replies here, and
I am not sure we know what "is right", except some thoughts (from my recent
"growth")

1. remember human laws ("rights of father", rights of mother etc.)   are
secondary.  Only the laws of nature are undisputable (for   instance we humans
coined the commandment "Do not kill", but   the supreme law of Nature is
SURVIVAL, and when it comes to that   no human law can supersede Nature).  In
Nature and in   controlled experiments with animals and humans it has been
proved:   whoever brings up the animal(incl.humans) is the "parent" the
offspring   loves.   There is no memory in the genes to instinctively draw the
offspring   to the biological parents.  Now, for expediency and convenience  
in certain societies on earth (NOT ALL) "marriage", "parenthood"   and related
matters have been (over?-)legislated.  But no court (not even the U.S. Supreme
Court) and no columnist (no matter how talented) such as the one quoted
in a previous reply can fool mother Nature. 

2. If we talk specifically about this complicated society, the way things 
have gone astray from Nature we have to pay attention exclusively to the 
happiness of the child.  I thought I was a very liberal non domineering
father during the 15 years I've been raising my son alone. Yet recently I see
that I could have paid some more attention TO HIS NEEDS. I think the welfare of
the child is more important than to satisfy the "pride" of the man that he is a
father or even the (truly uniqe) feelings of oneness a woman has for the child
that once was part of her body for 9 months  [I guess my fellow men you agree
that that's much "heavier" than a few drops of liquid from our body...]. 

Taking hints from Nature (from which we cannot escape), we could   legislate
(as actually the legal case is in most countries) that the biological mother has
the obligation to raise the child, and the father has the   obligation to
support. If either is unwilling or "incabable" for such   duties,  then the law
has to step in and provide the best for the child.   Then we start walking the
razor's edge: who's going to make such   judgements? (some judge) and from
whose input ?(some well-paid lawyers...) and  here I give up...
In fact the Beatles were right, "all you need is love" to solve problems,
remember the message (of love for the child, above any other parental feeling)
that came out of the final resolution of the custody fight in "Kramer vs. 
Kramer"? (D. Hoffmann, Meryl Streep): parental love found a better solution
than the court...
  

P.S. to my .40:
---------------
(so that you know where I am coming from)

My ex moved 6000 miles away from our son, when he was an infant to avoid 
hurting him (emotionally).

Compare such painful but so honorable action to the man from California who
is trying to enter and mess up the life of a child that does not even
know who he is, just because a few years ago he spent some of his
"precious" sperm.

    I think that the father should win his case so that there would
    be a precedent laid down to protect the rights of birth fathers.
    At the same time I think that changing the child's living arrangement
    would only create another victim.  Is there a way to allow the man
    to win his case against the California courts and at the same time
    leave the relationships as they stand?
    
    I hope that some day I will get the opportunity to become a father.
    I hope that the rights of a birth father are recognized to the point
    that I can also count on having more than just a financial and genetic
    relationship to my child.
    
    					MJC O->

    re: .42
    
    � I think that the father should win his case so that there would
    � be a precedent laid down to protect the rights of birth fathers.
    
    I think I'd rather see comprehensive legislation that clearly defines
    the rights and obligations of mothers, fathers, and children, both
    biological and otherwise.  By going the precedent route, the 
    legislative process is bypassed.  Also, such a precedent is only
    effective as long as the case isn't overturned.
    
    On the other hand, since one might reasonably doubt whether we'll
    see such legislation in our lifetimes. . .
    
    � Is there a way to allow the man to win his case against the 
    � California courts and at the same time leave the relationships 
    � as they stand?
    
    Without knowing all the details of both the case and the applicable
    California laws, I'd hesitate to say whether the man should win
    the case or not.  The information presented so far suggests to
    me that he has a reasonable and valid grievance, but what I know
    of the legal system tells me that this information, presented by
    the mass media, tells only part of the story.
    
    Be that as it may, I think that when common view, caring, and
    creativity on the part of *all* parties are brought into any 
    situation, including the courtroom, there is little that *can't* 
    be done.  My guess, however, is that such will not be the case here.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .41
    
    >the man from California who is trying to enter and mess up the
    >life of a child
    
    First of all, I doubt he's *trying* to mess up her life.  Secondly,
    it's not necessarily true that her life *must* be messed up by this
    change.  It's a major change, to be sure, but children have survived
    major changes before -- when the transition was handled with
    intelligence and concern.
    
    >just because a few years ago he spent some of his "precious" sperm.
    
    Here we are, back at the biological contributions.  The father donates
    a few sperm.  The mother donates an egg and the use of her body
    for nine months.  (In terms of the pig, the chicken and breakfast,
    the father is involved but the mother is committed.)  The father
    is given secondary consideration because his biological involvement
    doesn't begin to compare.  However -- is this the father's fault?
    He's discounted because he contributed relatively little, but what
    more could he have done?  In this case, men are handicapped by their
    own biology; they can hardly compete on equal terms.
    
    If human beings could just lay eggs, things would be so much simpler.
    
    ["Mother" and "father" used in the sense of "dam" and "sire," for
    those who have particular associations for the former pair.]

    re: 39
    
    Lorna,
    
    Sounds like in your friend's case the father was granted custody
    because he had a 'wife' at the time he filed for custody.  In other
    words, he/they were presenting themselves as the societally acceptable
    family configuration, daddy, mommy and baby makes three....
    
    I do think it's a shame that this little boy is being subjected
    to a tradition of deception by being told that his mother is is
    biological mother.  But that's another issue.
    
    As for this man in California, it seems pretty clear that the court
    discriminated against him with their reprehensibile attitudes that
    he wouldn't be able to raise his child because he didn't have the
    perfect little family configuration.           
    
    On the whole, I found it very telling that the base noter, an adoptive
    parent, would refer to this man in California as slime and whatever
    other "lovely" names he came up with.  But that behaviour, I believe,
    points out the kind of fear that adoptees often sensed in their
    parents, the fear that someone else would steal the child or 'steal'
    the child's affections, and the insecurity about being an adoptive
    parent.  Our society structures tend to make adoptive parents feel
    like second class citizens and sometimes their behaviours reflect
    the negative impact of those attitudes.
    
    Laura
    

    Re .45, Laura, it's probably true that the guy I know wouldn't have
    gotten custody of his son if he wasn't married.  His son was 6 mos.
    old when he and his wife "got" him.  I don't think anybody (birth
    mother, adoptive parents if there even were any) contested it.
    
    His son is about 4 yrs. old now.  I don't know *what* they've told
    him yet.  I've gotten the *impression* that they haven't told him
    any details yet, though.  It is sort of an unusual situation and
    I'm curious how they will handle it.  Usually, a child is either
    adopted or lives with his/her birth parents.  But, in this case
    he's adopted but his adopted father is also his birth father!
    
    I can't help but speculate on future complications.  For example,
    if the parents ever divorce (they're very happy so it might never
    happen), would the father automatically get custody of his son since
    his wife is not the birth mother while he is the birth father? 
    The birth mother apparently signed away her rights but if she changes
    her mind someday and shows up wanting to get to know her son, how
    would that threaten his adoptive mother?  (His adoptive mother seems
    to be taking a traditional role in doing the majority of the nurturing,
    too.)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court ducked the issue.  They decided
against the birth-father, on the sole grounds that he failed to raise
a Constitutional issue before the lower court.  (He appealed on the
grounds of "Equal Protection," but that was only mentioned in a footnote
in the lower court's documents.)

I.e., the question is still open.

Martin.

re: .48

That's kind of interesting. My gut reaction is it does, but I never felt
compelled to think about it before now. What would be the correlary of
"squatter's rights" in this case? A woman has put in nine months of her life,
full time, throwing up, not drinking alcohol, buying new clothes (the old ones
don't fit), eating right (and so giving up certain foods), going to the doctor,
paying the doctor bills, reading, talking, learning, and she gets no rights out
of the deal?

Well, just reaffirms to me how unfun pregnancy must be :-).
	Mez

    Well, one thing men can't take away from women, at least we mothers
    always know for sure that the kid is ours :-)!  (What *him* the
    father?  I don't know, I might have done it with him *once* when
    I was really drunk but I can't remember for sure.  I did it with
    at least 10 guys that month!!!  <----- an imaginary conversation
    with a guy trying to claim a baby)
    
    Lorna
    

    Who are you to tell me what is relevant?
    
    Has God decided to become a member of the wommannotes community?
    
    Are your views the law in the U.S. today, are they your opinion,
    or did God visit you last night and tell you the way things really
    are?
    
    We disagree.  Fine.  But, you have no right to say that my views
    are relevant.  It is relevant in the sense that a woman can always
    prove she is the mother of a child that has grown in her body, but
    a father has to depend on the situation at hand, what the woman
    says, and blood tests.  That does give us a little bit of an upper
    hand on claiming babies whether you like it or not.
    
    I granted my ex-husband equal rights to our daughter because I once
    loved him, because he is a good person who loves our daughter but
    if I hadn't felt that way about him, I wouldn't have.  I am the
    one whose stomach was cut open in order for her to be born.  Not
    him, and he knows it.
    
   Lorna
    
    

    But is that his fault?
    
    When I had my miscarriage, no one thought that my husband needed
    any kind of consoling because he did not go through the physical
    part of it, but he hurt emotionally just as much as I (it was a
    planned pregnancy).
    
    Now, please, calm down.  This is a discussion; not an argument.
    
    K.C.-who-feels-for-daddies.

    Re: .51
    
    Lorna, with the scenario you've given, would each guy, then, only
    have to pay 1/10 child support? :-)
    
      Alan

    Re .K.C., I'm not upset about the fact that he and I disagree. 
    I'm upset about the fact that he felt he had a right to tell me
    my comments are irrelevant.  What am I supposed to say?  Yes, I'm
    a halfwitted fool whose comments here are completely irrelevant.
     
    K.C. you are young and are apparently very happily married (except
    for not having a baby yet).  I am not young and have had two
    relationships which ended badly.  Perhaps that accounts for some
    differences of opinion.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .56, yeah, they each ought to be able to afford 1/10 without
    too much difficulty. :-)
    
    Alan, it was an *imaginery* scenario that popped into my mind. 
    Actually, the scenario didn't pop into my mind (horrors) - only
    the conversation did.  I thought it would be a way for a woman to
    keep a man from getting a baby away from her.  Such a scenario would
    never be true in my life.  I am far too priggish!  :-)  
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .58
    
    Lorna, :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
       Alan

    Re .55, "nasty & vindictive" wow!  Just because you view my argument
    to be irrelevant is no reason for you to be pompous and overbearing.
    
    In regards to rights, when my daughter was born my husband and I
    were in love and agreed on many things including that we wanted
    to share the parenting of the baby.  Now, we're not married and
    not in love in the romantic sense, but we still like each other,
    love our daughter and want to share in parenting.  So, I feel that
    he and I both have the same parental rights.  But, if the father
    had been an acquaintance from a casual fling, I would have felt
    that I had a little more rights as a parent than he would because
    my life would have been affected so much more by being pregnant,
    and giving birth.  
    
    Lorna
    

    If a man wants to participate in the decision of what to do
    about an unplanned pregnancy he should begin the deliberations
    before having sex.  Use a condom.  Ask the woman what she
    would do if she became pregnant.  Say what he would want done
    in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.  If the results are
    not to his liking, he should find another woman, or _forfeit_
    his "rights" to affect the decision.  
    
    /bruce

    I am partial to Ellen Goodman's argument that if the father can
    be held responsible for child support then he must also have some
    rights. If he has no rights, then how can he be held responsible?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE:  .63

    Exactly what I was going to say!  I think that many guys would forfeit
    rights to determining the disposition of an unplanned child, if they
    could trade it for less or no financial responsibility.  To have one
    without the other seems a bit like taxation without representation.

    							-- Mikey

    Re: the argument
    
    I think it's worthwhile to point out that irrelevant != worthless.
    A lot of good discussions have come from tangents -- irrelevant
    (or nearly so) to the main topic but nonetheless beneficial.
    
    I also think it's worthwhile to point out that people approach
    discussions in different ways.  Some people are more analytical
    and rigorous, kind of a straight line approach, and some people
    are more reactive and associative, more like a ripple.  It appears
    we might have a clash between two thinking styles.
    
