claiming maintenance from abroad

The Corinthian

dame wrote:

I'm not a single mother but I would say that the father has had a say in it - it takes two after all and surely if you do the business then you accept that there is always a slight risk of pregnancy (birth control measures are not 100% effective). Knowing the risk of something and doing it anyway means that you should be prepared to deal with the consequences, whether you like the consequences or not.

Certainly, but does it make sense then that the consequences for the mother are that she may choose to keep, terminate or put up the child for adoption and those for the father are to essentially be at the mercy of whatever the mother decides? It appears that fathers have little or no choice where it comes to deal with the consequences while mothers can force fathers to share the burden of the consequences of their choices.

I’m not suggesting that a father should have a veto on whether a child is brought to term or adopted or not. But if the choice to keep a child is solely a mother’s, then the consequences of that choice should also be solely hers.

In the OP's case the father was around and acting as a father for at least a while of his child's life. I personally think that in that case he has acknowled that he is a father and should not now be allowed to opt out completely, just because it doesn't suit him any more.

Only the OP can really explain what happened there (and even then it would simply be her side of the story), but it could well have been that he was presented with a fait accompli and given the circumstances was forced into trying to make the best of a bad situation (after all, he might as well get something for what he’s paying). On the other hand it could well have been as you described it in which case he made his choice with both eyes open and is responsible for it.

Given this there are cases where the father is not involved with the child occurring every day. The mother chooses to have and raise the child, regardless of the wishes of the biological father, and then pursues him for maintenance to support this choice. Unless the father wants to pay what is often a fair chunk of his income for the next 18 – 23 years (or the rest of his life if the child is handicapped), his only remaining option is exile.

Surely this is morally and ethically questionable to say the least?

You can leave a partner or wife but you should never leave a child.

That’s true and this is the tragedy of the situation. Fathers who either don’t want to be fathers, are not yet ready or may even be ready but not with the mother in question are told to pay up and shut up. Many then feel obligated to try and become involved and then fail because they simply were not up to the task to begin with and so the child suffers.

There are also single mothers out there who don't want to have anything to do with their ex, not even maintenance payments.

Which is fair enough – they’ve made a choice and they are dealing with the consequences of that choice without forcing anyone else to share that burden.

RainyDay

The Corinthian wrote:

While we don't have a full picture of the OP's situation and their past with the father of the child, it does appear that the father was an involuntary one.

Do you reckon the father was tied up & raped? Other than that, I can't see how his becoming a father could be seen as 'involuntary'?

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

Do you reckon the father was tied up & raped? Other than that, I can't see how his becoming a father could be seen as 'involuntary'?

I assume neither was the mother – yet she has the right to choose whether to keep the child or not, and then to impose what is essentially her lifestyle choice on another individual who had no say in the matter.

So we’re not discussing the consequences of sex, we’re discussing the consequences of what comes after - choosing to keep a child or not. And I’m not even saying that a mother should not have this right alone – only that if she does, she should live with the consequences of this choice without imposing them on those who were not given a say.

Carrigart Exile

RainyDay wrote:

Do you reckon the father was tied up & raped? Other than that, I can't see how his becoming a father could be seen as 'involuntary'?

Following this logic then once a woman is pregnant if the man wants the baby she must have it regardless of her own feelings. The point being made is after conception there are choices the mother can be make, unfortunately, the man appears to have no choice and can either take the internal pain of knowing a child you wanted was aborted or a child the man didn't want was brought into the world and he will be held responsible for it financially.

Trinity

Yes you have a good point and i am sure it happens everyday.

However in this case, he never said he didnt want to be a Dad and when he was around he was quite a good one.

Admittedly though if you want my thoughts on the subject, i would have had the baby regardless, this however is a whole other issue and irrelevant in my particular case

Ultimately, i would have known from day one that i would have had to accept full responsibilty for the child and prepared myself for single motherhood, then the sticky subject of having to explain to the child when he was older why he didnt know his father. But thats the choice i would have made personally.

My son knows his father and misses him. Thats even harder i think than if he was just a name.

