for-profit adoptions

[Sean of the Thread]

How do you feel about selling babies?

Should an un-wed mother just be able to pimp children to for-profit agencies? Shouldn't the un-wed father have the right to say "HEY! I want to father my child." no matter what?

[DeV]

Adoption itself, even not-for-profit, is a form of baby selling in my somewhat warped opinion on this subject. It's not as if the unwed mother is giving her child to a loving married couple out of the kindness of her heart. There are costs for everyone involved. Adoption itself is a multi-billion dollar, tax subsidized industry that takes money from those with a demand and makes it by providing the "goods" from those with the supply (pregnant mothers).

If the father wants to raise his child and the woman wants to put it up for adoption he should sue for full custody or better yet she could willingly turn that custody over to him after the baby is born. If they aren't married it becomes a matter for the courts to resolve if they can't do so on their own. I wouldn't agree with any law that ignored the fathers plight and instead opted for adoption just because that's what the birth mother wanted. The father should have a say, yes. As long as he is willing to take on complete parental and financial responsibility for the child.

[Wezas]

I guess we can tell who watched Desperate Housewives last night.

(yes I realize I pwned myself)

[El Burro]

If the father wants to raise his child and the woman wants to put it up for adoption he should sue for full custody or better yet she could willingly turn that custody over to him after the baby is born. If they aren't married it becomes a matter for the courts to resolve if they can't do so on their own. I wouldn't agree with any law that ignored the fathers plight and instead opted for adoption just because that's what the birth mother wanted. The father should have a say, yes. As long as he is willing to take on complete parental and financial responsibility for the child.

And she should be required to pay child support too?

>add fuel to fire

[Kuyuk]

<And she should be required to pay child support too?>


I would hope so.


K.

[Apathy]

How do you feel about selling babies?

Should an un-wed mother just be able to pimp children to for-profit agencies? Shouldn't the un-wed father have the right to say "HEY! I want to father my child." no matter what?

The no matter what part is dangerous.

If he's a crack-addicted pedophile, then no.

[Jorddyn]

How do you feel about selling babies?

I really don't have a problem with it. There's a reason the woman is putting the child up for adoption, and it likely isn't that her bank account is far too big.


Should an un-wed mother just be able to pimp children to for-profit agencies?

She went through 9 months of pregnancy, plus labor and/or surgery. It's not exactly a get-rich scheme.


Shouldn't the un-wed father have the right to say "HEY! I want to father my child." no matter what?

In most cases, a father definitely should have a right to his child.

Jorddyn

[DeV]

Actually, no. I should have been more clear. If she is choosing adoption first which ultimately means the termination of her parental rights and responsibilities to the child and the father disagrees then she should relinquish those rights and allow him to accept complete responsibility of the baby by legal means. /end run-on

If she is willing to not only give him full custody but to also terminate her rights as the biological mother then she shouldn't be required to pay child support.

[Miss X]

This is a minefield of potential problems. Firstly, if it was legal and acceptable to sell babies for profit then I have no doubt that there would be women having babies for this reason alone, there may also be women who are coerced into it. There are undoubtedly many couples who would pay large amounts for a child so, yes actually it is a get rich quick scheme.

It also means that the not-so-rich but potentially wonderful parents would miss out because it would become a competitive market in terms of cash. A large bank account is not necessarily indicative of good parenting skills.

We also have to look at the effect this would have on any babies/children involved. Imagine growing up and learning that your real parents SOLD you to make money for themselves. I don't think we have the right to force children to grow up with those kind of emotional scars. I'd rather they were aborted I think.

[DeV]

^ That's one reason why I have a problem with people who say adoption is a better choice than abortion without fully realizing that with any action there are consequences both good and bad for mother and child.

There is no way to ever know with certainty that adoption is the better option in every case.

[peam]

I wish it was legal.

Then I could start my baby farm.

Acres and acres of pregnant women... as far as the eye can see...

[Skeeter]

Actually, no. I should have been more clear. If she is choosing adoption first which ultimately means the termination of her parental rights and responsibilities to the child and the father disagrees then she should relinquish those rights and allow him to accept complete responsibility of the baby by legal means. /end run-on

If she is willing to not only give him full custody but to also terminate her rights as the biological mother then she shouldn't be required to pay child support.