    And finally -- having people critique your views is a risk inherent
    in voicing them.

I think Gregg has misrepresented what I tried to say. So I'll try to say it
again :-). Here goes:

1) it's ain't a zero-sum gain. If a mom gets 'more' rights, the pop don't
necessarily get less.

2) I like to believe that rights and responsibility and support and hard work
all have something to do with each other (part of the protestant culture?). So,
fer instance, if I and this other guy had a great idea, and I coded and
debugged it for nine months til it was ready to ship, and the guy was in Hawaii
that whole time, and he came back in nine months (or two years) and wanted half
the profits, I'd laugh in his face! However, this scenario gets altered for
each alternative action. If the guy went to the registry for me and cooked my
meals and kept me healthy the entire time, that changes things. But my sweat
counts for something.
	Mez

>    And since the primary issue is the good of the child, I cannot see
>    how bearing the child for nine months necessarily makes you a more
>    fit parent, than the father. 

Since this is not an issue I'm addressing, I'm assuming you stopped talking to
me around here. And, amazingly enough, it looks like we agree on the issues
we're both discussing.
	Mez

    In regard to the argument that if men have to pay to help support
    a child then they should have some rights in regard to raising the
    child.  It's obvious to me that part of the problem here is that
    many single women have no choice but to ask either the father's
    of their children or the state for financial help.  It is still
    a fact that most women do not earn enough money to support a child
    on their own, whereas more, if not most, men do earn enough money.
     This means that women who might rather raise the child on their
    own if they could afford it are forced to allow the father of the
    child to have rights because they need his financial help.  I would
    like to point out, also, that while it is not the fault of men that
    they do not get pregnant and bear children, it is not the fault
    of women that most of them do not earn as much money as men do.
     Instead, it is the fault of the sexist society we live in that
    has valued the contributions more typicaly made by men in the work
    force far more than those usually made by women.  (How typical that
    this society also does not wish to place significant value to the
    process of pregnancy and childbearing.)
    
    I agree that just giving birth does not make a woman a more fit
    parent than a man (who has only contributed the sex act).  Only
    time can determine who is or is not a fit parent.  The point is
    *everyone* is a fit parent until proven otherwise.  Unless you can
    prove I am not a fit parent to my daughter, you will have to just
    assume that I am.  In my opinion if an unmarried woman gives birth
    to a baby it is *her baby* and if a man who had sex with her wants
    equal rights as the father he has to meet certain obligations such
    as love, sharing of parental duties, financial responsibility,
    marriage, being there when the woman or child needs him.  If the
    woman doesn't want him in her life but needs financial help because
    she lives in a society that doesn't believe in paying secretaries,
    waitresses, teachers, nurses, social workers, cashiers, librarians,
    etc. enough money to raise families on, then she'll have to apply
    for welfare.  From what I understand the state goes after the father.
     This is not the woman's fault.  She is just trying to survive -
    sometimes tricky for single mothers.  The bottom line is, I think
    babies "belong" to single mothers unless they don't want them, or
    it can be proven otherwise.  I think single mothers should have
    more rights than single fathers.
    
    Lorna
     

    Re .0:
    
    In the course of the 69 replies to this note a lot of generalizations
    about rights and responsibilities are getting mixed in with very
    specific situations that don't immediately relate to the situation
    in .0. I would like to just recap that specific situation to try
    to achieve a little focus.
    
    A man and a woman had a casual affair that resulted in a pregnancy.
    The woman did NOT inform the man of this. After the child is born,
    she decides to put it up for adoption. She finds that she needs
    his signature to do that. He refuses, he wants to raise the child.
    After seven years in court, the child is declared to "belong" to
    the adoptive parents.
    
    First point is that someone argued that if the father had no part
    of the pregnancy then he can claim no rights to the child. It seems
    to me to be more an issue of intent, in this case. There is no
    indication that the father would not have assumed his responsibilities
    from the first *had he known* that he had conceived a child.
    
    Second point is that this is also not a question of who is a better
    parent. The fact is the mother wanted to give the child away, it
    seems to me that the father should at least have first priority
    for custody of it.
    
    Third point is that this man is apparently not some irresponsible
    playboy that just wants this child on a whim.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .70, I think that in the case of a casual affair such as .0,
    if the mother doesn't want the baby, then the father should be able
    to have the baby *unless* the mother can prove that he wouldn't
    be a fit parent for some reason.  However, in the specific case
    of .0, the child has already been with her adoptive parents for
    seven years and I think it would be cruel to all three of them to
    give the child to the birth father at this point.  It may not seem
    fair to the birth father, but it does seem to be in the best interest
    of the child for her to stay with her adoptive parents.
    
    Lorna
    

RE: .69

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a father has no say in
    decisions  about  a  child  you can't expect him to have more than
    minimal  responsibilities.  How about the father must pay half the
    cost  of the cheapest alternative (presumably abortion or allowing
    the  child  to  be  adopted).  If  the  mother  doesn't  like that
    alternative  she can either come to some agreement with the father
    about custody and support or support the child herself. This is in
    cases   where   the   pregnancy  was  accidental  and  no  serious
    relationship  between  the  parents  existed.  If  the  father was
    involved after the child was born there would be a strong case for
    joint custody.

--David

    ps. This  is  the  short  version  of the above note. I stopped to
    remove the flames.

    Re .72, shouldn't you be telling that to the state?  Welfare are
    the ones who go after the father for money if a woman applies for
    welfare.  (from what I understand)
    
    What if a birth father doesn't want any rights or responsibilities?
    Does he then have the *right* to say, I don't want the kid.  I don't
    want to visit it.  I don't want to pay anything.  So, what.  It's
    still his kid that needs money from somewhere in order to survive.
     If a man can say, I want to be the father so I'll help support it,
    or I don't want it, and I don't want to visit it or help raise it,
    so I don't want to pay - isn't having that choice, wanting to have
    your cake and eat it, too?  If you look at it that way, it's men
    just wanting to have their own way.  They want to be a father, they'll
    help raise it.  They don't want to be a father, they want to be
    able to ignore it and not pay a cent.  Most of the time when a man
    doesn't want the baby, and has to be chased for support, they don't
    want any *rights* anyway.  They just want to pretend they don't
    have a kid.
    
    Lorna
    

We're not talking about property rights or contract law here...
we're talking about human beings.  The process of creating and
caring for  children is an assymetrical one in which the woman
bears _all_ of the physical risk and burden.  To suggest that
that anyone has the right to tell a woman (or a man, for that
matter) what to do with her (his) body _for any reason at all_
strikes me  as totally abhorrent.

For a variety of reasons discussed elsewhere in this notefile,
women are generally less capable of providing financially
for their children.  To redress this inequality, the legislature
and the courts have seen fit to place the financial burden
on the male.  Perhaps after men work harder to establish
financial equality for women, this pitiful state of affairs
will be altered.

Until then, the rules of the game are fairly clear.  If someone
is concerned that he will be unfairly treated financially,
or that he will not be able to force a woman to bear or
abort a fetus in accordance with his wishes, then his 
options are clear:  _make sure that he doesn't impregnate her_.
And if he does, well, then he has just lost a game in which
he knew that the deck was stacked against him.


/bruce

    
    RE: .73
    
    I don't think anyone here is asking to have it both ways.   Those
    accidental fathers who duck paying child support are doing so in
    defiance of the law.  The only reason why they succeed in doing it is
    that the system is overloaded with these cases and under-empowered to
    deal with them.  However, there has been new legislation recently
    passed which promises to change this over the next decade.  (One of the
    things which will be implemented is empowering the court to attach a
    portion of the father's wages and to track him down through his social
    security number.  This won't always help--some guys will just take jobs
    with people willing to pay them cash).
    
    I agree with all of this.  The father of an accidentally conceived
    child should be partially responsible for the welfare of that child,
    and the courts should be made more effective in seeing to that. 
    (Although I think this new legislation is more aimed at relieving the
    financial strain on the ADC program than with any moral perogatives).
    However, if you're going to hold the father financially responsible,
    then you have to give him some rights in determining the disposition of
    the child.  Equally acceptable would be no rights/no responsibility.
    But you can't have it both ways.
    
    
.74> And if he does, well, then he has just lost a game in which
.74> he knew that the deck was stacked against him.
    
    You said it, buddy.  Casual sexual intercourse is so dangerous, it's a
    wonder that anyone ever indulges in it 8^).
    
    						-- Mikey

    Back to .0.  I can't help feeling that there should be a mechanism to
    allow a mother to do exactly what this woman did.  There should be a
    legal procedure whereby a woman could go to a court before or after the
    birth of a child conceived out of wedlock, and petition the court to
    grant her sole legal guardianship of the child, forfeiting any present
    or future right to request financial support from the father.  Whether
    the court would grant this would depend upon the mother's demonstrated
    ability to provide for the child or her commitment to giving the child
    up for adoption.  If the mother can exhibit a workable scheme for
    providing for the child, no consideration of the father should be
    necessary.  No woman should be forced to hand a child over to man she
    doesn't know very well (or only too well), or to allow him any access
    to the child.

    This agreement would probably disqualify the mother from receiving ADC
    for that child.

    Don't ask me why I feel this way.  It just seems that, given an
    accidental, out of wedlock pregnancy (married people have made an
    implicit agreement to shared childrearing), the mother, by dent of
    having taken the physical risk of bearing the child, has a right
    to assume sole guardianship of that child if she's willing to give up
    any right to support from the father.

    							-- Mikey

    My point of view is that the right to control one's own body
    is paramount and supercedes all others.  If I were judge,
    I would so rule.
    
    My conclusion is this:  If you cannot agree with your sexual
    partner how you both want to deal with a pregnancy, then
    _don't risk impregnating that woman_.  Otherwise, you may
    just screw yourself out of your "rights."
    
    /bruce

    Re: .69
    
    >This means that women who might rather raise the child on their
    >own if they could afford it are forced to allow the father of the
    >child to have rights because they need his financial help.
    
    The way I see it, the father has rights.  Rights aren't allowed,
    they exist.  The woman is forced to allow the father the opportunity
    to *exercise* his rights because she needs financial help.  If the
    father chooses to give up his rights (as evidenced by his actions),
    then fine, but I think he's entitled to the opportunity to make
    a choice.  I get the feeling that you're working from a "man the
    seducer, woman the victim" scenario and I don't think that's a safe
    assumption.
    
    >In my opinion if an unmarried woman gives birth to a baby it is
    >*her baby*
    
    Even if the couple is living together?
    
    >and if a man who had sex with her wants equal rights as the father
    >he has to meet certain obligations such as love
    
    I'm sorry, but I don't believe love can be an obligation.  Love
    is a gift or it isn't love.
    
    >sharing of parental duties, financial responsibility,
    
    Agreed.
    
    >marriage, 
    
    I guess I'm not that old-fashioned.
    
    >being there when the woman or child needs him.
    
    For the child, yes.  For the woman, during the course of her pregnancy
    or for dealing with parenting matters (which should be covered under
    sharing parental duties).  If they want to build a relationship
    in which they can lean on each other sometimes, more power to them,
    but I wouldn't require the man to provide a permanent shoulder.
    
    >If the woman doesn't want him in her life
    
    ... then she shouldn't have let him in.

    Re .79, Acknowledging the power of marriage does not mean that I
    am old fashioned.  It would be nice if living together and being
    in love meant as much in our society as being legally married does.
     But, the fact is that it doesn't.  As long as the words "Because
    I'm *not* married to you!" can be used as an excuse to mistreat
    someone in a love relationship then living together without being
    married does not imply all that legal marriage implies.  Besides,
    I was merely making a list of various "things" joint parents might
    share.  There are instances where I could share parenting without
    being married.
    
    Re .79, I don't consider love to be an obligation either.  However,
    I would not choose to share parenting with someone who didn't *choose*
    to love me.
    
    Regarding, your remark " then she shouldn't have let him in".
     That strikes *me* as being a bit old-fashioned.  Most people during
    the course of their lives wind up having sex with a number of people
    that they wouldn't want to have a child with.   