Anyway the money was never really that important even though i needed it!! it was more a case of trying to stop him hurting the child by coming in and out of his life. i told him time and time again if he didnt want to be part of our sons life that it was ok but begged him to keep it regular, even a phone call. He said of course he wanted to be part of his life. That of course was before he moved abroad.

On the flip side of the coin i cannot by any means make him see the child. I have never refused but if i did he could bring me to court and would get visitation so i am really powerless in this as well while he calls the shots in that department.

Its really a messy situation for everyone involved when parents are not together but that the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is my sons welfare and happiness.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

Ultimately, i would have known from day one that i would have had to accept full responsibilty for the child and prepared myself for single motherhood, then the sticky subject of having to explain to the child when he was older why he didnt know his father. But thats the choice i would have made personally.

From what you’re saying he was tepid on the subject of fatherhood.

I would ask though whether you demanded maintenance or whether it was voluntary (and IMHO if you presented him with the option that if you’re willing to be a father you pay maintenance and if not you don’t would be a voluntary choice for him).

It’s just that this thread was predicated on the premise that you were looking to enforce maintenance. Additionally while he was a father, he certainly was not down as one on the birth cert and I assume neither was he a guardian.

If he was able to make that choice, then he made his bed and should sleep in it. Otherwise, that choice was made for him and his half-hearted attempt at fatherhood was based upon him trying to get something in return for the financial responsibility that was foisted upon him. The problem with that is it often fails.

I suppose the question I’m trying to ask is if he had said he didn’t want to be a father or involved, would you have pursued him for maintenance regardless, and if so how can you justify that ethically?

Trinity

No i wouldnt persue it if he had come out straight and said he didnt want the child.

He promised the sun moon and stars - that is the difference. I never tried to force him into anything. He contributed voluntarily i.e. 50 euro per week. That stopped over a year and a half ago i think.

He said he would contribute, i never asked for anything, he even took my bank account number last May. I said if he was in a tight spot that i understood and would wait, if he didnt have it sure he couldnt give it. But then he got a job and he said he would give me something. He told the child to watch the post for a birthday present in June that he would send one with his name on it. Hes still waiting. I did tell him i was in a tight spot and he said he would get the money to me asap - that was June.

Now if this was a case of me chasing this man for money after he had said he didnt want anything to do with us then i would understand people questioning my actions.

Its more that hes making a fool of me. Taking my account number etc. His words when he left was the money would always be there.

We sat down and had heart to hearts about the child and genuinely hand on heart if he had said he didnt want to be a dad i would have let it go.

I'm not the bunny boiler type, i do have my sons best interest at heart. Apart from the odd disagreement over his behaviour i have always been civil and friendly. I cook for him when he visits (past tense) and even let him stay when he came over, we had a few beers etc.

I have not contacted him since august nor he us. I have no intention of doing so again tbh. Its not doing anyone any good and only causing more heartache when he ignores my childs texts/calls.

edited to add having re-read your post i guess looking back it was a half hearted attempt by him at fatherhood. but it wasnt forced upon him i can assure you. He was given the option time and time again to opt out of our lives. I even tried to make it easy for him by saying i know how hard it might be to admit it but i understand.

I was hardly perfect throughout this whole affair either, i made quite a few mistakes and when i last saw him on his visit in May i apologised for everything. he apologised too and said he has never been there for us but he will be. I guess it was just words but like all the other times i believed him and was shocked when he couldnt even keep his promise to send a b'day present or phone our son on a regular basis.

i'm opting out now though. I cant make him do anything but i cant continue to listen to his lies or sweet talk either. After 6 yrs it finally dawned on me that hes never gonna change. The only thing i know is i wouldnt change my son for anything.

I made my bed also and we have managed without him for this long.

Carrigart Exile

Trinity1 wrote:

Yes you have a good point and i am sure it happens everyday.

However in this case, he never said he didnt want to be a Dad and when he was around he was quite a good one.

Admittedly though if you want my thoughts on the subject, i would have had the baby regardless, this however is a whole other issue and irrelevant in my particular case

Ultimately, i would have known from day one that i would have had to accept full responsibilty for the child and prepared myself for single motherhood, then the sticky subject of having to explain to the child when he was older why he didnt know his father. But thats the choice i would have made personally.