Every woman I impregnate from now on, I'll just tell them to give the kid up for adoption. Since I'm relinquishing all rights, I'm no longer obligated for child support. Hope the judge buys that BS.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<We also have to look at the effect this would have on any babies/children involved. Imagine growing up and learning that your real parents SOLD you to make money for themselves. I don't think we have the right to force children to grow up with those kind of emotional scars. I'd rather they were aborted I think.>>

..........

WHAT?

[DeV]

Every woman I impregnate from now on, I'll just tell them to give the kid up for adoption. With that mindset, you should just retire your sperm and save yourself and your seed the agony.
Since I'm relinquishing all rights, I'm no longer obligated for child support.Your sarcasm is duly noted, however, are you saying that people who give their child up for adoption be obligated to pay child support?
Hope the judge buys that BS.If you, the father, also agree to give up the child for adoption then you do not have to worry about the judge buying anything. All parties agree, unless I'm missing something here. The question Xyelin asked was fairly specific in nature.

The father wants to raise his child, her option is adoption. I have a feeling you'd also find fault if one was to answer that she should just go forth with the adoption without caring about the rights of the biological father.

If the mother doesn't want to give the child up for adoption and the father does then that is a whole other topic altogether and I would of course have a different reaction to the situation.

Here's a question for you. Say you impregnate a woman and she wants the give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. Bottom line, she doesn't want the responsibility of raising the child. She wants to terminate her rights as a parent. You, the father, do not want her to give the child up for adoption nor did you want her to have an abortion.

What is your opinion on resolving that very complicated matter?

[Miss X]

I'm sure I don't need to explain that adoption in itself can cause severe emotional anguish for the children involved. I need only look at my immediate family to see the proof of this.

Now, if we couple this with monetary gain for biological parents, we add more potential for emotional distress and make babies some sort of commodity which would be a tragic representation of a capitalist society gone wrong.

It's likely hard to believe, but existence at all costs is not always the best option. Sometimes it is more humane to prevent that hurt and pain from occurring altogether. This is a personal opinion of course and I have no difficulty believing that many people will disagree with me wholeheartedly.

[Latrinsorm]

yes actually it is a get rich quick scheme.I think we're disagreeing on what "quick" is defined as, not to mention taking opportunity costs into account.
Imagine growing up and learning that your real parents SOLD you to make money for themselves.Like growing old, it beats all hell out of the alternative. It's inaccurate in some cases to define the birth parents as the "real" parents, incidentally.
make babies some sort of commodity which would be a tragic representation of a capitalist society gone wrong.I'd say the tragic representation of the human society gone wrong is the one where people are treated as sub-human. I'd also like to note that commodoties are traded in socialist or communist societies just as often as capitalist societies.
Say you impregnate a woman and she wants the give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. Bottom line, she doesn't want the responsibility of raising the child. She wants to terminate her rights as a parent. You, the father, do not want her to give the child up for adoption nor did you want her to have an abortion.The father takes on the child on his own. Duh. The mother doesn't have it and the father doesn't lose it.

[Skeeter]

Women should be held to the same standards as men. If the father decides to keep the child out of wedlock, the mother should be financially obligated to assist with support. Exactly as a man would be expected to provide support if the woman kept the child.

Dev you say you have a different reaction if the tables are turned. Why the double standard?

I believe I have seen you taking the side of women's liberation from time to time. Is this only the case when it's convenient for the woman? Men should always be financially responsible, but not the woman?

I'm having trouble following your logic.

[Sean of the Thread]

My bottom line is if the father is bonafide he should absolutely gain parental rights.. I don't want to hear the 9 months of carrying the baby and other bullshit as that does not give her the right to sell the baby. That's a crock of shit.


When I said "no matter what" I was of course was meaning an able and qualified father. He shouldn't have to go thru being an "advesary" as the for-profit agencies call un-wed fathers. It's completely fucking wrong.









By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
Published April 2, 2006

I've never met Jeremiah Clayton Jones, but I liked him instantly while talking with him on the phone from his home in Arizona. Jones has a way of speaking that communicates sincerity, assuredness and respect for whomever he is talking to, in the way a young man in the military might.

Jones will need every ounce of that fortitude. At 23, he is facing the fight of his life.

The American legal system is full of David versus Goliath stories, but few contestants are so mismatched as when the might and money of the adoption industry is pitted against hapless unwed natural fathers, such as Jones, who have the audacity to want be parents to their children.

Jones has an 18-month-old son whom he has never seen. The baby was adopted even as Jones objected as loudly as he could and with every resource he had.

But because Jones did not know to file with Florida's registry for unwed fathers, his parental rights were extinguished.

These putative fathers registries exist in some form in about 30 states. In Florida, unless an unwed man files a form with the state every time he has intercourse, he can be stripped of his rights to any child born of the relationship. Yet, the registry is so obscure that in 2004 only 47 putative fathers registered for 89,436 out-of-wedlock births.

The $1.4-billion adoption industry pushes for these laws, claiming they are protective of fathers' rights. It's a laughable assertion. What these laws do is make it easy to push fathers out of the picture so the lucrative business of baby selling can go forward unimpeded.

If you ask parents what is the worst fate that could possibly befall them, their answer inevitably is that one of their children gets ill, dies or is taken from them. When the government takes a baby from his father and offers him to strangers, there must be a solid basis for it, something calamitous, such as leaving junior on his own while dad's at the track. Otherwise, it is state-sponsored kidnapping.

Here is the story of how Jones says his child was legally stolen:

Jones and the child's mother met at Pensacola Christian College and became secretly engaged. They even held a private marriage-like commitment ceremony. But her parents strongly objected to the relationship, and when they were told that the couple had become sexually active, they swooped in and spirited their daughter away.

Jones tried every which way to communicate with his fiancee, but her parents stymied his attempts. He had no idea she was pregnant, but he desperately wanted to marry her and returned to Arizona for a job to demonstrate that he could be a good provider.

Three weeks before his son's birth, he was contacted by Jeanne Tate, an attorney for Heart of Adoptions Inc., a for-profit adoption agency in Tampa, and learned for the first time that he was going to be a dad.

Jones said it was "the happiest news you're ever going to get in your lifetime." He told Tate he would not consent to an adoption and asked what he needed to do to secure his rights. But he says Tate refused to help and withheld information about Florida's Putative Fathers' Registry requirement.

When asked about the conversation, Tate said she could not speak specifically about the case due to confidentiality, but explained that she was constrained from giving legal advice "to an adversary."

Only in the disturbed world of unethical adoptions is a dad an "adversary." When a biological father who is fit says he wants to raise his son, everything should screech to a halt. But then, of course, the adoption agency wouldn't make any money. Even Tate admitted, "it's a business."

Jones realized that Tate intended to press on with the adoption despite his vocal objections and contacted a lawyer in Florida who specializes in family law. The attorney apparently did not know about the paternity registry requirement but filed a paternity suit the day before the boy was born. It didn't matter. The adoption was finalized because Jones had not filed with the registry in time.

An appeal is pending before the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Jones hopes the court will agree that his constitutional right to his progeny overrides some hypertechnical legal "gotcha" for fathers.

But for some reason, the courts have not generally been kind to unwed fathers, often treating them as something akin to interlopers. This stubborn bias is an ugly combination of moral condemnation, gender stereotyping and class-based haughtiness. When fighting over a baby, the adoptive parents tend to be wealthier, better educated and more stable than the biological father. Unfairly, judicial sympathy lies with them.

It is ironic that when men don't want to be fathers they can nonetheless be on the hook for 18 years of child support. But when a man wants to care for and raise his child, he is considered a nuisance to be outmaneuvered through legal trickery.

This is terribly unjust, and it's why, for Jones and for the sake of unwed dads everywhere, David has to slay Goliath one more time.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/02/Columns/How_a_willing_father_.shtml

[Celephais]

I think what you're missing Dev, is that if a father wants a child given up for adoption and the mother does not, the father has to pay child support. Even if he "terminated his rights as a parent".

And the mindset comment (which I know was directed at Skeeter) can be turned around too. Any woman who wants to give up a child for adoption should "retire her womb and save herself and her seed the agony".

