Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The Brotherhood

I found the following policy changes from China vis-à-vis adoption for single parents (really single women as few single men ever adopt, even through they’ve had the ability to do so for decades now) rather interesting. It followed very closely on the heels of other countries such as England and the Netherlands banning the use of anonymous sperm donors anymore (they are now illegal in both places).

So this is just continuation of the hate campaign against women in their role as mothers as men continue their ongoing attempts to be in charge of everything again.


Clearly listening to the 'spin' emanating on a daily basis from the western media about how horrible mothers are (particularly single mothers, but they are targeting all mothers ultimately with this propaganda), how many of us murder our children, abandon them regularly to homeless men (as the current movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” would have us believe), how insignificant the mother/child bond is compared to say a male penguin bonding with an egg, or a sperm donor with a dixie cup, all of this propaganda and spin, going unchallenged for the most part, led to the recent turnabout in China’s adoption policy.

The same way it incited England and the Netherlands to outlaw anonymous sperm donors a year or so back.

Now, of course, every woman in either of those countries wishing to become a mother, without the requisite male overseer being put in charge of her, will have to leave these places to seek out donors elsewhere. This will probably lead to more sickness being spread amongst the general populations there, as many other countries that allow anonymous sperm donors aren’t as careful about testing for various blood-borne diseases as England or the Netherlands probably was.

It will probably also lead to more women becoming pregnant through one-night stands and just refusing to identify the recreational sperm donor. Since remember even going to the trouble and expense of using a sperm bank is really a ‘tip of the hat’ to women’ ethics in this area, trying to avoid involving a sperm donor in the expense of raising a child he had no wish to create. It’s not something women need to continue doing, if it becomes too much trouble and expense for them to bother with.

Additionally, it will lead to further drops in populations in the west, as women will continue not having children under the threats of these ongoing custody wars incited by men. Most of these custody/legalized abduction actions instigated to relieve men of the financial responsibility of fatherhood. Anyway, that’s the real motivation behind women using all of these extraordinary processes to have children: anonymous sperm donors, single parent adoptions of foreign orphans, etc. It is women in their ongoing attempts to try and head off some stingy cheapskate/control freak from having any legal rights to her children. To short-circuit the use of the power of the state to harass and terrorize her and some poor kid for up to 18 or so years, if not permanently…

Last, but not least, even though many women here don’t want to face this part, it will eventually lead to the same thing happening in the US of A. It’s just a question of time really. The writing is on the wall (in spite of the many highly publicized stories about celebrities such as Mary Cheney being allowed to impregnate herself, probably via an anonymous sperm donor) this is not an option that is going to be available much longer for women in this country.

Ideas have consequences, as this latest example of the reaction to single women from the west adopting their unwanted population of girl children in China has shown us.

As I, for one, don’t think for a moment that this policy was changed due to the best interest of those orphans. China, as a society, has shown its complete lack of regard for its female population many times. Even the fact that most of the those orphans are girls shows the low regard that their society places on women to begin with, that’s why baby girls are abandoned in the first place. Since the one-child policy has been put in place, everyone wants a boy. Thus a girl baby is tossed out like an old pair of shoes in the nearest ditch, so a mother can be allowed a ‘do-over’ and try for a boy with a second pregnancy. Actually now that they have sonar technology, many in China just abort a girl fetus as soon as it’s identified, so the whole Chinese orphan situation can pretty much become a moot issue in a few years anyway.

Anyhow single women adopting these little girls and bringing them to the west to raise them had little or no impact on China overall. Other then saving some girls from either death or a miserable existence, once they become adults in a society that could care less about women. Nevertheless, I think it’s instructive for us to review how/why the adoption policy came to be changed recently; as it can tell us a lot about what to expect in the future for western societies.

So what was the rationale underlying China’s policy changes: I believe it was threefold: the first one being the usual backhanded swipe at western civilization in general. This is similar to what progressives in the US did when they helped ban white middle-class families from adopting black orphans. It’s part and parcel of the whole bruhaha that we saw flare up over the Madonna adoption controversy, for instance, as in: better a million children dead of starvation in the streets before allowing a westerner to adopt a single one of them.

The second one, I believe, is sheer, vicious, spitefulness aimed at women who have some autonomy. Obviously in a society, such as China, where women are the low ‘man on the totem pole’ it must gall the average man over there to see western women with some control over their own lives. Western women can travel alone, obviously we have a good economic standard of living if we can afford to travel to China to arrange an adoption and raise a child alone, etc.,

Also, the petty spitefulness behind some of the criteria is pretty obviously directed against women since as I said previously, we are the majority of single parent adopters of children in China and everywhere else really. So now, no fat women can be allowed to adopt a Chinese orphan as: “The guidelines include a requirement that applicants have a body-mass index of less than 40.”

A totally unnecessary, ridiculous, petty, spiteful qualification added just to frustrate women, for the most part. Since few single men adopt, although they’ve been legally allowed to do so for decades now. Thus a rule such as this is clearly going to have a disparate impact on women. They’ll probably set up scales at the airports to weight western women and send them packing, if they are over the weight requirements.

Idiots. Why not just ban fat women from traveling to China as tourists while you’re at it? That will be the next step. We waste too much gas transporting you back and forth on planes will be the rationale.

Anyway to the final reason, which I frankly believe is probably the most important one. That in spite of the Chinese wanting to step on the toes and aggravate western civilization whenever possible, without being too obvious about it (ala Paris of the Orient), they nevertheless also recognized the loss of power western men experienced once western women had legal rights on par with him, including and especially the control of our own reproductive processes, ie., as in the right to decide if, when and how we are going to create our own families. So in spite what was probably a ferocious inner struggle, the Chinese ultimately decided to help the “brotherhood” maintain their overall status by striking a blow against western women’ choices in this area. Hopefully, by helping western man restrict women’ choices, they could help them regain some of the control lost to us.

Sad really.

That man everywhere is so self-centered and greedy for power and control over their sisters.

Thus the struggle continues.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Mother: Most Beautiful Word in the WORLD...

Of course, there will be the usual jealous misfits, who are mad that father wasn't included within the list.

Oh well...


Mum's the word, says the world: Mother was most loved, while father was absent...

Mother is the most beautiful word in the English language, according to a survey of non-English speakers.

More than 40,000 people in 102 countries were polled by the British Council to mark its 70th anniversary. Mother, passion, smile, love and eternity were the top five choices - but father did not even make it into the list of 70 words.

But some unusual choices did make the list, such as peekaboo, flabbergasted, hen, night and oi.

SOME OF THE TOP WORDS 1. Mother 2. Passion 3. Smile 4. Love 5. Eternity 48. Peekaboo 50. Kangaroo 61. Oi 63. Hiccup 70. Hen night Fantastic, destiny, freedom, liberty and tranquillity rounded out the top 10.

The British Council promotes the learning of English around the world and teaches the language to more than 500,000 people each year. Chris Wade, director of communications at the council, said the most favoured choices in the list were all strong, positive words. He said: "All of us have a mother and have a reasonable idea of who that person is, it's one piece of certainty we can have and it's also a very powerful word in a variety of cultures. "But I wonder if we would have had the same result if we had done the survey in the UK." (emphasis mine: I'll answer that NO...since western civilization has apparently spawned the most jealous, useless, selfish, cheap and stingy jackasses in the world) He said the list showed the diversity of the English language: "There are words denoting concepts that people aspire to, like freedom; words that sounded fun like peekaboo and others that aren't really words at all but they convey real meaning, like oi."

Other words to make the top 70 included serendipity, loquacious, kangaroo and zing. There were also words imported from other languages, such as renaissance and aqua. Presumably, a maternal kangaroo would be highly rated indeed." We'll grab anything we can take. Lots of words have been stolen over the years," Mr Wade said. " But while other languages may be reluctant to use our words, [this has provided] a real richness in the English has evolved."

He said one English word to have gained widespread usage recently was flip-flop, which came 59th in the survey. Failed US presidential candidate John Kerry was accused by the Republicans of having "flip-flopped" - or changed his stance - on a number of policy areas. "Flip-flop was used a lot during coverage of the US election. If the survey had been done a year ago it probably would not be in the list," said Mr Wade.

Michael Quinion, whose recent book Port Out, Starboard Home examines some of the quirks of the English language, said it was a very "eclectic" list. He said: "These non-English speakers certainly have wonderful English vocabularies. "There seems to be a curious mixture of the formal and the colloquial. Oi is not a word that I would've thought turned up in English manuals all that often." The list also included what Mr Quinion said was his own favourite English word - serendipity, which came 24th. "It's so mellifluous but it's such a nice concept too."

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Prodigal Fatherhood = Abandonment of Children

As anyone knows who has been commenting on this blog (including the vast array of nuts I’ve attracted) I am now entering my second year of blogging about child custody issues. October 27, 2004 was my very first post.

Generally what I’ve done in the past is post an article with a link attached along with a brief opinion of my own about the article.

Now, I’d like to try something different and each week post a discussion point about various public policies I’d like to see implemented nationwide. I don’t know if there are enough discussion points on the various public policies out there to cover 52 weeks in a year (since I generally update weekly) but since I have a very active imagination somehow I think there will be.

One policy, which I would like to discuss today, is a time limit for a so-called prodigal father to be allowed to file a paternity lawsuit.

Why is it that a prodigal father can be aware of a pregnancy for months before the birth or even be at the hospital for the birth, then decide NOT to file to have his name placed on his childrens’ birth certificate for months or even years afterwards? In essence isn’t he abandoning his children?

YET years after the fact, with no questions asked or penalty whatsoever, the prodigal is then allowed to file for paternity even though he had the opportunity to do so earlier and chose not to exercise it?

Is there any other legal situation that someone can think of where a person can chose not to exercise their rights and then turn up years later and file for them?

For instance can I get injured on someone’s property and wait ten years to file a lawsuit? Can I just leave my car on the street and turn up years afterwards to reclaim it? Same thing with my house, can I refuse to pay property taxes on it, abandoning it really and then suddenly waltz in and announce I’ve decided to reclaim my rights? Can a mother leave her children for a year or two, or three and then suddenly turn up again and reclaim them as if nothing happened?

No, I don’t think so.

Most states have a six months to a year abandonment policy regarding children and this should be enforced via paternity claims as well. Unless these prodigals can prove they didn’t know about the child or said child was deliberately hidden from them, then their rights to file a paternity claim should be time limited to the six months to a year that most states force mothers to live under.

It’s clearly a special benefit for men which allows this scenario to play out ONLY with paternity claims, whereas after years of ignoring their children these same prodigal fathers are even allowed to simultaneously file a paternity and custody lawsuit at the same time.

I mean New York was stunned to learn that John Aylsworth, who was at the hospital when Bridget Marks’ twins were born,YET chose to wait over THREE YEARS to file a paternity suit, was still allowed to file a custody lawsuit following it as well.


Even though he knew about the kids since their birth and left them with their mother all those years.

What kind of crap is that?

We shouldn’t be allowing special treatment for men to file for paternity whenever it is most advantageous for them to do so, as in: My kids’ mother died so now I can file for paternity and custody of the kid I’ve been ignoring for years. This will enable me to collect her life insurance policy and social security benefits even though I knew about my kid for years and never bothering filing a paternity suit in all that time.

OR alternative scenario: My kids’ mother finally woke up and realizes I’m not really planning on marrying her and she has started seeing someone else. So before she marries someone else and then hits me up for child support, which I’ve gotten away with paying up to now stringing her along with the “we’ll be getting married soon” baloney, let me file for paternity and custody first…

Unless, as I stated previously, these prodigal fathers have creditable proof that they weren’t aware of the existence of the child or the child was actively hidden from them, then their claim should be denied outright. The six months to a year abandonment clause should automatically kick in (no judicial discretion whatsoever here) which covers abandonment of children in most states and these prodigals should be turned away from courts and not allowed to file a ‘daddy-come-lately’ paternity lawsuits.

More Nonsense from the Usual Suspects

More nonsense from another sperm donor.

Of course, I believe he could win this particular case in spite of the fact that he has only ONE FAMILY LAW EXPERT supporting him versus 21 supporting the mother.

AND no, despite the article's attempted spin on this situation, it has nothing to do with the law just catching up to new technology. Use of sperm donors has existed for decades now. It's quite a common and simple procedure.

What has changed is not the technology but the legal climate favoring men. Who even when they, themselves, make the decision to be nothing but sperm donors STILL wish to retain the legal option to change their mind afterwards.

I mean what if the woman had a handicapped child and he would have been on the hook for lifetime child support, would he have shown up to contest his original agreement to be a sperm donor then????

Of course, all fathers rights nuts will be supporting this guy even through they are constantly screaming about men having no legal right before birth. Many men want legal rights to interfere with abortions or for men to have the right to a 'paper abortion', for instance, where they can opt out of paying child support.

YET when they get decision-making power, such as this man had, they also wish the prerogative to change their minds at anytime after the fact and throw some mother and her children lives in turmoil, similar to what that recreational sperm donor did to Bridget Marks and her poor twins in New York.

Frankly, this guy exercised his right to a paper abortion and now wants to rescind it...

Nobody forced him to donate sperm which he knew was going to be used for this woman to artifically inseminate herself with...they never even had sex or any sort of relationship. So he can't even claim the standard "I was 'tricked' into getting her pregnant" like many men in these situations try to claim. He went into this with both eyes wide open...

It's simply outfreakinrageous that he should be allowed to rescind his decision now and throw those kids lives as well as the life of their mother into such turmoil.



Posted on Sun, Dec. 03, 2006

Kansas lawsuit could be landmark

The case involves a sperm donor who wants parental rights to twins born last year.

Family law experts across the country are watching as Kansas’ Supreme Court takes up a case that could decide the parental rights of sperm donors.

The suit, set for arguments before the court Monday, concerns a Shawnee County man who donated sperm to a friend. The woman underwent artificial insemination and delivered twins in May 2005. The man argues that he always intended to act as a father to the children. No agreement was put into writing, however, and a judge later decided the man had no rights as a father.

That’s because Kansas law denies parental rights to sperm donors unless they have a written agreement with the mother specifying that they will act as father. The 1994 law was designed to protect children conceived through artificial insemination from frivolous custody disputes, as well as to safeguard donors from child support lawsuits. (Emphasis mine: Exactly right, the law protects everybody concerned, especially the children protecting them from frivolous custody disputes.)

The unmarried woman, who, like the donor, is identified only by initials in court documents, argues that she never intended to share parenting with the man. She chose the man, whom she had known for 10 years, because of his good medical history.

“He is a donor only,” wrote the woman’s attorney, Susan Barker Andrews. Andrews argued that the man should have put his intentions in writing if he wanted to be a father.

The man appealed his case to the high court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

His attorney, Kurt James of Topeka, said his client had discussions with the woman about sharing parental responsibilities.

He said a better law would require donors to sign an agreement waiving their rights as parents.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in February.

The verdict could affect laws governing sperm donation throughout the country.

(Emphasis mine: Family law experts have lined up on both sides of the case. Ummm ONE person, Linda Henry Elrod, does NOT fit the definition of plural experts. She is ONE expert.

Linda Henry Elrod, a family law professor at Washburn University, filed a legal brief in which she sided with the donor.)
Elrod argues that to require a man to have a written agreement before he has parental rights over his biological children is to violate his constitutional rights. The law, she wrote, “cannot take away a constitutional right to be a parent” without due process.

(Emphasis mine: But 21 other family law experts across the country filed a brief supporting the woman.) They argued that the Kansas law in effect protects the interests of children created through sperm donation, as well as the mothers and the donors, by requiring any agreements to be set down in writing.

One of those professors, Nancy Polikoff, a family law professor at American University, said “biology is not enough” to give the man parental rights. The law assumes the mother (and any husband or partner she might have) will have custody when it comes to children of sperm donors. Without the Kansas law, she said, women could face custody battles from donors, or donors could find themselves being asked to support a child they never intended to know.

Both professors agreed that the case, the first of its kind in Kansas, is blazing new legal territory.

“It’s the Wild West out there,” Elrod said. “The advances in technology are just way ahead of where the law is.”

To reach David Klepper, call (785) 354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.