    Well, I feel Bruce understands me more than Chelsea does.  I think
    Chelsea is really a man and Bruce is really a girl!  :-) only kidding
    
    Lorna
    

    re .79, in regard to "man the seducer, woman the victim".  I don't
    see woman as a victim sexually if that's what you mean.  I sometimes
    see women as victims economically and in society because of 
    pay scales or sexist upbringing.  And, I sometimes see women as
    victims biologically because of pregnancy.  But, I don't see woman
    as the victim sexually.  I know women can be seducers, too.
    
    It's difficult (obviously!) for me to express in words how I feel.
     I think that if men want to be involved in their children's lives
    then they should be allowed to *unless* the father a child in a
    casual encounter and the woman does not care to have them involved
    and does not want any money from the man.  I think if the women
    needs or wants money then the man should be allowed to share in
    raising the child if he wants to.  I, also, think that if the man
    does not want anything to do with the kid, but the mother needs
    financial help in raising it, then the man should be made to help
    out whether he wants to or not.
    
    Lorna
    
 

    Re: .81
    
    >I think that if men want to be involved in their children's lives
    >then they should be allowed to *unless* the father a child in a
    >casual encounter and the woman does not care to have them involved
    >and does not want any money from the man.
    
    And obviously, I don't agree.  A child is the product of both mother
    and father; both are essential, both have rights unless they choose
    to relinquish them.  I can understand a woman not wanting to give
    someone a permanent place in her life.  (I'm very selfish of my
    time and space.)  However, I can also understand (though not so
    first hand) the pain and frustration a man can feel being shut out
    of the life of the child of his body.  I find that to be the greater
    evil.  I think of it that way -- the child is of his body as well
    as hers.  Some men *want* children, just as badly as some women
    want children.  Even though the child was not created in love, the
    man, as well as the woman, can still love the child.  I don't think
    that love should be denied.
    
    As far as not understanding you goes, true enough.  I'm several
    years younger and, from what you've revealed of your life, I doubt
    we have many experiences in common.  So it's not too surprising
    that we approach life in very different ways.

    re: < Note 315.80 by APEHUB::STHILAIRE "Golden days before they end" >

�                                                        ..... I think
�                        ... and Bruce is really a girl!  

    Gosh Lorna... does this make me an "honorary girl of note?"
    
    /bruce    

    

    I think things look a little different if you think of the rights
    of the children...
    
    ...and the responsibility of the parents.
    
    								-mr. bill

    RE: .81

    The second paragraph of this note quite elegantly sums up the position
    I was trying to express in my two earlier (longer) notes.  Thanks,
    Lorna!


    RE: .77 (Gregg Germain)

    What is there to explain?  To draw a *very* poor analogy, if you
    negligently drop a seed in my yard and I care for it, weed it,
    fertilizer it and tend to its every need, would you feel that you had a
    right to come back when it was grown and claim the fruit of the plant? 
    (Yeech!  I said that was a poor analogy).  But you see what I mean.  If
    nothing else, the mother has a sort of "squatter's rights".  She risks
    her *life* to bear the child!  If there was no agreement to share
    childrearing (because there was no plan to produce the child), she
    should be able to choose to deny access to it to someone whom she might
    not even know very well.

    In marriage, there is an implicit agreement to share childrearing
    responsibilities.  In fact, the only reason I'd consider getting
    married is if I was interested in having kids.  It otherwise seems a
    bit pass� 8^).

    								-- Mikey

    	re .19
    
    	Suzanne, here is an even scarier scenerio.  Assuming abortion
    	is made illegal, and that father's have equal rights to be
    	considered for custody in the case of children born out of
    	wedlock, what is to stop a man who wants a child from raping 
    	a woman and then fighting her in court for the future of the
        baby.
      
    	She has to prove that it was rape in order to get the abortion 
        (assuming abortion is even allowed in those cases).  If she is
    	unsuccessful there, she has to go to court again to fight
    	for custody, and possibly end up giving up the child to 
    	be raised by the man who raped her.
    
    	Linda
    
    	I am really undecided on this issue.  The woman should definitely
    	have sole say on whether to abort or not, since it is her body.
    	Beyond that it is a gray area for me, although I don't think
    	a man should have to pay support without getting shared custody,
    	or consideration for primary custody.

    
    RE: .86
    
    Sorry.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  You don't understand
    my point and I don't understand yours.  It seems totally irrelevant to
    me who a child's "birth" father is.  All things being equal, the choice
    of who raises the child should be the mothers.
    
    							-- Michael

    I disagree.
    
    A man and woman have a "fling".  The woman gets pregnant.  The woman
    is an unfit parent (heavy into drugs, bad self-esteem, lies to the
    child) and the man is better for parenting (better job, kind and
    considerate).  The mother denies the child a better upbringing by
    denying the father, who she has grown to hate for getting her "stuffed"
    (when he found out, he offered all of the right things).  Is this
    right?
    
    This happened to my friend.  He now has full custody.  Once again, this
    has to do with the rights of the CHILD.     
    
    K.C.

 In an attempt to really find out how women feel about this issue,
I'll throw out all of the attitudes that I have seen concerning the union
of two people that results in the pregnancy of the woman. For the sake of
this discussion (since people like to get technical) we'll say that neither
partner took advantage of the other. Either they met at a party, or they
have been happily cohabitating or whatever.

 I have heard some women who have taken the following viewpoint: The woman 
has total control over the situation. If she wishes to get an abortion,
she can. If she wishes to have the child, she can. The man has no say
whatsoever in this matter. He is simply to abide by her decision and foot
the bill for a) the abortion or b) child support. If she decides that he
is no longer in favor, he may not see his child anymore. He must still pay
for the child however. In short, she gets all of the choices, he gets the
financial responsibility for the results of his choices. This is equality?

 It seems to me that bio-dad should either get a little more in the way
of choices or less in the way of responsibility. I don't see how anyone
could call the above situation "fair." 

 To me, either there is equality, or there is not. As a society, we ought
to decide whether the equality exists or not. If said equality exists, then
there must be changes to the way that things get done regarding
pregnancy/childbirth/child rearing. In particular, women of this conference,
please answer the following questions:

 1. If a pregnant woman wishes to have an abortion but the man wants her
to keep the child, what should happen?

 2. If a pregnant woman wishes to keep her baby, but bio-dad wants the fetus
aborted, what should happen? Who should be responsible for the support of
the child? Why?

 3. If a woman becomes pregnant due to a casual sexual encounter, what
rights/responsibilites does bio-dad have?

 4. If unmarried two people have a child then split up, who should get custody
if both want the child?

 5. If bio-dad is paying child support, does he have a right to see his
child? What if he doesn't pay child support?

 Since the rathole potential has reached critical mass, I'll stop here but
this should be enough to tell if you really believe in equality. As far
as I'm concerned, if women are to champion equality, they must be prepared
for complete equality. Selective equality is tantamount to doing exactly
what women have complained that men are doing.

 Mark

    	Warning, Will Robinson!  Strong feelings follow!	
    
        Call me old fashioned but...
    
    	I agree with the viewpoint of "if you didn't know him "well
    enough" what the %^$%^ were you doing in bed with him"?  Someone
    said that MOST women go to bed with several people that she wouldn't
    have a child with.  Hmmmm...  Can't prove it by me.  I've had sex
    with one man, my husband.  We had been engaged for 5 months and
    were to be married in less than a month when we did go to bed. 
    At that point we had known each other for 5 years.  I was sure what
    we would do about an unplanned pregnancy (even though all precautions
    had been taken).  I just don't buy the argument of being "swept
    off your feet".  Human beings should have control of their glands
    not the other way around.  If you're looking for love/companionship/a
    relationship whatever, you won't get it from a causual fling.  If
    you're just horny and want physical release, get a vibrator!  
                                                                
    	The argument of your passions sweeping you away is one reason that
    we have so big a problem with teen pregnancy.  You see, if you use
    birth control, you're planning on "doing it".  (A Bad Thing.)  Whereas
    if you don't prepare, you can always claim it wasn't your fault;
    it was out of your control; "I was swept away by passion".  (As
    if somehow this is less of a Bad Thing.)  Now I'm sure that their
    are people who are compulsive about sex like some people are compulsive
    about gambling or booze and they really don't have control.  I'll
    bet that's a real small percentage. 
    
    	In a casual fling resulting in a pregnancy, *both* parents are
    equally irresponsible.  Being the irresponsible parent who is carrying
    the child by an accident of biology does not seem to me to be sterling
    qualifications for the position of sole arbiter of the fate of a
    child.                     
    
    	Re: The mother risks her life carrying the child...  Oh, puhleeze!
    I keep hearing this here and in the abortion note, time to answer
    it.  I'm in my 5th month of pregnancy; so this is what it feels like
    to be walking time bomb!  Guess I'd better go home and tell my hubby to
    prepare for my imminent death. :-|  I don't have any stats on hand,
    but I'll bet the chances are greater that you'll die of AIDS from
    your casual fling than the chances that you'll die from a pregnancy.
    I won't claim that pregnancy has been a real fun house, but nether
    is it a daily duel with death.  
    
    	Now if you want to have flings, go ahead.  It's your life. 
    If you want to risk having a child with someone you don't know,
    fine.  It's not my responsibility to tell you how to live your life.
    Personnally, control is very important to me - control of myself
    and my circumstances (as much as they can be controoled).  (That's
    why I don't do drugs.  I refuse to abdicate control of my mind and
    body to a bunch of chemicals.)  If you want to control what kind
    of father raises your child, you can do that at conception.  If
    you choose to give up that control, fine.   Just don't come crying
    to me when you bear a child and the father takes you to court. 
    I'll be routing for him!
        
    	OK, now if you'll just give me a second to put on my asbestos
    suit...
                 
    tlh
    
    
	    
    	 
    	 

    re .91
    
     Good note. I thought only men ever said anything about "if you
    didn't know him that well, why did you sleep with him?" 
    
     What most impressed me about your note is your correct assessment
    of the situation concerning self restraint/responsibility for ones
    actions/the devil made me do it... People are so quick to assert
    that others "couldn't help themselves" because they are hoping that
    when they screw up, someone will say it about them. Oh, she was
    seduced by that guy; he's such a philanderer. The whole deal with
    that is: if you didn't WANT to hear it, a guy that was only interested
    in getting in your pants wouldn't say it. Having hung around guys
    whose sole purpose in life was to get naked with maximum females,
    it kills me that the same baloney works time after time. Since I
    couldn't bring myself to lie to a girl/woman just to get naked,
    my casual encounter list is fairly short. But some guys will say
    their dad is Donald Trump to get a female in the sack. Why does
    it continue to work? 
    
     It seems to me that due to the double standard, women sometimes
    feel a need to hide their true emotions behind this veil of I couldn't
    help myself. Go ahead and admit it. You wanted sexual gratification.
    So what. It's a natural human emotion and drive. However, because
    it is a natural drive does not give you the right to say that you
    couldn't help yourself. That is a lie, and a copout. You have the
    ultimate sayso when it comes to your behavior. If you choose to
    hit someone that makes you angry, or choose to go to bed with someone
    who excites you sexually, you are still choosing a behavior. This
    behavior is not forced upon you by your body.
    
     Mark

Sincere question:

>    Just don't come crying
>    to me when you bear a child and the father takes you to court. 
>    I'll be routing for him!

Even, if as you said above, they're equally irresponsible? Maybe I don't
understand the sort of court case you mean.
	Mez

    > I don't have any stats on hand, but I'll bet the chances are greater
    > that you'll die of AIDS from your casual fling than the chances that
    > you'll die from a pregnancy. 
    