I agree that a womans vote should weigh more heavily on the decision of what to do about "Oh nozs, I'm preggers!", what with the whole biological maternal instinct, and the being host to the little symbiont.

[Jolena]

Heh.. being that I was adopted, all I'll say is that I think it takes more courage to give up a child to someone who can take care of them, then to keep the child and be selfish, knowing you can't give them what they need. Love is rarely easy.

[DeV]

Women should be held to the same standards as men. There are people that say a womans decision should carry more weight due to the fact that she "carried the weight" so to speak. Afer that child is born that statement should be thrown out the window in my opinion. I am absolutely for a fathers right to his care for his child if he is serious about his decision to raise his child and be a responsible parent. The fact that people are unable to work these things out reasonably lies with the man and woman who decided to have sex and become pregnant. With that responsibility is the realization that men and women should be held to the same standards of caring for the welfare of their child even if they are giving it up for adoption in hopes of a better life. For now the law is on the side of mothers primarily, but the tides are turning as more fathers assume responsibility.

The fact that men get railroaded in court due to circumstances such as this is truly fucked up. Why aren't you questioning the courts legal double standards? I don't make the laws Skeeter and unfortunately men and women are not held to the same standards there.



If the father decides to keep the child out of wedlock, the mother should be financially obligated to assist with support. Exactly as a man would be expected to provide support if the woman kept the child.
In retrospect, yes, I agree that should be the case though I am almost positive it is still quite rare. I tried to be as realistic as possible in answering the initial question posed in the thread which is why I didn't feel the need to bring up how I'd feel the same if it were a man/woman, blah blah blah. He didn't ask that. In either case there should be no financial responsibility if either parent is more than willing to provide a good life for the child that one of them does not want anything to do with.

Adoption is completely different than keeping the child you had out of wedlock and raising him on one's own though. And that is where we differ or at least the source of your missunderstanding of my point.

You have yet to even mention the fact that ADOPTION is a key issue here, not financial obligation due to pregnancy out of wedlock. If the woman keeps the child despite fathers objections I don't feel he should be responsible for paying child support either. She made her bed and therefore must sleep in it. There, I said it. Believe me if I didn't feel that way I would have no problem arguing against.


Dev you say you have a different reaction if the tables are turned. Why the double standard? There is no double standard. And if so, show me where? Oh, and let me reiterate before I continue. In either case there should be no financial responsibility if either parent is more than willing to provide a good life for the child that one of them does not want anything to do with. I'd have to suffer from a serious lack of common sense to think otherwise. I didn't spell it out before because I thought it was a given. My bad for that assumption. My reaction may be different albeit not for the reasons you think, my overall opinion would remain the same as indicated above.


I believe I have seen you taking the side of women's liberation from time to time. Is this only the case when it's convenient for the woman? Dur, It's probably because I'm a woman but I understand your concern. My counter is that I have brothers and a father and I understand the importance of mens rights when it comes to childbirth and the responsibility that accompanies parenting.
Men should always be financially responsible, but not the woman? Please, quote me on that because I don't recall ever saying or thinking it.


I'm having trouble following your logic.I'm having trouble following yours as it relates to the issue at hand. You also failed to answer Xyelin's question. I did so in the best manner possible with the information provided.

Would you object to her putting the child up for adoption despite his objections?

[DeV]

I think what you're missing Dev, is that if a father wants a child given up for adoption and the mother does not, the father has to pay child support. Even if he "terminated his rights as a parent".The bolded part of your quote, I don't believe to be completely true. The way I understand it is this, In some cases he may be ordered to continue support. However, in most cases the financial obligation is terminated along with his rights and responsibilities. Many judges are reluctant to terminate parental rights because they often assume that the reason for seeking termination is to avoid paying child support all along. That is often unfounded and the judges are most often to blame right along with the mother for allowing it to happen if termination goes through. This line of reasoning has never been shown to be substantive.


And the mindset comment (which I know was directed at Skeeter) can be turned around too. Any woman who wants to give up a child for adoption should "retire her womb and save herself and her seed the agony".
I agree, especially if she is popping them out with every Tom, Dick, and Harry and giving them up for adoption just as fast. She needs to be court ordered to tie those tubes as quickly as possible.


