Thursday, August 27, 2009

The different views on selfishness

OK so this statement made not long ago honestly made me shake my head in disbelief and since i cant get it out of my head or reason out how this person could honestly believe it, Im posting it here:

"I pray that you consider adoption, but that would be too selfless of a thing for you to do, after all the whole point of you getting pregnant anyway is to get another man to take care of you so you don't have to do it yourself and adoption would defeat that purpose. (By the way I checked it out, it only takes one parents consent not both.)"

Now completely ignoring the "you got pregnant on purpose" implication. The thing that got me was that Keeping the baby is selfish according to this person BUT giving the baby up for adoption without the consent of the father was not. Does that not make sense to anyone else?

Or am i the only one who feels that denying someone their parental rights just because you feel like it or someone told you to is not only selfish but also morally wrong? So its selfish to keep a baby with two people who love it and will provide for it yadda yadda or even one parent who would do the same, but a-ok and selfless to give that baby to another family, denying it both biological parents, one whom wasnt even given a choice in the matter and potentially drag the new family, the biological father AND the baby into a lawsuit which can wind up with the baby being taken from the parents it knows at an older age and possibly emotionally scarred and confused. Like these kids:

The birthfather rights issue came to the forefront most dramatically in recent years. In 1993, an Iowa birthfather successfully challenged an adoption by a Michigan couple after a battle of several years (In re Claussen). The case became publicized throughout the United States as the adoptive parents openly struggled with the birthfather over custody of the child the adopters had named "Jessica DeBoer."

In this case, the birthmother had named one man as the father of her child and he had signed consent to the adoption. After the child was placed, the birthmother stated that the biological father was really another man. The actual birthfather sought custody and won his court struggle when the child was about three years old. She was placed with him and the birthmother, whom he had married.

^What this post failed to mention was that they also re-named her. So she's 3, forced to move in with people she doesnt know and also renamed. But according to the above statement this woman was selfless to lie to the father and give this baby to this couple without his consent. I mean since he wouldnt consent to it just lie and give the baby to someone else anyway, why not?... Why give the birth father his legal rights - that would be selfish apparently. And putting that little girl through a legal battle was definitely not selfish in any way. Not at all. *eyeroll*

Another case, known popularly as "the Baby Richard case" in Illinois, also received national notice, primarily because of stories written by Chicago columnist Bob Greene and a nationally prominent author, Dennis Prager. In this case, a birthmother placed a child for adoption and told the birthfather the baby had died. She later admitted the adoption and the birthfather actively sought custody. He prevailed when the child was about three years old. The birthparents later divorced and the child purportedly is being reared by his noncustodial birthmother.

^Hmmm another case in which a baby is raised by one family and then yanked away and given to strangers at 3 years old. Nice, but those moms were totally selfless thinking only of themselves and what they wanted and lying their asses off to deny the biological fathers their rights. Thats the definition of selflessness, after all. Totally.

Because these two cases received an unusually high level of media attention, nearly all state legislatures subsequently reviewed their laws on birthfathers, and many new laws were enacted. Some states created putative father registries, while other states created laws allowing for prebirth consent from a birthfather. Some states required the birthfather to appear in court within a certain timeframe or to submit documents to a particular court or organization in order for paternity to be established.

And cases like those are what led to THIS: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law depriving all unwed fathers of the right to decide against adoption, whether or not they actually took care of the children in question, was unconstitutional and a form of SEX DISCRIMINATION.



So, regardless of state laws all a father has to do is cite that SUPREME COURT ruling and he has a case and then your child might be the one that winds up living with someone he never met whos rights you tried to deny at 3 years old with a different name. But yet, you were just being selfless after all. Right?