http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-padopt080702.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines One is a woman who was slipped a date-rape drug. Another is a teenage girl who had sex with numerous classmates. A third traded her body for drugs. All three women want to put their babies up for adoption and don’t know who the fathers are. But each is hesitant to go through adoption proceedings for the same reason: They fear a new law will require them to detail their sexual pasts in local newspapers. If you give women with unwanted pregnancies better choices than abortion, you're liable to find that at least some of them may take you up on the offer. If you make the alternatives as onerous as humanly possible, guess what you end up with?
This is idiotic. If the guy can't stick around long enough to realize that he got some woman pregnant, he doesn't deserve the right to contest the adoption. He deserves to has his name in the newspaper as a sexual predator.
I agree with both of your sentiments, but disagree with your reasoning. Godot, the article even said that this procedure hasn't increased the number of abortions, so your anti-choice-ism is misguided here. Plus, less babies born (especially to those people who aren't ready/capable to raise them) is a good thing. Obie, calling someone who might have knocked up a woman and then not been around later a sexual predator is a little extreme and quite mysandretic. Caddish perhaps, but to be called the same thing as a rapist or mollester is over the top. Not to mention that it's just as common to see a woman deliberately keeping her father's child out of the the kid's life out of spite. As for the law itself, the basic premise is sound IMO, but the public disclosure is too much. Searching through private means is enough, there is no need to violate a persons privacy like that, male or female.
I was channel surfing a few minutes ago and came across a news show on MSNBC where they were talking about this law. The guests were Jerry Fallwell and somebody from NOW. Both agreed that it was one of the most retarded laws they'd ever seen. That about says it all right there. Alex
I dont think this is an abortion versus adoption issue. However, as an adoptive parent, I find this law repugnant. When we decided to adopt we first investigated domestic adoption but found the system had too many issues such as this and evenutally gave up on this idea. I know in certain states this is already a law. Politicians and people like Rosie O'Donnell love to spout off to people on why they should adopt children domestically but it is so difficult with so many road blocks thanks to laws like this. We ended up going with international adoption which is no picnic either having to deal with INS but at least there are less restrictions.
Hehehe, I think that hell has frozen over! (Good thing for Jerry!) I never understood why the state makes it so hard to adopt. There's no greater gift than to raise an unwanted child and to find willing parents is tough enough without having to make them jump through hoops. Also, how hard is it for gay parents to adopt these days? (If you're not a rockstar.)