I agree that a womans vote should weigh more heavily on the decision of what to do about "Oh nozs, I'm preggers!", what with the whole biological maternal instinct, and the being host to the little symbiont.I somewhat disagree. I do feel a womans decision should only weigh more heavily while she is carrying the child the term. After the child is born both opinions should weigh as equally as possible.

[Celephais]

In either case there should be no financial responsibility if either parent is more than willing to provide a good life for the child that one of them does not want anything to do with.

Uhh... that statement leaves no room for mandatory child support, just want to make sure that's what you meant to say. (did you mean able, not willing? And even then it's relative... next thing you know skeeter is only impregnating women who are financially independant).

If you're not sure why I say that, if the mom isn't "willing" then child support money doesn't exactly help, unless you're saying "willing without support" and that's just stupid, because then it's like asking the mom "do you want extra money for raising your kid?"

[DeV]

Uhh... that statement leaves no room for mandatory child support, just want to make sure that's what you meant to say. (did you mean able, not willing? And even then it's relative... next thing you know skeeter is only impregnating women who are financially independant).Either or Celephais. Willing or able, it doesn't matter to me. One person wants the kid and the other doesn't. Should the one who doesn't want a child have to pay child support when the option of adoption has been raised and seriously considered? In my opinion, no.


If you're not sure why I say that, if the mom isn't "willing" then child support money doesn't exactly help, unless you're saying "willing without support" and that's just stupid, because then it's like asking the mom "do you want extra money for raising your kid?"I'm not even sure why you're asking me in the first place. If the father wants to raise his child and the mother wants to give the child up for adoption then he should be able to raise his kid without any further input from the mother and that includes financial. Tables turned my opinion is the same. Let's just say I agree with Skeeters notion. Just using different words to convey it. No mandatory child support especially WHEN ADOPTION IS A VIABLE OPTION (keeping with the premise of the thread) whether you have a penis or a vagina. No double standard included in that statement, it stands for both mother and father. Comprende? :)

[ElanthianSiren]

Knowing someone whose girlfriend gave his child up for adoption to a well-off couple (plus benefits) and knowing the pain it's caused him, I can honestly say, I don't really have an answer. On one hand, I know he wishes that he could have kept his child, but on the other, this couple is nice enough to let him visit her and provides a very very very stable, loving, and affluent environment for her.

It is the problems highlighted back in the beginning of the thread, but money dominates our society and always has, so why should adoption be any different? In that vein, I suppose it doesn't bother me. Even my friend recognized that the adopting couple could provide more opportunity for his daughter than he could on his own (he was a programming student at the time).

The concept of baby farms is an interesting one, but I hold the same opinion. How often is a child honestly going to find out that they were sold? I doubt it's something the adopting parents are going to wave around, beyond perhaps mentioning that they were adopted.

-M

[Apathy]

Women should be held to the same standards as men. If the father decides to keep the child out of wedlock, the mother should be financially obligated to assist with support. Exactly as a man would be expected to provide support if the woman kept the child.

Dev you say you have a different reaction if the tables are turned. Why the double standard?

I believe I have seen you taking the side of women's liberation from time to time. Is this only the case when it's convenient for the woman? Men should always be financially responsible, but not the woman?

I'm having trouble following your logic.

If you wanted to be completely idealistic, you could say that women are responsible for 80% (or whatever the figure is) of the figure that a man would be responsible, since that (whatever the figure is) is roughly what the average woman makes compared to the average man.

I agree with you tho.

[Jorddyn]

Not that anyone cares, but this is how I see it.

Situation 1 - Woman gets pregnant on purpose to sell baby. I don't find this nearly as repugnant as many other forms of making money. Additionally, women can sell eggs, which is a much easier form of providing fertility help, and making cash, and can be done more than once a year. Of course, most egg banks have strict requirements on who they will accept donations for. This would likely be offset by the market. People won't pay as much for the child of the unattractive, unintelligent or uneducated. I do very strongly believe that there should be a requirement that the father be informed of the child. If he wants to keep the child, it then becomes his court battle. If she has visited a sperm bank, the father gave up his rights with his "donation".