My son knows his father and misses him. Thats even harder i think than if he was just a name.

Anyway the money was never really that important even though i needed it!! it was more a case of trying to stop him hurting the child by coming in and out of his life. i told him time and time again if he didnt want to be part of our sons life that it was ok but begged him to keep it regular, even a phone call. He said of course he wanted to be part of his life. That of course was before he moved abroad.

On the flip side of the coin i cannot by any means make him see the child. I have never refused but if i did he could bring me to court and would get visitation so i am really powerless in this as well while he calls the shots in that department.

Its really a messy situation for everyone involved when parents are not together but that the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is my sons welfare and happiness.

Hi Trinity wasn't for a minute suggesting that was your situation. I fail to understand Fathers & Mothers who want no contact with their children when a relationship ends. As you rightly point out some estranged parents go to considerable lengths to get access to children and then there are those where access is offered on a plate and they reject it. Good luck with you and your child's future and I pray 'dad' will get his act together.

Trinity

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Hi Trinity wasn't for a minute suggesting that was your situation. I fail to understand Fathers & Mothers who want no contact with their children when a relationship ends. As you rightly point out some estranged parents go to considerable lengths to get access to children and then there are those where access is offered on a plate and they reject it. Good luck with you and your child's future and I pray 'dad' will get his act together.

Thank you i didnt take your post in that context at all

I think Dad will realise when its too late what hes missing. But by then it will be out of my hands and up to the child if he wants contact. But for now my son is a bit more settled and talking about his dad less and less. But i am here for him anyway.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

No i wouldnt persue it if he had come out straight and said he didnt want the child.

He promised the sun moon and stars - that is the difference. I never tried to force him into anything. He contributed voluntarily i.e. 50 euro per week. That stopped over a year and a half ago i think.

Che cafone. He wasn't forced and he made his choice, so really he should live with the consequences of that choice. I'm really sorry for mainly your child in this, but also for you.

Had he been forced into payments and fatherhood, I might have some sympathy for him, but he wasn't. I suggest you make a complaint via legal channels and set up a maintenance order which he will have already transgressed. If for no other reason than he will be forced never to return to Ireland unless he wants a court order against him - this will be the price of his choice.

However, my original question stands to others here.

Trinity

The Corinthian wrote:

Che cafone. He wasn't forced and he made his choice, so really he should live with the consequences of that choice. I'm really sorry for mainly your child in this, but also for you.

Had he been forced into payments and fatherhood, I might have some sympathy for him, but he wasn't. I suggest you make a complaint via legal channels and set up a maintenance order which he will have already transgressed. If for no other reason than he will be forced never to return to Ireland unless he wants a court order against him - this will be the price of his choice.

However, my original question stands to others here.

Thank you. I will most likely just leave it though tbh. As for him not being able to come back to Ireland, well there are 2 other children involved - those of his new partner, they dont deserve to be involved and if they wanted to come back as a family (they moved abroad together she is from here too) - i wouldnt like to be responsible for hurting those children or affecting their lives etc

I have my peace of mind knowing i did the best for my son. No amount of money can buy him that. he has to put his head on the pillow every night knowing what hes doing to a child. (and i dont mean financially)

The child wasnt planned i will give him that much. But not once did he say he didnt want him, he said the opposite - but his actions told a different story.

Live and let live I say, everything happens for a reason.

RainyDay

The Corinthian wrote:

I assume neither was the mother – yet she has the right to choose whether to keep the child or not, and then to impose what is essentially her lifestyle choice on another individual who had no say in the matter.

So we’re not discussing the consequences of sex, we’re discussing the consequences of what comes after - choosing to keep a child or not. And I’m not even saying that a mother should not have this right alone – only that if she does, she should live with the consequences of this choice without imposing them on those who were not given a say.

The other individual had plenty of say in the matter. He had plenty of opportunity to check out the attitude of the mother to pregnancy/parenthood/abortion before he went waving his lad about without protection. If he didn't bother to do his research first, he really can't come back whinging later.

