Although this ruling was made in England, I have to believe U.S. courts would take a similar position. Here’s the question: if a woman gets pregnant, does she have the right to withhold that information from the father and her family and put the baby up for adoption? I know this probably happens every day, but is it right?

The woman then took the case to the Court of Appeal, where the judges ruled that no steps should be taken to identify the father or tell him about the child, now 19 weeks old.

There was also an order barring the authority from introducing the baby to any of the mother’s family to assess them as potential carers.

They had learned about the child only when the local authority made inquiries.

Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, said this was not a violation of the father’s rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

Woman have spent years and years trying to bridge the social gap between the sexes, disseminating any preconceived differences, yet in this case, the woman clearly has more rights to a child than the biological father. Why? Isn’t the child just as much his as it is hers? Does one sex automatically mean “ownership” of a child? What if that “ownership” isn’t in their best interest? Is it better for a baby to be adopted out, rather than custody be given to the father?

Isn’t making that automatic assumption sexism in reverse??

Bookmark to:
    

I recently happened upon a thread whose original argument was about the gay marriage debate. I wasn’t interested in weighing in the gay marriage part, as I’m pretty ambivalent about gay marriage in general.

The real issue for me, and which was barely mentioned, were the comments of a poster who mentioned that her four gay friends, a female couple and a male couple, were having twins and splitting them between themselves. One of the women was artificially inseminated by one of the gay male’s sperm, and they had decided that each of the couples would take one of the twins after birth.

Now, I respect their right to have children. Gay couples are as capable of being loving and nurturing parents as any straight parent, however…splitting up the twins? I know that the commenter said that they have a close relationship and the twins would see each other often, but doesn’t that seem like it could cause undue trauma? And I think we all have had close friendships that suddenly turned sour. This just seems incredibly selfish to me, and it wouldn’t matter if the couples were straight, I would still feel the same way.

Bookmark to:
    

By now I’m sure you’ve heard some of the most important news to date — news that towers over insignificant “news” like North Korea’s increasing ability to annihilate us within minutes — Madonna has a little African baby to call her own. Refusing to be one upped by her younger, better acting colleague (of course, that’s not saying much), Angelina Jolie, Madonna decided to don her own orphan.

There have been protests from child advocacy agencies in Malawi, where the baby is from, after the bending of rules allowed a non-Malawian person to adopt a Malawian baby. This rule is in place to halt baby trafficking, but Madonna is no baby trafficker, just an untalented publicity whore on a shopping spree for the newest celebrity fad — adopting African babies.

Apparently, the baby’s father did not want to give him up, but after his wife died of disease and both of his other sons were killed while stricken with malaria, he could not afford to keep him and was scared he would fall ill, too. So, instead of adopting a boy whose next of kin doesn’t want the child, she decides to take the one who’s father’s heart breaks, instead of helping to reunite them.

To top it all off, apparently Madonna had 10 orphan babies pre-selected for her (I’m not lying) and walked up and down a line-up while she decided which one to pick. Kind of like choosing between the purple or gold lamé boots. Decisions…decisions…

Rumor has it, the generous blond gave each orphan a copy of her pretentious children’s book, The English Roses, because we all know that the orphan boys in Malawi are so much better off reading about a jealous lot of girls who resent Bina because she is so beautiful.

Can I say it now??…what a fucking asshole! Talk about out of touch.

Oh, but it gets better. E! Online (don’t snicker, they’re right sometimes), reports that Madonna’s new toy flew “home” to Guy Ritchie and Madonna’s house, a completely normal household to be sure, with her entourage and a bunch of babysitters.

Madonna, you brave soul. I’m sure you will make a point of having David, your new orphan son, thank you for all you’re about to grace him with, above all, yourself. She’s our savior. She’s David’s savior!

Bookmark to: