Hiya, Bastards and others! Here’s a burning stoopit question for you:
Hm. Hmmm. Is rigging things so any woman from any state can dispense with pesky father’s rights by going to Utah to relinquish “anti-birthfather”? Why yes, yes it is–and what lovely doublespeak you have there. Removing all of the father’s rights is “friendly.” Some lucky fathers get to pay child support while they’re trying to reassert rights they never signed away. Now that’s adoption friendly! Robbing a child on another continent of heritage, family, native language and homeland while depriving that homeland of him/her? Adoption friendly. Buying a person? Adoption friendly. Declaring children with families who happen to be poor “orphans”? Adoption friendly. The bad old days when women were not allowed to see their babies or signed them away without knowing what they were doing or were told they were dead? Man, were those ever adoption friendly!
Ergo: Kidnapping a child you intend to raise instead of ransom? Adoption friendly. Laws and policies that try to ensure a woman gives birth whether she wants to or not despite her legal right to decide for herself? Adoption friendly. Carving a woman’s belly open and removing the fetus? Very adoption friendly.
How do I get into so many arguments about adoption in such an adoption friendly world?
Because none of these things are adoptee friendly. As with every other mention of adoption ever, “friendly” means friendly to APs and PAPs–some of whom don’t give a damn what’s legal or who they hurt as long as they get what they want. I mean, I love that Rep. Ray mentioned “the best interest of the child,” but we all know how that one decodes, don’t we?
Another thing that will never stop annoying me about adoption law is what would seem to be the blatant conflicts of interest involved. If I were an adoptive parent and I were given the task of considering laws that make adoption harder or easier, I might well feel that the right thing to do would be to recuse myself because I couldn’t be objective. But adoption is never a conflict of interest for APs or for people who profit from adoption–especially when they’re the same people:
[A]doption attorney and adoptive father, Lance Rich, opposes the bill. He said it would create a host of problems, including violating the birth mother’s privacy.
“Some birth mothers don’t want anyone to know they’re pregnant,” said Rich, also a member of the Utah Adoption Council. Many mothers, he said, would rather abort a child before disclosing the pregnancy to potential fathers.”
See? It’s OK because he’s inhumanly, impossibly, one hundred per cent BIAS FREE! That’s why he can speak for women. The fact that most first mothers who have been asked say they don’t want this “privacy” means nothing, because women are silly featherheads who always say “yes” when we mean “no” and perforce go around getting ourselves raped all the time.
(Unless we agree with Mr. Rich. Then we’re reasonable creatures. Bias. FREE.)
Also, and I hate to be rude,* we all see what you did thar, Mr. Rich. But I’ll assume you didn’t mean to do it because you’re not only bias free, you’re an honest man and not interested in using coercive language to make money in adoption. So here’s a biology lesson for you:
A Biology Lesson For Mr. Rich et al
A woman who has not given birth is not a mother. She’s as “potential” a mother as the man is “potentially” a father. Because zygotes and blastocysts and feti are not children.
Therefore, so what if she wants an abortion? That’s one less child for you to broker? I care as much about that as you care about the woman’s reasons for not wanting the potential father to know. Is he abusive? Is she doing this to hurt him? These things are possible, but what do you care?
Finally, for author Dennis Romboy and anyone else who has ever used the phrase “balancing rights” to tell adoptees why we can’t have our birth certificates, please feel free to comment. I would love to see your list of those rights which the government guarantees you and which you would not mind losing so some people you’ve never met can have some non-guaranteed non-rights most of them don’t even want.
Because balance means all sides weigh the same.
*Kidding! I love being rude!