    Tracey, I don't have stats for either of these cases, but I strongly
    suspect that you'd have to divide the population up in order to
    draw meaningful conclusions. For example, the number of women who
    die from AIDS might not be that large (especially compared to the
    number of men), but the rate of infection might rise amongst specific
    groups of people. Similarly, being pregnant isn't all that dangerous
    in general, but it's much riskier for young teens, than say, for
    women in their late 20's.
    
    liz

    re .91, Tracey, I'm not going to flame you.  You are entitled to
    your own life style.  However, I disagree with your view of sexual
    activity.  When I read your reply I couldn't help but get the
    impression that you think that casual sex is wrong somehow, in and
    of itself.  Do you?  As long as people are protecting themselves
    from catching disease, and from unwanted pregnancy, *I* don't think
    there is anything wrong with casual sex.  If two people decide that
    they find one another attractive and would enjoy spending some time
    together then I see no problem with them having sex as long as it's
    "safe sex."  I don't think that people need to be in love, engaged,
    or married to have sex together.  As long as they are not playing
    games or using each other, what's the problem?  It's just an enjoyable
    activity for people who find each other attractive really.  Your
    view sounds like something out of 1950 to me.  (Nice girls don't.)
     To be honest, whenever I hear someone (over 24 or so) say they have only
    had sex with one man I have trouble relating.  I came of age *after*
    the pill and *before* aids, so you'll have to excuse me a bit. 
    But, there is something to be said for comparative shopping.  This
    has nothing to do with being "swept away."  There is nothing wrong
    with casual sex as long as the people use birth control, are aware
    of risk of disease, and are not honest with each other that no promises
    have been made.  I don't like the condeming sound of your note.
     As has been mentioned many times, birth control doesn't work 100%
    of the time so sometimes even people who weren't swept away get
    pregnant during casual sex.  Also, it doesn't even really have to
    *be* casual sex.  It could be two people who were once in love,
    but now aren't, or two people who like each other a lot and know
    each other but aren't in love.  
    
    I don't understand why, if both parents are equally unfit, or whatever,
    you would still want the man to get custody.
    
    Also, in regard to dying of childbirth.  Not many people die of
    childbirth anymore in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that a lot
    of people don't suffer.  Some people are sick for nine months. 
    Walking around with a huge stomach can really change and upset your
    life.  Some people go through hell giving birth, too.  Dying isn't
    everything.  Pain and suffering count, too.  The fact is the baby
    grows in the woman's body.  The way I see it, if something grows
    in my body it ought to *be mine* unless I *choose* to share it with
    the father.
    
    Lorna
    

	Topics like this one make it harder then ever to understand why
	anyone would have sex outside of marraige. I mean is all this (risk
	of unwanted pregnencies, AIDS, years of finger pointing and blame)
	really worth a few minutes of fun? I know some will say yes but
	I don't see it. Perhaps it's different ideas about responsibility.

	Having a baby (a life time job/blessing/responsibility) is worth
	a lot of risk. Sex inside of marrage with it's much lower risks is
	worth it too. But with a casual aquantence just for fun? 

	Would any of this (note .0 etc) have happened if either of the two
	supposed adults had taken a little responsibility and not played
	around? I wonder if you asked them now "Were those two times in
	the sack worth all the pain you've gone through?" what they would
	say? What will this poor child think about two people who created
	her out of a few minutes of fun? What will she think about a mother
	who not only didn't want her (but did want sex) but also kept her
	father (who did want her) from being with her? 

			Alfred

Re: .96

The expense is outrageous, the position ridiculous, the pleasure momentary.

-G.B. Shaw

    
    	RE: 91	
    
    	Call me old fashioned then also. Your note made a lot
    	of sense to me. Nice job.
    
    
    							Hank

    Call me whatever you want, but I am in full agreement with Lorna.
    
    vivian

    Actually, it is very simple for a man to have an equal say and share
    in raising his child.  First, find a woman you find attractive.
     Second, fall in love.  Third, get married.  Fourth, plan to have
    a child together.  Presto, in nine months you have an equal share
    in your very own child!!!
    
    Any man who is upset about not having custody of/or an equal share
    in raising his own child should follow the above rules, and should
    not, under *any circumstances* have sex with a woman he doesn't
    love and/or would want a child with and/or could not trust to share
    parenting with him if she got pregnant.
    
    See, no problem!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    	It's obvious after reading .91 and .92 that our culture
    	still has no shortage of people who can't wait to judge/
    	condemn/ridicule and (worst of all) GLOAT over the fact
    	that some women find themselves in the difficult situation
    	of an unplanned pregnancy.
    
    	If a pregnant woman goes to the author of .91 for help
    	about an unplanned pregnancy, the author will make an
    	absolute POINT of rooting against her if it goes to court
    	(regardless of the particulars of the situation and the
    	characters of the two individuals involved.)
    
    	The author of .92 can't believe how women still fall for
    	the lines that some men use to 'get naked' with a woman
    	(and takes great delight in rubbing the supposed stupidity
    	of women into the faces of everyone here, without any
    	regard at all for the personal situations that some members
    	of the community have already experienced.)
    
    	Why is it so much fun to gloat over the fact that people
    	sometimes get involved in difficult/disasterous situations?
    
    	I suppose judging and gloating over the tragic difficulties
    	of others is just too inviting for some folks to resist.

    RE: .89

    In .88 I stated "all things being equal".  If the mother is a decidedly
    unfit parent, all things are *not* equal.  In such a case any
    responsible person should be able to start the wheels moving to get the
    child away from the mother and into a good home, if possible.  Even in
    this case, I don't think that the biological father should be given any
    special consideration as an adopter.


    RE: .92, .94

    The article on "Human Parturition" in my encyclopedia states that fewer
    than one in one thousand women die during childbirth at most modern medical
    facilities.   I hope I have a lot smaller chance of *contracting* AIDS
    (but I'm probably fooling myself).   Whatever.  A risk is a risk. 
    And being pregnant would not appear to be a particularly convenient or
    desirable thing in itself.  In today's society, the mother can choose
    not to bear the child.  That she has made that choice is a strong
    indication to me that she has a strong concern for the child.

    I question the validity of the law requiring the father in .0 to be
    notified before adoption could be finalized.  The father of a child
    born out of wedlock should only be as relevant as the mother wants him
    to be. 

    Re: .95
    
    >As long as people are protecting themselves from catching disease,
    >and from unwanted pregnancy, *I* don't think there is anything wrong
    >with casual sex.
    
    Well, it's not my cup of tea (I'd rather things were a little less
    casual but it's a matter of definition), but I'm not going to condemn
    anyone for it.  However, not all people who indulge in casual sex
    protect themselves.  And as you point out, protection does not
    guarantee prevention.  I'm not sure this has any bearing on Tracy's
    conclusion that carrying the child does not entitle the woman to
    be the sole arbiter of the child's fate.
    
    >I don't understand why, if both parents are equally unfit, or whatever,
    >you would still want the man to get custody.
    
    I didn't notice that conclusion at all.  Perhaps I'm just not paying
    attention.
    
    Re:  .102
    
    Careful, Suzanne.  You're making assumptions about people's intentions.

    re .104, re .101, what's unfair about it?  If a man wants a child
    very badly, and wants to love it and take care of it, he can find
    a woman, get married, and plan to have a child with her.  What's
    so unfair about that?  
    
    Re .105, and if the man's intentions are good, that's wonderful
    as long as the mother agrees and wants to share parenting with him.
     If she doesn't then he should find a woman he loves, get married,
    and have a child with her.  Men who feel so strongly about being
    parents should be looking for wives, getting married and having
    children.   
    
    Re .107, in .91, she said, "In a casual fling resulting in a pregnancy,
    *both* parents are equally irresponsible.  Being the irresponsible
    parent who is carrying the child by an accident of biology does
    not seem to me to be sterling qualifications for the position of
    sole arbiter of the fate of a child."  Later, she goes on to say,
    "Just don't come crying to me when you bear a child and the father
    takes you to court.  I'll be routing for him!"
    
    Lorna
    

    re NEXUS::CONLON
    
     It is with great disappointment that I read your reply to my note.
    I've obviously failed to communicate with you on the highest level.
    Do you really think that I am condemning anyone for having sex?
    Do you really think that I gloat over anyone's mistakes? I hope
    you are alone in your low opinion of me, since I subscribe to none
    of the above.
    
     Whether a man or a woman have sex with whomever is totally up to
    them and I could care less. What I do object to is when I see anyone
    make the same mistake time after time and continue to demand attention
    and consolation. Could it be that people are really more interested
    in consolation than sex? It might appear so.
    
     How sorry can you feel for a woman who continuously goes to bed
    with different guys after meeting them for the first time, yet claims
    that they manipulated her? I have no qualms about the fact that
    she went to bed with them. Right or wrong, it's her decision. Well,
    that's the whole point. It's her DECISION. Nobody is forcing her.
    If some guy comes along and screws her over, I'll be the first one
    to console her. However, if some guy "screws her over" every friday
    and saturday night, this boy wises up. If you read carefully, you'll
    notice that I have made no value judgements concerning her decision
    to have sex. I am simply stating the obvious, that it is a decision,
    just like it is for a man. There is no state that the body goes
    into that forces anyone to have sex. If you read anything more into
    .92, you missed the boat.
    
    Mark
    
    ps- Ms. Chelsea, thanks for the word in my defense. It's nice to
    know that the battle lines in this conference aren't defined strictly
    by gender.
     

    	RE:  .107
    
    	> Careful, Suzanne.  You're making assumptions about people's
    	> intentions.
    
    	Chelsea, in this case, no assumptions were necessary.  Both
    	people stated their positions and attitudes very clearly
    	in regards to women who engage in casual sex and/or find
    	themselves in the throes of an unplanned pregnancy.
    
    	They knew they would take heat for their views (and both
    	stated that they were prepared for it.)
    
    	If either of their views are, in reality, more charitable 
    	(towards women in the situations described in this topic,) 
    	the news would be welcome indeed.
    
    	However, I think they stated their cases too well to leave
    	much room for doubt about what they meant.  
    
    	Unfortunately.

    

    I have just turned 24, and I agree with Tracy.
    
    Why should a man have to search for just the right girl and get
    married to her to enjoy the "privalege" of parenthood, when a 
    woman can just have a fling with an attractive man?  If the man
    has to wait, then so should the woman.  (Boy, did I word that crummy
    or what?)
    
    But my vote goes for; if you don't want to be a parent with someone,
    don't go to bed with them.  It's not worth the risk.
    
    K.C.

    
    What is so objectionable about personal responsibility as
    it pertains to parenthood? 

    Re .112, but that would mean that people who don't want to ever
    have children would never be able to have sex?  Sex for procreation
    only?  
    
    Lorna
    

    The term "unplanned" does not equate to "unforeseeable".  I opt
    for responsibility on the part of both partners.  Only with rape
    is one of the partners relieved of the responsibility.

    Marge
    

	RE:  .110
    
     	>It is with great disappointment that I read your reply to my note.
    	>I've obviously failed to communicate with you on the highest level.
    
    	Ok.  I'm willing to take another look at your point of view.
    
     	> Whether a man or a woman have sex with whomever is totally up to
    	> them and I could care less.
    
    	Ok.  That sounds reasonable.
    
     	> What I do object to is when I see anyone make the same mistake 
    	> time after time and continue to demand attention and
    	> consolation.
    
    	You object?  In what context (and with what authority?)  That
    	sounds to me as if you think you are in a position to stand
    	in judgment over people who make mistakes.  *IS* that what
    	you think?  (That's just a question.  Don't get excited.) :-)
    
    	If you don't want to give attention or consolation to people
    	in this situation, then don't.  Is it really necessary to
    	make statements about such people that appear to condemn
    	them (if not for the mistakes, then for the repeat nature
    	of those mistakes)?
    
     	> Could it be that people are really more interested in 
    	> consolation than sex? It might appear so.
    
    	Well, who is in a position to judge about such things?
    	Again, if you don't want to help them, then don't feel
    	obligated.  Why not just leave them alone instead of
    	trying to make their plight worse?
    
     	> How sorry can you feel for a woman who continuously 
    	> goes to bed with different guys after meeting them for 
    	> the first time, yet claims that they manipulated her? 
    
    	My capacity for empathy for other human beings is not
    	based on whether or not I judge them to have caused
    	some/much/most of their problems.
    
    	In fact, I had a friend who slept with a different man
    	every week (some years ago) and I felt very, very sorry
    	for her because she was in pain and I cared.  At that
    	moment in her life, she NEEDED a friend more than a
    	judge, so I responded as a friend and did everything I
    	could to help her without judging her.  (She did get
    	over that period in her life some time later, thank
    	goodness.)
    
    	> I have no qualms about the fact that she went to bed with 
    	> them. Right or wrong, it's her decision. Well, that's the 
    	> whole point. It's her DECISION. Nobody is forcing her.
    	> If some guy comes along and screws her over, I'll be the 
    	> first one to console her. However, if some guy "screws her 
    	> over" every friday and saturday night, this boy wises up. 
    
    	Are you only a friend until you judge that the person
    	doesn't deserve your friendship (because of decisions
    	and mistakes the person makes in his/her personal life?)
    
    	I hope I'm a better friend than that.
    
    	> If you read carefully, you'll notice that I have made no 
    	> value judgements concerning her decision to have sex. I am 
    	> simply stating the obvious, that it is a decision,
    	> just like it is for a man. There is no state that the body goes
    	> into that forces anyone to have sex. If you read anything more into
    	> .92, you missed the boat.
    
    	What about the part where you OBJECTED to the repeated mistakes,
    	and the part where you would "WISE UP" if someone needed consoling
    	every week?  Don't you consider that judgmental?  I do.
    
    	I guess I just don't see your attitude as being quite as "laissez
    	faire" as you do (especially when you sprinkle your comments
    	with words like "I OBJECT to" and "this boy wises up" in
    	response to the repeated mistakes of others.)

    KC,
    
    It's not quite as simple as "If you don't want to be a parent, don't
    go to bed".  If that's how you are living your life, that's great.
    However, it's not realistic.  We've had unwanted, out-of-wedlock
    pregnancies since time began.  I believe that they will continue
    as long as humans exist.  This will be true regardless of what you
    or I believe or how we live our lives.
    
    It's also a fact that it is the woman who ultimately has to pay
    the price the way things are.  SHE gets pregnant, SHE has to choose
    whether to abort or give birth, SHE has to decide to keep it or
    give it away for adoption.  The guy can just run off -- in some
    casual encounters she may not even know who he is or how to find
    him.  I think these choices have to belong to the woman if we are
    to allow her any freedom, with the exception of if she decides to
    give it up for adoption, if the father is known, he should have
    first dibs on custody of the child before allowing strangers to
    adopt it.  Likewise if she is obviously an unfit parent (known child
    abuser, drug addict, etc.) he should be able to ask the court for
    custody.  If he doesn't like the fact he may have to support it
    - too bad.  He should either take adequate birth control measures
    or "just say no".  If she has a close relationship with the father
    (married or living together or close friends), she can (and probably
    should in most cases) consult him before making these choices, and
    if they have any kind of relationship, he should be supporting her
    as best he can.
    
    As for the men, if you want to become a parent, I'm with Lorna,
    find a woman you like, fall in love, get married, plan on having
    a baby, and viola -- you have some say in the child's destiny. If
    you don't like this, if you can find a woman who is willing to give
    birth then hand the child over to you, go ahead.  Otherwise, support
    research that will allow men to carry test-tube babies.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .117
    
    >You object?  In what context (and with what authority?)
    
    I'm afraid I can't see what authority has to do with objecting.
    If I don't like something, I can object to it.  It's not like I
    need permission to have an opinion.  So what's the connection?

    Re:  .108
    
    >re .104, re .101, what's unfair about it?  If a man wants a child
    >very badly, and wants to love it and take care of it, he can find
    >a woman, get married, and plan to have a child with her.  What's
    >so unfair about that?                         
    
    Given your belief about how the situation should be handled --
    specifically, that a woman who needs no assistance is fully free
    to ignore the father of the child -- if a woman wants a child badly
    and wants to love it and take care of it, she can find a man, get
    laid and plan to have a child without his continued involvement.
    According to what you've presented so far, a man *must* get married
    in order to have children but marriage is optional for a woman.
    So no, that doesn't strike me as fair.
    
    >If she doesn't then he should find a woman he loves, get married,
    >and have a child with her.
    
    A woman miscarries halfway through her term.  An acquaintance offers
    sympathy, saying, "Well, you can always get pregnant again."  How
    would you feel if that happened to you?  From what I've seen, most
    people -- men and women -- don't find babies interchangeable.  The
    sense of loss cannot be erased with a 'replacement.'
    
    >Re .107, in .91, she said, "In a casual fling resulting in a pregnancy,
    >*both* parents are equally irresponsible.  Being the irresponsible
    >parent who is carrying the child by an accident of biology does
    >not seem to me to be sterling qualifications for the position of
    >sole arbiter of the fate of a child."  Later, she goes on to say,
    >"Just don't come crying to me when you bear a child and the father
    >takes you to court.  I'll be routing for him!"
    
    Right.  I don't see a statement that the father should wind up with
    custody.  I see an implication that the father should have partial
    custody or some say in the future of the child.

    	re: The sincere question.  I forget which reply. .94 or so.
    
    	Well *I* knew what I was talking about.  I forgot that not everyone
    can read minds. :-)  When I said that I would route for the man,
    I meant that if a woman tried to limit a man's access to his biological
    child on the grounds that he was just a fling and she didn't want
    to share parenting with someone she didn't know well, I would support
    the man's right to be involved in his child's life.  (Or at least
    be decided on merit not just because he was without a womb by accident
    of biology.)                   
    
    	re: .95  Lorna's reply  (one of 'em at any rate)
    
    	Casual sex wrong?  No.  I view it more as risky.  I personally
    don't consider it worth the risks.  I truly meant it when I said
    that if you want to indulge, fine with me.  It's not my life.  I
    don't condemn you (you in the generic sense) for wanting your fun.
    I just see an alarming tendency on people's part to want to have
    their fun today and think about tomorrow tomorrow.  Rather than
    saying "good girls don't", I say "*smart* girls don't"  (and that
    goes for the boys, too).  I don't think you need to be in the throes
    of an undying love to want to go to bed with someone.  But I think
    that you should know them well enough to know what you'll do if BC
    fails.  When Gary and went to bed, I knew that he would support
    my right make a decision as to whether the child would be carried
    to term.  I knew that if I decided carry to term he would support it
    both financially and emotionally.  I don't think that all men should
    feel that way, or that all women should feel that men should feel
    that way.  I *did* feel that I required that attitude in my partner
    before I felt comfortable with idea of going to bed with him. I
    also felt that if Gary couldn't live with my requirements that *he*
    shouldn't go to bed with *me*!  As to your point that BC is not 100% 
    proof, don't I know it!  (I conceived the child I'm carrying while on
    the pill.)  That's EXACTLY why I was picky about when and with whom I
    went to bed.  I never wanted to be faced with the kind of situation we're
    talking about here.   
    
    	I don't condemn women who make other choices than I did.  I
    *do* condemn their actions if they try to limit the father's access
    to the child and claim that authority solely on the basis of having
    a uterus.  
               
        You mentioned age. To help put things in perspective.  I'm 27.  
    Married 4 years in Jan.  Raised by parents happily married for 32
    years.  My parents are indeed rather conservative.  They are
    monogamous, non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug-using.  But!  They made
    sure that when I was *13* I not only knew about sex but about birth
    control.  They made it clear that while they'd rather I waited until I
    was in a steady relationship (preferably marriage) to have sex, that
    the most important thing was to be prepared.  If I needed birth
    control, come to them.  When my sister had sex with a steady boyfriend
    in college, my mom knew, and knew that Kel was on the pill.  Not a word
    of condemnation was heard nor any action but supportive love.  If I had
    decided to have sex before I did, I *would* have talked to my mom about
    it.  I don't think that's a bad way to raise a child.  I intend to
    raise my child that way. 
    	
    	re: 101 Lorna's other reply...
    
    	Yep.  I feel that men should be picky about who they go to bed
    with too.  I only focused on the women, because it was being claimed
    that carrying the child gave the woman the right to unilaterally
    declare that the man could not be involved with the child.  I feel
    that just as the man can (and should be) held financially accountable
    for the child, the *child* has a right to a father unless the
    the father is *proved* unfit.  (Saying that the woman is a fit parent
    because she chooses to go through the pain of childbirth is naive
    in the extreme.  How about Diane Downs?  She had 3 children.  She
    was a surrogate mother for a fourth.  She was convicted of shooting
    her 3 children, killing one and critically wounding the other two.  
    She sounds really fit to me!  How about all the abused children
    in this world?  It ain't just men that abuse kids.  There *are*
    unfit mothers out there.  Using your uterus *doesn't* make you a
    fit parent.  Just as having a penis doesn't make you a better
    engineer/manager/whatever.)  
    
    	re:  .102   Suzanne.                                  
    
        If you'd asked what I meant by "routing" for the man in court,
    it would have saved you a lot of time and energy typing in rhetoric,
    irrelevant to what I said.  See above for a clearer explanation
    of what I meant.
    
        You assumed that I would not be sympathetic to an unplanned
    pregancy.  Wrongo!  I can from experience understand the feeling
    of being trapped, of not wanting to go through 9 months of discomfort
    and then labor.  I certainly have compassion for the woman.  BUT!
    I also have compassion for the man.  
    
    re: whoever...
    
    I can understand a woman having the right to unilaterally decide about
    abortion.�  But once she makes the decision to carry the child, what
    gives her the right to unilaterally decide whether or not the child
    should see her father? Several of us are saying, why?  Don't just
    restate that she carried it therefore she is better able/has the right
    to determine the fate of the child.  That's like saying that having a
    penis makes you better able to/have a right to run for political
    office.  Repeating it doesn't make it true, regardless of what Hitler
    thought. 
    
    	� Actually I'm not entirely comfortable with saying this across
    the board for everyone.  I am uncomfortable with "black and white"
    morality.   All I can know is what it right for me.  What was right
    for me was that I needed to know that if I felt a need to abort, I
    would not have to go to court to fight the child's father to get
    that abortion.  Rather than legislating that morality, I prefer
    to limit my bed parters to like-minded men. 
    
    	I feel that the moment that a man/woman made a choice to go
    to bed with a man/woman they didn't know well, they made the choice
    to risk having and raising a child they did not want with a partner
    they don't know, or having an abortion with its attendent costs
    both financial and emotional, or of having financial reposibilty
    for a child they did want.  
    
    	Sympathy has nothing to do it.  I can feel sorry for my child when 
    she hurts herself doing a forbidden thing; I can comfort her; try to help
    her avoid the situation in the future; but I cannot take away what
    happened.  I can feel as sorry as the day is long for these people but I
    can't face the consequences for them. 
    
        That's what its all about for me.  Human beings have the right
    and responsibilty to make choices and abide with the consequences
    of their choices.  
    
    tlh
    

    	Perhaps an example will clarify how I feel about sympathy and
    consequences:
    
    	I study Aikido.  My sensei takes every precaution to make sure
    that (especially since I have Rheumatoid Arthritis) I don't hurt
    myself.  I study under my sensei in part because of his attitude
    toward safety.  I not only follow his instructions for safety's sake but
    also excercise my discretion as to whether or not I should attempt
    a particular technique/move/excercise on any given night.  In spite
    of all my precautions, as a result of doing this thing I enjoy,
    I strained some ligaments in my knee doing a hip throw one night. 
    I sure did appreciate the sympathy and help that Gary and friends
    gave me in the 2 weeks that I was on crutches and the 4 weeks after
    that during which time I really had to take it easy.  However, not all of
    the sympathy and help in the world could change the fact that I
    *chose* to study Aikido and risk injury.  Not all of the sympathy
    and help in the world could change the fact that I had to deal with
    the consequences of medical expenses, crutches and pain for 6 weeks.
    Some might think that a 5'1", arthritic woman studying Aikido is
    asking for trouble.  Some might think she is admirable for trying
    to overcome a handicap.  It doesn't really matter.  The choice was
    made.  The consequences has to be faced.  For me, the fun was worth
    the risk.   
    
    	As far as casual sex, your mileage may vary.  If the idea of
    raising a child with a stranger's input, is abhorrent to you maybe
    *just maybe* you should decide that a night of physical satisfaction
    is not worth the risk.  (That goes for both women and men.  "It takes
    two to tango" to be clich�-ic.)
    
    	(Humorous note:  (at least I think so...)  Gary called while
    I was entering this note.  I described the debate here.  His reaction
    was an almost verbatim quote from my earlier notes.  As I said,
    I bed like-minded men.)
    
    tlh

    
    .121>             But once she makes the decision to carry the child, what
    .121> gives her the right to unilaterally decide whether or not the child
    .121> should see her father? Several of us are saying, why?
    
    Yes, several of you have been asking that, and not one of you has given
    a single reason why a woman who bears a child on her own decision
    necessarily *should* give the father access.  Given a proper support
    environment, a child's biological father is not at all necessary (or
    his/her biological mother, for that matter). Growing children just need
    a sufficient amount of sympathetic adult attention--it doesn't matter
    that the adults are related or not.  Adopted children do just fine. 
    (Personally, I think that we overemphasis the importance of blood
    relatedness in this society. It's the people who you love and who love
    you who count.  If I don't at all like a relative, I'd like to feel
    free to completely disassociate myself from him/her.)
    
    I'd have to assume that a mother who chose not to involve the father
    had some good reason for doing so.  Perhaps she thought that she loved
    the guy and later found him to be mentally abusive or unsavory in some
    other way. When deciding whether she wants to keep the child, should
    she have to consider, "If I keep it, I'll have to put up with someone I
    can't stand"?
    
    As for what's "fair"...  Sheesh.  I accepted my lack of a uterus a long
    time ago.  There *are* compensations (actually, I wouldn't be a woman if
    it would save my life 8^).  If I become interested in raising children,
    I will find someone whom I can love who feels the same way, get married
    and make or (better yet) adopt a child or two.  The fact that a woman
    who wants a child can make one out of wedlock without later involvement
    from the father does not bother me in the least.
    
    							-- Michael

    	RE:  .121
    
    	Tracy, I appreciate your explanation about the strong words
    	you wrote in your .91 reply.  I'm relieved to know that
    	your attitude towards women in problem pregnancies is not
    	as harsh as you implied.

    	> You assumed that I would not be sympathetic to an unplanned
    	> pregnancy...
    
    	Sorry, but I didn't assume anything.  You *said* [in regards
    	to a woman who is pregnant from a casual affair]:
    
    	     "Just don't come crying to me when you bear a child
    		and the father takes you to court.  I'll be rooting
    		   for him!"

    	"Don't come CRYING to me" just doesn't sound very compassionate,
	Tracy.  As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that the
    	comment (itself) is literally DEVOID of anything even resembling
    	compassion.
    
    	If that wasn't what you meant, I'm glad to hear it.

    	> I certainly have compassion for the woman.  BUT!  I also
    	> have compassion for the man.
    
    	I'm glad that's how you feel, but that isn't what you said
    	earlier.  While you *did* express concern for the man, your
    	kindest words to women were, "Don't come crying to me..."
    
    	If you say that you do care about women, I'm willing to take
    	it on faith that you do (despite all the evidence to the
    	contrary in your earlier note.)
    
    	Again, thanks for explaining your position.

    Suzanne,
    
      	I said "don't come crying to me" specifically in reference to
    a woman's wish to deny a bio-dad's right to his child.  I stand
    by those words.  I *don't* have any sympthay for that action.
        
   > 	If that's how you felt, why did you *only* mention your
   > 	compassion for the man (while saying things like "Don't
   > 	come crying to me" in reference to women)?
    
                          
    	I won't go into Thomas Moore's whole argument about silence
    implying consent here.  :-) Suffice it to say that I was hearing an
    overwhelming amount of sympathy adequately expressed for the woman.	
    I didn't feel it necessary to say "Yeah!  What he/she said!"  I
    *do* feel it necessary to speak up when I see an entire side of an
    argum ... er ... discussion being under-represented.  
    
    >    Tracy, I appreciate your explanation about the strong words
    >	you wrote in your .91 reply.  I'm relieved to know that
    >	your attitude towards women in problem pregnancies is not
    >	as harsh as you implied.

    	Whew!  Well I'm relieved that you're relieved that my attitude
    was not as harsh as you inferred so I guess we can both sleep tonight!
    :-)  (I don't really mean to be *quite* as smart ass as that probably 
    sounds but I've been here for 12 hours now and I'm getting a little punchy.)
                    
    tlh 
    
    	May I ask a favor of everyone?  When refering to me by name,
    please either use tlh or Tracey.  Growing up with Tracey Hollabaugh
                                 ^                                      
    as a maiden name and Heffelfinger as a married name has made me
    (over?)sensitive abut having my name misspelled.  (Or alternatively,
    call me "you opinionated slut!" :-) )  (Now I KNOW it's time to get
    out of here!)
                                            

    < Note 315.123 by ARTFUL::SCOTT "TPU, TP me, TP them, TP ... we?" >

    >  Given a proper support
    >  environment, a child's biological father is not at all necessary (or
    >  his/her biological mother, for that matter).
       
    and
    
    >      (Personally, I think that we overemphasis the importance of blood
    >  relatedness in this society. It's the people who you love and who love
    >  you who count.  
    
    	My objection is not who the child is ultimately placed with.
    It's who gets to make the decision where the child is placed or
    who has access to it.  If being the bio-dad doesn't grant the
    man any special tie to the child, why does being the bio-mom?  At
    the very least, as long as a bio-dad can be forced to pay
    child-support,  I feel that he should have a right to be considered in 
    the custody/emotional support options.   
                      
    >    I'd have to assume that a mother who chose not to involve the father
    >  had some good reason for doing so. 

           	Why do you have to assume that?  I can think of all kinds of
    bad reasons to deny access to the father.  Revenge, power games,
    manipulation into marriage...  Mothers have no lock on moral
    superiority.  In fact, either of the parents, unless they are disqualifying
    themselves as a custodial parent, I would think would be the *last* 
    people who would be able to consider the needs of the child 
    dispassionately.  Take a look at bitter divorces and the custody suits
    that follow to see what "good reasons" people sometimes have.  Look in
    the parenting notefile and see all the divorcees that are having to
    deal with people who are for "good reasons" turning their children
    against them. 
    
    > Perhaps she thought that she loved
    >the guy and later found him to be mentally abusive or unsavory in some
    >other way. When deciding whether she wants to keep the child, should
    >she have to consider, "If I keep it, I'll have to put up with someone I
    >can't stand"?
    
    	Actually, I contend that the time that this internal discussion
    should take place is before conception.  But granting that things
    do happen, I prefer that a 3rd party decide that he *is* abusive
    and should be denied access.  It so easy when you leave a relationship
    to be unfair to your ex.  
    
    	And while your point about apoptees doing quite well is well
    taken, note also that many adoptees, *still* have a need to know
    their biological parents.  Whether you agree with that need or not
    it exists.  I think it is counter to the welfare of the child (and
    damned naive to boot) for the bio-mom to unilaterally decide that 
    the child WILL NOT have that need.  Perhaps one of the adoptees
    in this notefile could expand on this, since I admittedly do not
    have direct experience.                                    
              
    	And while I can understand your wish to *disassociate* yourself
    from some blood relatives, (I've got a Grandmother that I could
    do without...)  I don't think it's fair to the child for the mother
    to decide that she will *never* have the opportunity to *associate*  
    with her blood relatives.  Just because you do not feel that need
    does not abrogate the possibility that the child will.
    
    tlh
    

       It's hard not to think this whole debate is laughable given the
       somewhat common practice (yes, I know, none of the guys in this
       file, you all are the enlightened ones) of fathers ignoring their
       kids after divorce and mom and the kids never see one red cent of
       child support. While I do think that attitude is changing I know
       too many women it's happened to for me to believe it's not more
       of a problem than this. liesl

	RE:  .125
    
      	>I said "don't come crying to me" specifically in reference to
    	>a woman's wish to deny a bio-dad's right to his child. 
    
    	It may have been what you meant, but it is NOT what you
    	said.  The whole paragraph in question was a long outburst
    	of sermon-like rhetoric to women (which ended with, "Just 
    	don't come crying to me..." etc.)
    
    	>Suffice it to say that I was hearing an overwhelming amount 
    	>of sympathy adequately expressed for the woman.	
    	>I didn't feel it necessary to say "Yeah!  What he/she said!"
    
    	But, Tracey.  Your entire note (in .91) consisted of refutations
    	to those very expressions of sympathy that had been written
    	about women.  You didn't just refrain from saying, "Yeah!
    	What he/she said!"  You wrote arguments *against* any kind
    	of compassion and/or sympathy for women.
    
      	>I *do* feel it necessary to speak up when I see an entire side 
    	>of an argum ... er ... discussion being under-represented.  
    
    	That's why you came out so strongly *against* any sort of
    	compassion for women in this topic?  Interesting.  
    
    	>Whew!  Well I'm relieved that you're relieved that my attitude
    	>was not as harsh as you inferred so I guess we can both sleep 
    	>tonight! :-)  (I don't really mean to be *quite* as smart ass 
    	>as that probably sounds but I've been here for 12 hours now 
    	>and I'm getting a little punchy.)
                    
    	Well, then, I guess this is probably a bad time to bring up
    	the fact I am somewhat *less* relieved/convinced now than
    	I was earlier...  
    
    	On second thought, never mind.  :-}

    
    RE: .127
    
    As an aside, Liesl, I read an article the other day on new legislation
    recently passed to help remove unwed mothers from the public dole by
    giving the courts greater powers to force the fathers to pay.  The
    article stated that 90% of all fathers who even begin to pay court
    ordered child support stop making payments within three years.
    
    							-- Mikey
    

    re .129:
    
    Did the study have figures about fathers who are denied visitation
    rights?
    
    Marge

    re:.96 (Alfred)
    
    � I mean is all this...really worth a few minutes of fun? �
    
    No, it probably isn't, but:
    
    (a) Things look a bit different in the cold, harsh light of rational
    	thought than in the midst of battle with raging hormones.
    
    (b) I'm tempted to say that if the "fun" only lasts for a few minutes,
    	then you're not doing it right. :-)
    
    re:.121 (Tracey)
    
    Just to add something to what Tracey was saying here:
    
    With my most recent lover, long before heads even touched pillow,
    she asked me what I would do if I'd gotten her pregnant. I told
    her that I would abide by whatever she chose to do (i.e. abort or
    carry to term) and that I would contribute whatever was necessary
    in way of support -- financial or otherwise -- for the child.
    I was glad she brought it up, though I confess that I probably
    wouldn't have brought it up myself if she hadn't. But we all have
    to learn sometime, and the next time, I *will* bring it up. I think
    that this sort of discussion is as necessary as "Are you using any
    kind of birth control?"
    
    re:.124 (Suzanne Conlon)
    
    Suzanne, I think you're reading a little too much into Tracey's
    use of the phrase, "Don't come crying to me..."  That is just a
    turn of phrase that's fairly common and is not necessarily to be
    taken literally.
    
    On the other hand, there are too many such phrases bandied about
    by folks who don't necessarily realize just what it is they're
    saying, and questioning such usage can often lead to a bit of
    consciousness-raising.
    
    Back on the first hand, though, it might have made for more efficient
    communication if you'd pointed out your objections to that particular
    phraseology right from the beginning.
    
    Ah, the joys of communication...
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .123
    
    >Given a proper support environment, a child's biological father
    >is not at all necessary (or his/her biological mother, for that
    >matter).
    
    Right.  So why should one be allowed to exclude the other from the
    child's life, since they're on equal standing here?
    
    >The fact that a woman who wants a child can make one out of wedlock
    >without later involvement from the father does not bother me in
    >the least.
    
    Not surprising, since you have no personal stake in the matter.
    I suspect that there are lots of men who would feel the same.  However,
    there are lots of other men who would feel deprived if the child
    they helped create was raised without their knowledge and involvement.
    Probably their feelings would be like those of a birth mother who
    gave a child up for adoption, only with a stronger sense of frustration
    and powerlessness and without the sense of satisfaction of having
    made the choice that was best for the child.

    Have we gotten to the point of needing a cooldown here?  There seems
    to be quite a bit of heat being generated.
    
    						=maggie

< Note 315.127 by NOETIC::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >
                               -< reality break >-


>       It's hard not to think this whole debate is laughable given the
>       somewhat common practice (yes, I know, none of the guys in this
>       file, you all are the enlightened ones) of fathers ignoring their
>       kids after divorce and mom and the kids never see one red cent of
>       child support. While I do think that attitude is changing I know
>       too many women it's happened to for me to believe it's not more
>       of a problem than this. liesl

 	
    
    	Was that a reality break or a cynicism break? :-)
                                              
    	
    	While I'm sure it's true, that the situation you describe is
    more prevalent, it doesn't make the one we're talking about here
    trivial.  In fact if anything, it seems to me to make it MORE
    important.  You don't think that men in general are taking their
    fair share of the burden of raising children, fine.  Let's not slap
    the hands of those that want to.  
    