Situation 2 - Woman has unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, decides to sell baby. She can, of course, choose an abortion, or carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption.

Let's say Woman A would otherwise keep the baby. How much money do you suppose it would have taken your mothers to give you up? I could be wrong, but I think that most women in this situation would keep the baby anyway. I also think that those who would change their mind and sell their child are most likely not in the best financial and emotional state to raise their children anyway. That is not to say that money represents a good home to grow up in, it is just to say that I believe the majority of those who would change their minds would not necessarily be the best mothers anyway.

Now for Woman B, who would have otherwise had an abortion. I have no idea how many women would change their minds and otherwise sell their babies, but it would take a hell of a lot of money if I were in that situation (read: six figures or more, at the times in my life when I wouldn't have brought the pregnancy to term). For the women who do change their minds, who has been harmed by this situation? The baby? Well, it wouldn't have existed otherwise, so it is impossible to tell. Yes, s/he would have to live with being sold (if the adoptive parents choose to tell him/her), but s/he would also get to know just how important it was to his/her parents that they got to be her parents. The adopted kids in my family all know, and all think it is wonderful that their parents wanted them so badly. I can't imagine that knowing their parents also had to pay large sums of money would lessen that feeling. The birth mother? She's now in a better financial situation, but does have to live with giving a child up for adoption. Who is more appropriate to say if she's better off than her? And the adoptive parents? Well, they are worse of financially, but now have the child that they obviously wanted. I can't find the harm here.

And woman C, who would have otherwise given the child up for adoption. The changes here are that the birth mother can choose to be compensated, and that the parents who may have otherwise adopted the child may not get him/her. I'm afraid I don't know how to make a call on this one. Would people who could have otherwise provided a loving home be passed over? Likely, but not forever, as I imagine there would be more babies overall up for adoption.

Situation 3 - "Baby factories", where the mother is forced to get pregnant, and forced to sell the child. These should be illegal - I don't know what else to say.

However you slice it, the market will decide the "price" of the child. I can't see a ton of uneducated, ill mannered, unattractive people suddenly striking it rich, as the price paid for their children would be significantly lower. I can't see a ton of well-off, well educated, attractive women suddenly deciding to live their lives pregnant in order to sustain an income - look how difficult it has been to get egg donations that don't require 9 months of pregnancy and 6(?) weeks of recovery. Besides, if suddenly every woman in the country decided to do this, it would be a buyer's market, and the price of babies would drop. And if some women who really need the money decide to do this, I ask again, who is she harming?

I guess this post has been a bit cold, but I'm looking at the reality of the situation instead of the fantasy that people can sometimes create around the idea of having children.

Jorddyn, long winded

[Skeeter]

Would you object to her putting the child up for adoption despite his objections?

Yes. I think the father should have say in the decision.

Addressing the rest of your post, we seem to agree.

[AestheticDeath]

If she is willing to not only give him full custody but to also terminate her rights as the biological mother then she shouldn't be required to pay child support.

I haven't been on this topic in a while, but I was under the impression fathers always HAD to pay child support if they are seperated, whether he wants to give up his parental rights or not. Am I wrong?

Also, I am fairly sure the mother can't make money off the adoption process if done legally. Which would translate into not being able to put a baby up for adoption through an agency she works for, or anything along those lines.

[DeV]

I haven't been on this topic in a while, but I was under the impression fathers always HAD to pay child support if they are seperated, whether he wants to give up his parental rights or not. Am I wrong?Post #22 sort of goes into this. And I have to add that these laws vary largely by jurisdiction. If a father's rights are terminated, which is not an easy process, 9 times out of 10 he is no longer financially responsible for the child. [Some] judges will hold fathers responsible but usually in cases where they feel the man is simply trying to skirt his financial responsibility by seeking termination. This is the case with unwed parties. In the case of adoption, no, you are no longer responsible as this goes without saying. When it comes to marriage or seperation I'm thinking it much harder, almost impossible to have your rights terminated unless you are a truly fucked individual who is also a terrible parent.


Also, I am fairly sure the mother can't make money off the adoption process if done legally. The mother can however have all her medical bills paid for in full and receive a stipend to assist with living expenses from the adoptive family during the entire course of her pregnancy.