The nature of the decision to keep a baby or not means that there is no room for compromise. The decision is going to go one way or another - no middle ground. Obviously it makes sense for both parties to discuss this decision, but I can't see any other way but to allow the mother to make the final decision. One person needs to have the ultimate right and responsibility for the decision.

Carrigart Exile

RainyDay wrote:

The other individual had plenty of say in the matter. He had plenty of opportunity to check out the attitude of the mother to pregnancy/parenthood/abortion before he went waving his lad about without protection. If he didn't bother to do his research first, he really can't come back whinging later.

The nature of the decision to keep a baby or not means that there is no room for compromise. The decision is going to go one way or another - no middle ground. Obviously it makes sense for both parties to discuss this decision, but I can't see any other way but to allow the mother to make the final decision. One person needs to have the ultimate right and responsibility for the decision.

I suppose we could argue the lady in question had plenty of opportunity to check out his attitude to being a father before she went waving her girl about without protection. If she didn't do her research first she cannot whine if he scarpers. Sorry OP this is not aimed at you but just in response to the points being made.

With regard to your second point about someone has to have the ultimate right and responsibility for the decision; the point under discussion relates to women having all the rights and expecting the man to pick up the tab for the responsibility. Inherently wrong.

Trinity

Thats ok exile i see your point

There are so many case scenarios though arent there. You have one nights stands resulting in pregnancy, unplanned pregnancies or planned pregnancies, either way its not 100% guaranteed that the couple will stay together.

The guy may not want the child but the girl does not want to have an abortion. You cannot force a man to be a father and you cannot force someone to give up the child growing inside them. The girl has to decide if she can do this alone i.e. raise a child and have him grow up not knowing his father.

Its not always as cut and dried as the woman saying well i am having the baby therefore you have to want it, you have no choice.

Then some guys are genuinely not ready and are devastated at the thoughts of walking away and living their life knowing they have a son or daughter out there that they have never even seen.

At the end of the day bringing a child into the world should be a joint decision and not one to be taken lightly.

If a you have unprotected sex you have to know that there may (if not most likely) be consequences. A lot, if not most, of the responsibility falls on the woman who has to go through pregnancy and then child birth and raise the child or else go have an abortion. Men can quite literally walk away, a lot wouldnt be so heartless but quite a few do!

In contrast there are many wonderful dads out there whatever their age that take the responsibility in their stride and do it well.

So therefore imho it really is the woman who should take responsibility for protection because men can and do walk away.

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

The other individual had plenty of say in the matter. He had plenty of opportunity to check out the attitude of the mother to pregnancy/parenthood/abortion before he went waving his lad about without protection. If he didn't bother to do his research first, he really can't come back whinging later.

Let me get this straight, contraception is entirely the man’s responsibility? Are women too feebleminded I suppose to share any responsibility there? And apparently all unplanned pregnancies are simply due to a man “waving his lad about without protection”?

The nature of the decision to keep a baby or not means that there is no room for compromise. The decision is going to go one way or another - no middle ground. Obviously it makes sense for both parties to discuss this decision, but I can't see any other way but to allow the mother to make the final decision. One person needs to have the ultimate right and responsibility for the decision.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that is being made which is precisely that if one has the final right then they should also have the final responsibility as Carrigart Exile has explained to you. Twice.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

So therefore imho it really is the woman who should take responsibility for protection because men can and do walk away.

I appreciate this, but it's not actually what is really being discussed. The question is if we take as a given that the woman has sole rights to the choice, then can she then morally impose that choice, in the form of seeking maintenance, on the father who has been excluded from the decision.

Trinity

The Corinthian wrote:

I appreciate this, but it's not actually what is really being discussed. The question is if we take as a given that the woman has sole rights to the choice, then can she then morally impose that choice, in the form of seeking maintenance, on the father who has been excluded from the decision.

I understand the question alright but it is with great difficulty that i try to explain myself here!