    	The guys can't seem to win.   If they run, we'll track 'em down
    and make 'em pay.  If they stay, we'll shut them out of their child's
    life.  (Oh, and still make'em pay BTW.)  
               
    tlh
    	

    re (oh and still make them pay BTW)
    
     One of the noters has so magnanimously suggested that if a woman
    is willing to forgo bio-dad's child support payments, she should
    be able to exclude him from the child reaering process. In other
    words, well off women have the choice of excluding the father of
    their child from the child's life if they so choose. Poor women,
    of course, don't have that choice; or at least it's a lot harder
    to make.
    
     One of you has asked why a man should be *allowed* to participate
    in raising a child that he fathered by sole reason that it carries
    half of his genes. Perhaps the same question should be asked, only
    in a different light. Why should a man be forced to support a child
    simply because he had a role in creating it? Before you load your
    slingshots, be advised that I do believe that a man has the
    responsibility for supporting any children he helps create. I just
    think that in order to balance the equation, a man must have rights
    commensurate with his responsibilities.                     
    
     That having rights implies also having corresponding responsibilities
    is a basic tenet of my approach to life. In general, very few people
    would argue the point. What I (and several others) am suggesting
    is that the converse is also true: having responsibilities IMPLIES
    a certain amount of rights.
    
     Moral arguments concerning the morality/immorality of consentual
    sexual relations between unbetrothed parties have no place in my
    beliefs in this matter as they reflect value judgements. My beliefs
    are based strictly on reason and the tenet described in the previous
    paragraph.
    
     Mark

< Note 315.135 by STC::HEFFELFINGER "Aliens made me write this." >
>    	The guys can't seem to win.   If they run, we'll track 'em down
>    and make 'em pay.  If they stay, we'll shut them out of their child's
>    life.  (Oh, and still make'em pay BTW.)  

	Yah, right.  they sure can't seem to win.  What about us mothers
	who would give their eye-teeth to have their child(rens') father
	take an interest, never mind paying, how about at least their
	name on the birth certificate?  

	My son has blank lines where fathers information is supposed to
	go on his birth certificate.  In Mass you must have a notorized
	letter from the father if your not married to have his information
	on that slip of paper.  Yah, right.

	Well, sorry that doesn't cut it for me.  I'll do whatever it
	takes legally to get his name on the birth certificate.  My
	son has a RIGHT to know his heritage.  

	/Robin

	

    Re .137, are you serious?  Is that true, that in Mass., if you are
    unmarried you can't just write down or give the hospital the name
    of the father (like you do when you're married)?  I never knew that.
     The man actually has to agree to sign a notorized piece of paper?
    
    The power of marriage never ceases to amaze me.  I mean if a couple
    are married the husband of the mother is automatically considered
    the legal father regardless of who the real biological father may
    be.  When I stop and think about it the concept of legal marriage
    boggles my mind.
    
    Lorna
    

    Robin-
    
     If what you are saying is that it is bad for bio-dad to leave you
    holding the bag, then I agree with you. Do you not think that it
    is possible that women could in some cases be doing something equally
    bad to the father? Would you like some child support from him? Would
    you then deny him visitation and any say in the child's upbringing?
    It just seems to me that you can't separate the rights from the
    responsibilties here.                  
    
     If the guy bolted on you, then he failed to face up to his
    responsibility. I certainly can empathise with you. Perhaps the
    father of your child loses no sleep over his actions. Rest assured
    there are those of us who would- (not that I'd do what he did in
    the first place).
    
    regards,
    Mark

           
    Re: .139
    
    > The power of marriage never ceases to amaze me.  I mean if a couple
    > are married the husband of the mother is automatically considered
    > the legal father regardless of who the real biological father may
    > be.
    
    True. And come divorce time, he pays child support for some other 
    guy's kid. 
    
    > When I stop and think about it the concept of legal marriage
    > boggles my mind.
    
    Lorna, noone can ever say that you and Rik have nothing in
    common. :-) :-)
    
      Alan

    Re .132:
    
    I'm hearing some of the men hear &!#@$ing about being unable to have
    their own child and raising it themselves while women can.  That was
    partly what I was trying to address - if they want children the
    man has to find a mother for the child.
    
    If it's unplanned, it is still the woman's body  and life she needs to be
    able to make decisions about.  If she decides to have a baby, she
    has to decide whether to keep it or not.  I'm just giving her the
    first choice.  If you read the rest of my note you would find that
    I suggested giving the father second choice unless he is an unfit
    parent, or if it can be shown that the mother is an unfit parent.
    
    Remember, in some cases it isn't even known who or where the father
    is.  Which of the 20 guys that some (hypothetical) woman slept with
    that month are you going to give these "rights" to?
    
    In the case of the parents having already had the child, they are
    both parenting it, then the parents relationship ends, I think that
    joint custody should be the norm.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .137
    
    >What about us mothers who would give their eye-teeth to have their
    >child(rens') father take an interest, never mind paying, how about
    >at least their name on the birth certificate?
    
    It's a tough situation for you.  I'm not surprised that you don't
    have much sympathy to spare for people who, while in tough situations
    of their own, have advantages you don't have.  (Which is not to
    say that you don't have sympathy for others in general, just specific
    cases.)
    
    >My son has a RIGHT to know his heritage.
    
    Thank you, I think this helps highlight a point some of us are trying
    to make:  that a child is the product of two parents.  It's hard
    to know the heritage without knowing the parent who contributed
    it.

    RE:  .140 and others

    There are a lot of cases where you have responsibilities and no rights. 
    In most circumstances in which you cause someone to incur costs that
    they didn't have before, you get a responsibility to compensate them
    without gaining any "rights".  For example, if you accidentally (or
    willfully) damage someone's property or their person you become liable
    for paying them compensation.  You do not gain any "rights" to the
    damaged property or body, just because you paid to repair it.  If you
    permanently disable someone, you might become liable to render
    compensation that will provide them with a living for the remainder of
    their life.

    The unwed mother who chooses to bear and raise her child without the
    "birth father" does not ask for any compensation.  She undergoes the
    discomfort and inconvenience of pregnancy *without the father*.  She
    undergoes the social embarrassment of being an unmarried pregnant woman
    *without the father*.  She faces the pain and danger of childbirth
    *without the father*.  I believe that this ordeal gives her a right to
    determine the baby's future *without the father*.

    Something which comforts me about this is that it's relative easy for
    any woman who so chooses to achieve.  As long as she doesn't come into
    regular contact with the father after the dissolution of their
    relationship, she simply doesn't have to tell him that she's pregnant. 
    If the mother mentioned in .0 had wanted to raise the child herself, he
    need never have known that she existed, or that she was his child.  I
    don't even think that any laws are broken.

    							-- Michael

    Re: .144
    
    >For example, if you accidentally (or willfully) damage someone's
    >property or their person you become liable for paying them
    >compensation.  You do not gain any "rights" to the damaged property
    >or body, just because you paid to repair it.
    
    True, but this responsibility does, in fact, accompany a right.
    You, in turn, have the right to be recompensed for damage done to
    your property or person.
    
    >I believe that this ordeal gives her a right to determine the baby's
    >future *without the father*.
    
    She faces discomfort, inconvenience, embarassment, pain and danger
    *without the father* by her own choice if she chooses not to notify
    the father.  In this case, what you're saying comes down to "her
    decision to do without the father entitles her to decide to continue
    doing without the father."

    As I see it, there are 4 separate cases:
    
    1)	Parents had a relationship (marriage or living together), had
    children, then it broke up after they were born.  Both parents have
    rights and (emotional, physical, and financial) obligations to these
    children.
    
    2)  Parents had a short term affair, she became pregnant, they break
    up.  Father is known.  Mother has ultimate choice in deciding fate of
    pregnancy (abort or not), then to keep it or not, and (if I made the
    laws), the next choice would be the father before adoption.  They both
    have obligations to support the child in all ways if it is not aborted.
    Father also has the right to visitation as well as liability for
    support.  Custody by father should be possible if mother becomes
    unable, unwilling, or unsuitable parent.
    
    3)  Parents had a very casual tryst, they go their separate ways
    when it's over, do this frequently with several (many) partners.
    She gets pregnant.  Father unknown (or at least, untracable).  Father
    has no rights nor any responsibilities, since he is unknown.  All
    rights and responsibilities and choices are with the mother.
    
    4)  Father raped Mother.  All rights and choices belong to mother.
    Father is unsuitable parent due to his criminal nature (possible
    residence in state pen).  Father has no rights.  Possible future
    support obligation if she keeps child.
    
    
    No one set of rules is ever going to cover all of these cases. 
    Perhaps this is why there are so many sets of argumens?
    
    Elizabeth

    
.145>    True, but this responsibility does, in fact, accompany a right.
.145>    You, in turn, have the right to be recompensed for damage done to
.145>    your property or person.
    
    Are you trying to imply that, because the father is in no danger of
    becoming accidentally pregnant, that it is unfair that he can be held
    responsible for accidental pregnancy?  In other words, what's your
    point?
    
.145>                 In this case, what you're saying comes down to "her
.145>    decision to do without the father entitles her to decide to continue
.145>    doing without the father."
    
    By George, I think you've got it!  8^)
    
    							-- Michael

    Re: .147
    
    >Are you trying to imply that, because the father is in no danger of
    >becoming accidentally pregnant, that it is unfair that he can be held
    >responsible for accidental pregnancy?
    
    I'm trying to imply that you chose a bad example.  I am certainly
    not trying to imply that it is unfair for the father to be held
    responsible for accidental pregnancy.  In most cases, he shares
    responsibility with the mother.
    
    >By George, I think you've got it!
    
    Well, I don't want it, so you can have it back.  Suppose you and
    a friend come up with a great idea for a project.  Your friend has
    the tool you need to develop the project and, while you could find
    someone else who would be willing to share the tool, it would certainly
    take a lot of time and expense.  Your friend, without telling you,
    goes off and starts developing the project by her/himself.  You find
    out about it and want to work on it, too, since it was your idea
    as well.  Your friend says, "My decision to do this project by myself
    entitles me to decide to continue doing this project by myself."
    
    What do you think of your friend's argument?

    Re .148, Chelsea, I don't think you can compare working on an
    engineering project to 9 months of pregnancy with a baby growing
    inside of you, then giving birth, and then nursing/caring for the
    baby/holding the baby in your arms.  I don't think you can reduce
    the experience of motherhood to an engineering project.
    
    Lorna
    

    I think Chelsea's just using the engineering-project example to
    illuminate Michael's logic, Lorna.  (Tho it's true that having and
    raising a child is indeed a "project", so the analogy is more apt
    than it might otherwise be) 
    
    						=maggie 

    re .150, I can see that's what she was doing, but comparing one
    of the most personal, emotional and important aspects of a woman's
    life (having a child) to something to do with work, just isn't the
    same to me.  (Maybe because I've never had a job that has ever begun
    to mean as much to me as my personal life.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand, then, Lorna.  T'me,
    whether someone is being as logical as they think they are doesn't
    have anything to do with the subject they're talking about, or with
    the objective truth or falsity of what they're saying�.  Isn't
    it that way for you, too?                      
    
    						=maggie
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    �For example, I can make a logically correct assertion that is both
    demonstrably false and disgusting with it (well, disgusting to cat
    people like you and me anyway :-) 
    
    		All tabby cats have six legs and eat human babies 
    		Nefertiti is a tabby cat; therefore 
    		Nefertiti has six legs and should never be left
                alone in the room with a baby because she'll eat it. 
    
    Having supported Nefertiti since her earliest kittenhood, I can
    state categorically <npi> that despite being a very beautiful tabby
    she has never had more than 4 legs and tends to avoid babies like
    the plague...but that has nothing to do with the logic involved,
    just with the objective truth of the premises. 
    

    Re .152, what I was trying to say that despite the logic of an
    argument, when people are discussing fairness in regard to an
    engineering project at work that is a much less emotional subject
    with most women than the project of having a child, and no matter
    how logical it is to say that if the man helped the design the project
    and then left for awhile, while the woman kept working on the project,
    then the man came back and wanted equal credit because he helped
    design it - well, it's a lot easier to unemotionally agree to letting
    a male (or female), co-worker take equal credit for work, than it
    is to let a man whom you may not like anymore (or even hate) come
    back after an absence and help raise a child you have borne just
    because he had sex with you.  I'm saying that despite the correctness
    of the logic in the comparison, that having a baby and sharing it
    with a man is a much more emotionally charged issue than sharing
    a work project.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .149, .153
    
    Since nothing can truly compare with the experience of pregnancy
    and giving birth, I've got to find a situation as similar as possible.
    So the experiences might differ in emotional intensity, but I hope
    that the principles and the type of emotions are similar.  I figured
    the situation of creating something, bringing your own great idea
    into reality, would be close enough.  The project is not necessarily
    one for work or even an engineering project.  It's anything that
    you helped come up with the idea for.  The question is not taking
    equal credit for work, since the work has not really been shared
    at this point.  The question involves sharing the work on what is,
    in large part, your own idea.  If I were working with a partner
    and we developed an idea for a book, I'd definitely want to be in
    on the writing of it.
    
    (Thanks for the assist, =maggie.)
                         

    <--(.153)
    
    I think I see what you mean, Lorna, and I guess I might feel the same
    way in the event.  At the same time, I understand the validity of
    Chelsea's critcism of Michael's logic.  It's pretty confusing :-)
    
    						=maggie 

>>    Re .137, are you serious?  Is that true, that in Mass., if you are
>>    unmarried you can't just write down or give the hospital the name
>>    of the father (like you do when you're married)?  I never knew that.
>>     The man actually has to agree to sign a notorized piece of paper?

	Yes, this is all to true.  In my case this is all I will fight
	for in my son's case.   Anything else, wish to see the child,
	support, whatever, is up to the father.   But, as I said before
	my son has the RIGHT to know his heritage.  

	Its to bad in Mass that I'll have to have a paternity case
	done in the courts to have the fathers name put on the 
	birth certificate, but I really feel strongly about it, and
	am in the process of doing so now, a paternity case that is.

	What I was trying to get across in my earlier note was NOT
	ALL FATHER's are getting "yanked" by us "mothers"..  Its 
	the other way around too!   (someone was saying how bad
	men have it, women wanting their money, but not their help)
	Blanket statements NEVER fit all situations.

	/Robin

    
    RE: .148
    
    My use of having to make reparation for some accidental harm was not
    meant as an "example" of anything other than a case where, having
    caused someone to incur cost, you have to pay without gaining any
    rights.  Your statement that you "gain" the right to be compensated for
    damage yourself is false.  You have that right before you damage
    someone else.  Despite that, I agree with you on this point:  if the
    father is required to pay support, then he should be given access to
    the child and some hand in rearing her (unless he can be proven to be
    subhuman in some way).  However, just because he might be required to
    pay doesn't justify requiring the mother to allow him access even if
    she doesn't need payment from him. 
    
    A baby conceived accidentally is not comparable to an "idea" developed
    by two people.  Unlike an idea, neither person intended for it to
    happen, and it hasn't exactly "happened" to both of them.  Nothing
    "happens" to the father if he's not asked to participate in rearing the
    child (particularly if he's not informed that he's the father).  I
    object to laws like the one which required the mother in .0 to obtain
    the father's permission before the child could be adopted.
    
    							-- Michael 

    re .156:
    
    Robin, I'm very sympathetic to your situation and wish you well
    in getting the father's name listed.  I think it's very important.
    
    On the other hand, I can understand why the state requires the father's
    signature if the couple is unmarried.  A (former) friend of mine
    absolutely insisted that so-and-so was the father to her child when,
    as her roommate, I knew she had absolutely no way to be sure of
    that fact.  She wanted his name listed on the birth certificate.
    Had it been a simple matter of specifying the father's name, he
    would have been listed.  The child is the spitting image of a guy
    she bedded prior to him.  Why should the state allow itself to be
    intermediary in such a situation?
    
    Of course, there's no guarantee that being married would have stopped
    her from having multiple relationships simultaneously, either...
    
    wishing you well,
    Marge

    Re .159, there's been a lot of men in the world who were not "caring,
    feeling father"s, then.  I agree with whoever it was who put in
    the response yesterday saying that the funniest thing about this
    topic is that most men who have children with women they aren't
    married to  usually don't want anything to do with the whole business.
     Usually it's like the old George Carlin joke where the woman calls
    the guy up and says, "Remember me from the party 2 months ago? 
    Well, I'm pregnant and I'm going to jump out the window" and the
    guy answers, "Gee, you *are* a good sport."

    I agree with Mike.  If an unmarried woman doesn't ask for financial
    help from the father, and she wants to keep the baby, and is a good
    decent person, then the father has no rights.
    
    I think Mike put it very well when he said that an unplanned
    pregnancy is not an idea that two people developed together.  It's
    something that happened to the woman.  Men cannot get pregnant.

    
    Lorna
    

    
    RE: .159
    
    I did say "especially if he's not informed that he's the father".  I
    concede that some people might be hurt if they found out.  I would
    definitely experience some emotion in this case.  But I would bow to
    what I feel is the woman's prerogative.
    
    However, that's my whole point.  A man has to be *told* that his
    partner has become pregnant, if their relationship ended soon after. 
    The mother can't help but notice.
    
    								-- Mike

    Re: .157
    
    >Unlike an idea, neither person intended for it to happen, and it
    >hasn't exactly "happened" to both of them.
    
    I don't know how your mind works, but I've never intended to have
    an idea.  They just happen to me.  I can't summon them at will and
    I can't turn them off at will.  So my ideas, at least, are not planned.
    From my experience, ideas are conceived and nutured; they are
    frequently discussed in the same language used to discuss children.
    So I find the analogy rather apt.

    Re: .160
    
    >there's been a lot of men in the world who were not "caring, feeling
    >father"s, then.
    
    So?  Is that any reason to ignore the ones who *are* caring, feeling
    fathers?  In your system (mother need not notify father if she doesn't
    need anything), the father is penalized regardless of his interest
    or actions.  In my system (father is notified and chooses whether
    he wants involvement beyond support payments), those fathers who
    are interested and caring can have some place in their children's
    lives while those who aren't interested leave the children's
    development in the mother's hands.  I prefer my system because:
    
    1)  it allows more options
    2)  the father is 'rewarded' or 'punished' based on his own actions
        and character
    
    >It's something that happened to the woman.
    
    Pregnancy is something that happens only to the woman?  What about
    married couples?  Does the father still have no part in it?  What
    is it that has changed because they're married?  The father has
    made a commitment to the mother and child, sure, but divorce happens.
    Does a divorced father lose his 'part' in the child when the marriage
    ends?  Meanwhile, the woman who fails to notify the father of their
    child denies him the opportunity to make a commitment.  First she
    won't let him do something and then she penalizes him for not doing
    it.  No, I can't consider that fair.
    
    On a more practical note, any woman who fails to notify the birth
    father is being short-sighted.  There's a great deal of useful
    information she'll want from the birth father; in particular, I'm
    thinking of medical history.  Does the father's family have a history
    of heart trouble?  Cancer?  Hemophilia?  Those are things I'd certainly
    like to know if I had a child.
    

    All of this reminds me of something. When I was in college there
    were a few women who I knew of (including one close friend) who
    got pregnant and the man that they knew was responsible essentially
    gave them the 'how do I know it is me?' line and denied any
    responsibility. I often wondered in later years (as I watched how
    my husband enjoyed our children) if any of these men in later years
    with their children wondered about and regretted losing out on
    that first baby of theirs. I do think that both men's and women's
    attitudes about babies changes as they move into their twenties
    and thirties and the idea of not being involved in the life of
    a child of yours becomes more significant to them.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: how do I know it was me?
    
     This a often a valid question, particularly when the alleged cause
    of pregnancy is a casual encounter. Asking the question does not,
    however, absolve the man of all responsibility. In the case where
    paternity is in doubt, suitable blood testing ought to be performed
    to prove paternity. As a guy who would do "the right thing," I'd
    be pretty p.o. if I did they right thing for some other guy. Of
    course, once you start taking care of the child, even if I found
    out it wasn't mine it would be too late to change things then. Once
    the emotional attachment is made it is not easily broken (in this
    guy).
    
    Re: analogies
    
     No matter which analogy you come up with, there will be people
    who point out the differences and ignore the similarities. Since
    an analogy implies imperfect parallelism, there are always specific
    differences that will be demonstrated by those who do not wish to
    see or agree. Personally, I thought Chelsea's analogy was pretty
    good. 
    
    Re: the issue
    
     There seem to be two factions: those that feel that the fathers
    have no rights, and those that feel that fathers have rights
    commensurate with their responsibilities. It is an honest difference
    of opinion here. 
    
     Some in this file seem to be under the mistaken impression that
    rights are given to others by people. This is not so. Rights are
    not given; they simply exist. People either recognize these rights,
    or they don't. It doesn't mean the rights aren't there simply because
    they are not recognized. Women have howled for years that men have
    not recognized their rights (and rightly so). Now that the shoe
    is on the other foot, it seems that some women (who don't wish to
    recognize men's rights in this issue) simply assert that the right
    does not exist, thereby eliminating their responsibility to recognize
    it. Does this mean that the right doesn't exist? No. It means that
    women are no different than men in that they res=cognize only what
    rights (in others) as they find convenient.
    
    FWIW- I told my wife about this discussion.(background- she has
    two kids that she raised herself) She said that any woman who denies
    her child the interaction with both parents is being selfish. The
    more people that show their love to the child, the better off the
    child will be. I agree.
    
    Mark

    Is there a paternity test that actually proves who the father is?
     I thought the tests could only prove who isn't.
    
    Anyway, I'd just like to say that even though I think it's okay
    for unmarried pregnant women to not contact the father, and not
    involve him in the child's life, it's not something I personally
    would have done.  I personally agree that the more people who care
    about and love a child the better.  I'm glad I've had the help of
    my ex, and my mother, AND my ex-mother-in-law, in raising my daughter
    so far.  I feel that unmarried women should have exclusive rights
    to their child if they want, but I'm not saying that it would ever
    have been my personal choice.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    I'd like to echo what Lorna said in .167.  I don't necessarily approve
    of women leaving the father out of the raising of a child.  I don't
    indulge in casual affairs, so I don't expect it to happen to me. 
    However, I do feel that it is the prerogative of any unwed women in a
    case of an accidental pregnancy.  I would hate to think of a woman
    aborting her child only because she doesn't want to deal with the
    father.  Without allowing this choice, I can imagine circumstances
    where this might happen.  As I pointed out, it isn't a choice that
    anyone has to "allow" -- any woman who wants to can do it, without
    breaking any laws.
    
    As an aside, I don't know if there are any medical tests for
    determining paternity exactly, but the technology exists with which to
    implement them.  The same techniques used to test fetuses for genetic
    defects could be applied to this.  It would be more reliable than
    fingerprint matching.
    
    								-- Mike

    Current paternity tests are quite sensitive and can indeed tell
    with an accuracy in the high 90% range that a man is the father
    of a child. The old paternity tests just relied on blood types.
    A man who was AB for example could not be the father of a child
    who was type O. Today the tests examine a wide variety of blood
    proteins at the level where individuals can be identified. (They
    can also indentify individuals by the blood proteins left in the
    dried saliva from a stamp or the stains of semen on clothing.
    
    Bonnie

Note 315

The best defense a person has in this world is good judgement.  
The best defense a woman has from a violent man is the good 
judgement not to get involved with him in the first place.  The best defense
a man has against a woman who would deprive him of his paternal rights is to
not get involved with that kind of person in the first place.

There was a time when women were responsible for relationships and for the
results of those relationships (pregnancies).  Those times are past.  
My sons are 18 and 20 and I don't want them to be hurt.  I don't want to 
have grandchildren I cannot see and love.  So I've taught my boys (hopefully)
to have good judgement.  To be aware of the character of the girls they are
attracted to and to be responsible in relationships... to use birth control
always if they are in a sexual situation.  

Mistakes happen, people get confused, we cannot legislate against all possible
outcomes and we all know that life isn't always fair.  But in the final
analysis, we, as individuals, are responsible for ourselves and for our own
decisions.  We have to live with the results of those decisions...male and
female.

Choose wisely.

Mary