I am going to contradict myself and say, if prior to unprotected sex, the man knows the woman has the sole rights to choice and whether or not he wants the responsibility he is going to have to live with the consequences if she chooses to give birth. Not a lot of women are going to go have an abortion just because the man tells her to and he should never assume that just because he doesnt want the baby that the woman will go off and 'take care of things'.

Because whether or not it is morally right or wrong to seek maintenance in this case - on legal grounds the man will be held accountable for his part in making the baby. He may have been excluded from the final decision, but he wasnt excluded in the act of unprotected sex. Unless she lies about being on contraception which is another matter entirely although i am sure it does happen.

Morally - i dont know. As stated before in my case and my circumstances, i personally would not persue it if he had told me he didnt want our son.

But i could probably see another womans point if she did persue it as it does take 2 to tango and everyone must be held responsible for their actions. Each case is different. For example:

Someone i know fell pregnant for a man who for years told her he couldnt have children, she had no reason to doubt him. When she told him she was pregnant, He said he didnt want it, but she didnt want to have an abortion. She was in turmoil for weeks, not knowing what to do, til the stress got so bad that she lost the baby anyway.


Anyway slightly gone off topic there and probably only one line relates to your question.

What is your opinion on it Corinthian?

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

I am going to contradict myself and say, if prior to unprotected sex, the man knows the woman has the sole rights to choice and whether or not he wants the responsibility he is going to have to live with the consequences if she chooses to give birth. Not a lot of women are going to go have an abortion just because the man tells her to and he should never assume that just because he doesnt want the baby that the woman will go off and 'take care of things'.

It's not uncommon though that couples will have discussed such an eventuality and at the time agreed that they would not keep it only for the mother to unilaterally change her mind. The consiquences are those that come of the decision to keep (or not) the child, not the sex itself. By trying to suggest that the die was cast from the moment of conception is to deny that the mother had any choice thereafter and abdicates her responsibility for that choice.

Because whether or not it is morally right or wrong to seek maintenance in this case - on legal grounds the man will be held accountable for his part in making the baby. He may have been excluded from the final decision, but he wasnt excluded in the act of unprotected sex. Unless she lies about being on contraception which is another matter entirely although i am sure it does happen.

In a case of a woman lying about contraception, then legally it may affect the amount awarded, but not that the father will have to pay in the first place. As a related point, it is interesting to note that a woman can lie about paternity, receive maintenance and if the father later discovers that he is not the father, it is not considered fraud - even though he may well be out of pocket for tens of thousands of Euro.

While the example of unprotected sex has been repeatedly raised, there are numerous other reasons that would not be as ethically straightforward; contraceptive failure, deceit, or even a change of mind. In all of these cases fathers are financially liable and many mothers pursue them for purely financial reasons.

The only logical conclusion to the argument of "you had sex, so tough" then is abstinance for men. Women need not abstain, of course, because they still can choose to terminate or adopt.

But i could probably see another womans point if she did persue it as it does take 2 to tango and everyone must be held responsible for their actions. Each case is different.

I agree, but the action in question is not the sex or conception, but the choice of what comes after and the father has no part in this. If a woman to keeps her child, then this is a choice as there are other options open to her - it is this choice and not the sex (or decision to go on a date, or the decision to ask for a phone number) that came before it that ultimately decides things.

What is your opinion on it Corinthian?

If we accept the premise that the woman has sole rights to decide on the fate of the child, then ultimately she must bare the sole responsibility for this fate, unless the father elects to share that burden. If both are part of that choice, then natrually the burden is one that should be shared because both have freely chosen to do so.

Otherwise you're effectively choosing a lifestyle choice (and raising a child is most definitely a choice that will affect your lifestyle) and indenturing someone to part fund it for you. It's greed with a baby picture glued to the cover.

In short, if you have the right to choose, you should deal with consequences of that choice without trying to pass the buck. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Nevyn

It is not funding the lifestyle of the mother but helping to provide for the offspring.

Many men have not bothered with children they did not want and find ways to bow out of the childs life, this has always happens and indeed contunues to happen and most likely will do until we have better contraception solutions to unexpected pregnacies.

While standard sexual intercourse between hertosexual couples is gratifing it
is still as far as our drives to reproduce is concerned for begetting children.

While surpising or trying to trap a person into being a parent is wrong and not honourible imho ignorig the fact that a child has been created ( despite the circumstances of it's conception and birth and the relationship with the other parent ) is just as wrong.

Until we have 100% contraception for both gender and a huge improvement in sexual education in this country children will be not a matter of lifestyle choice but a fact of life and hetrosexual couplings.

This is straying more into a topic for humanities tbh.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

It is not funding the lifestyle of the mother but helping to provide for the offspring.

Choosing to be a parent is a choice and one that irrevocably will change that parent's life and how they live it. If they need financial assistance to do this, then in turn it is funding this choice, no matter how you dress it up.

Many men have not bothered with children they did not want and find ways to bow out of the childs life

Legally there are very few ways of doing this without skipping the country or remaining too poor to afford maintenance, so if a mother is really determined (and the father is a good mark for the money) not really.

While standard sexual intercourse between hertosexual couples is gratifying it is still as far as our drives to reproduce is concerned for begetting children.

While surprising or trying to trap a person into being a parent is wrong and not honourable imho ignorig the fact that a child has been created ( despite the circumstances of it's conception and birth and the relationship with the other parent ) is just as wrong.

So you oppose either termination or adoption as alternatives?

You've put forward two arguments on how it's all about reproduction and the good of the child, yet, unless you then accept the rights of the child and one's duty to reproduction supersede those of the individual - you're really just trying to put forward a double standard that you feel men should abide by and women should not.

Seriously it's actually bizarre how some people can talk about "a woman's right to choose" and then cry "won't someone think of the children" whenever it suits them.

This is straying more into a topic for humanities tbh.

True, but the main reason I brought it up here was I was curious to see if mothers who have done this (chased up fathers who did not want to be fathers) would reply and explain how this was morally justifiable.

So far no one seems to have been able to explain, for example, how it makes sense for someone to have all the choices and then refuse to shoulder the full burden of those choices. Either that choice is shared or you have to accept their consequences.

Trinity

The Corinthian wrote:

Choosing to be a parent is a choice and one that irrevocably will change that parent's life and how they live it. If they need financial assistance to do this, then in turn it is funding this choice, no matter how you dress it up.

Legally there are very few ways of doing this without skipping the country or remaining too poor to afford maintenance, so if a mother is really determined (and the father is a good mark for the money) not really.

So you oppose either termination or adoption as alternatives?

You've put forward two arguments on how it's all about reproduction and the good of the child, yet, unless you then accept the rights of the child and one's duty to reproduction supersede those of the individual - you're really just trying to put forward a double standard that you feel men should abide by and women should not.

Seriously it's actually bizarre how some people can talk about "a woman's right to choose" and then cry "won't someone think of the children" whenever it suits them.

True, but the main reason I brought it up here was I was curious to see if mothers who have done this (chased up fathers who did not want to be fathers) would reply and explain how this was morally justifiable.

So far no one seems to have been able to explain, for example, how it makes sense for someone to have all the choices and then refuse to shoulder the full burden of those choices. Either that choice is shared or you have to accept their consequences.

The thread is titled claiming maintenance from abroad, I imagine if you started a fresh one with a more fitting title to what it has spiralled into you, you may get more replies.

Its possible that there are no women on boards who have done this, and thats why you havent had many replies. i know of more women who leave the guys off and dont chase for maintenance. i know of none in the scenario you describe.

I actually know of only one who went to court but like that - the father had never said he didnt want the child. He just didnt bother his hole contributing to the childs food, clothes, anything at all, after they broke up. It took her a year to get a lousy 20 quid a week.

I would just also like to re-iterate for people skimming through the posts - I am not one of these women. My circumstances were different and apart from that - I have decided not to chase for maintenance. hes not worth the hassle if he cant be arsed wondering if his child is alive or dead.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

The thread is titled claiming maintenance from abroad, I imagine if you started a fresh one with a more fitting title to what it has spiralled into you, you may get more replies.

Yes, hence my disclaimer and suggestion that it could be split off into a separate discussion. Given this I would thing it more appropriate in this forum than Humanities.

Its possible that there are no women on boards who have done this, and thats why you havent had many replies. i know of more women who leave the guys off and dont chase for maintenance. i know of none in the scenario you describe.

I know of two, so it does occur and more often than you would think, possibly because it’s not openly admitted.

I actually know of only one who went to court but like that - the father had never said he didnt want the child.

In fairness that’s not the same as him saying he wanted it, especially if saying anything at all would make little difference to his situation.

If a man told that he can be a father and pay or not be a father and still pay, there’s not much he can really say to that. It’s been made perfectly clear that his wishes are an afterthought at best. What does the mother want? To refuse to give the father a real choice and then expect him to play along? Seriously.

If mothers genuinely want the father to be involved and not coerced, then they should give them the choice, not some “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” scenario. Otherwise at best it will engender only resentment and drive a father who may genuinely be interested in being one away – after all, if this is how she wants to share responsibilities for the next few decades, who would want to put themselves through that kind of crap?

I would just also like to re-iterate for people skimming through the posts - I am not one of these women.

Anyone who’s taken the time to read the thread would realise and appreciate that you are in a far different situation.

RainyDay

The Corinthian wrote:

Let me get this straight, contraception is entirely the man’s responsibility? Are women too feebleminded I suppose to share any responsibility there? And apparently all unplanned pregnancies are simply due to a man “waving his lad about without protection”?

I never said anything about who is responsible. I simply pointed out that the guy had plenty of opportunity check things out before hand, or just wear a condom (which the VHI reckons are almost 100% effective), if he was genuinely concerned about scheming slappers stealing his sperm in order to get a maintenance payment out of him.

The Corinthian wrote:

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that is being made which is precisely that if one has the final right then they should also have the final responsibility as Carrigart Exile has explained to you. Twice.

To allow prospective fathers to evade their responsibilities simply by saying 'I never wanted the keep the bloody thing' would create a charter for deadbeat dads and punish the children. Nice direction for society...

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

I never said anything about who is responsible. I simply pointed out that the guy had plenty of opportunity check things out before hand, or just wear a condom (which the VHI reckons are almost 100% effective), if he was genuinely concerned about scheming slappers stealing his sperm in order to get a maintenance payment out of him.

I'd ask you again then if you think that contraception is entirely the man’s responsibility? Or if women too feebleminded I suppose to share any responsibility there? Not to mention your assumption that all unplanned pregnancies are simply due to a man “waving his lad about without protection”?

Feel free to address these flaws in your argument before simply repeating it again.

To allow prospective fathers to evade their responsibilities simply by saying 'I never wanted the keep the bloody thing' would create a charter for deadbeat dads and punish the children. Nice direction for society...

But you can see, thread after thread after thread even here that that is simply not the case with disenfranchised fathers who do want to be involved being shut out. Is this another point you'd like to ignore so you can rant some more?

RainyDay

The Corinthian wrote:

I'd ask you again then if you think that contraception is entirely the man’s responsibility? Or if women too feebleminded I suppose to share any responsibility there?

You can (and presumably will) keep asking the question ad nauseum, but I'm not going to get into that different topic on this thread. Responsibility for contraception is a very different question to responsibility for providing for a child. It's just a bit too important of an issue to allow easy cop-outs like 'it was all her fault'.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not to mention your assumption that all unplanned pregnancies are simply due to a man “waving his lad about without protection”?

How many unplanned pregnancies would occur if the guy wasn't 'waving his lad about without protection'?

The Corinthian wrote:

But you can see, thread after thread after thread even here that that is simply not the case with disenfranchised fathers who do want to be involved being shut out. Is this another point you'd like to ignore so you can rant some more?

Again, that's a different issue. An important issue of course, but not the one under discussion here. Feel free to open other threads, but it might help move this discussion forward somewhat if we can focus on this one issue. Also, I didn't realise that quantity of threads on boards.ie was now taken as a measure of what happens in the real world - silly me.....

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

You can (and presumably will) keep asking the question ad nauseum, but I'm not going to get into that different topic on this thread. Responsibility for contraception is a very different question to responsibility for providing for a child. It's just a bit too important of an issue to allow easy cop-outs like 'it was all her fault'.

If responsibility for contraception is a very different question to responsibility for providing for a child, then why are you bringing it up in relation to why a father should be coerced into parental responsibility against his will?

If it is related as you originally claimed, then you should address how your straw man example does not hold. If not, as you are now claiming, why did you bring it up in the first place?

How many unplanned pregnancies would occur if the guy wasn't 'waving his lad about without protection'?

What kind of answer is that? Because some – no, let’s say most to keep you happy – unplanned pregnancies are down to unprotected sex, you are happy to treat them all in the same light? It’s an utterly asinine argument.

Again, that's a different issue. An important issue of course, but not the one under discussion here. Feel free to open other threads, but it might help move this discussion forward somewhat if we can focus on this one issue. Also, I didn't realise that quantity of threads on boards.ie was now taken as a measure of what happens in the real world - silly me.....

I took the discussion in this direction to begin with, so you’ll forgive me if I have a better idea of what’s under discussion here. After all, you’re the one who’s been corrected on what’s being discussed by more than one poster here, not me.

You’ve repeatedly come out with pretty offensive and unsubstantiated generalisations and have yet to actually back any of them up with a coherent argument. If you really want to engage in discussion, do so and argue for or against the points raised. Please don’t rant and then expect to be taken seriously.

RainyDay

I didn't bring up the issue of contraception. I simply challenged your use of the term 'involuntary' and pointed out the obvious reality of the situation - that the father's decision to have unprotected sex was entirely voluntary. It is a little bit sad if that reality offends you, but there you go.

Thanks for all your helpful advice on posting style. I'll give your feedback all the attention it deserves.

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

I didn't bring up the issue of contraception. I simply challenged your use of the term 'involuntary' and pointed out the obvious reality of the situation - that the father's decision to have unprotected sex was entirely voluntary. It is a little bit sad if that reality offends you, but there you go.

Actually you specifically referred to having sex without protection, so you're being less that honest here. You generalized that men were responsible because of this ignoring the numerous other scenarios that commonly also occur and also ignored the fact that women are also equally responsible for sex too. That was offensive - certainly to men, but to a great degree to women as it presupposes that they are passive or incompetent in the act.

What you have repeatedly missed out on though, or simply ignored, is the argument that conception does not mean that a woman will keep and raise the child. Options other than that exist and it is the choice between these options that finally decides matters - a choice that men often have no input to, yet are expected to support. The question is not one of responsibility for creating the child, but responsibility for the choice of what to do with it after it is created.

Thanks for all your helpful advice on posting style. I'll give your feedback all the attention it deserves.

If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy in a self-serving and self righteous sort of way, feel free. Who am I to stop your self-deception?

RainyDay

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually you specifically referred to having sex without protection, so you're being less that honest here. You generalized that men were responsible because of this ignoring the numerous other scenarios that commonly also occur and also ignored the fact that women are also equally responsible for sex too. That was offensive - certainly to men, but to a great degree to women as it presupposes that they are passive or incompetent in the act.

What you have repeatedly missed out on though, or simply ignored, is the argument that conception does not mean that a woman will keep and raise the child. Options other than that exist and it is the choice between these options that finally decides matters - a choice that men often have no input to, yet are expected to support. The question is not one of responsibility for creating the child, but responsibility for the choice of what to do with it after it is created.

So you're attacking me for what I didn't say, rather than what I did say? Very constructive. Anyway, this is getting boring now, and I'm sure other readers gave up long ago. I think I'll join them.

The Corinthian

RainyDay wrote:

So you're attacking me for what I didn't say, rather than what I did say?

Indeed. You never mentioned contraception once :rolleyes:

RainyDay wrote:

The other individual had plenty of say in the matter. He had plenty of opportunity to check out the attitude of the mother to pregnancy/parenthood/abortion before he went waving his lad about without protection.

Hint: If you're going to lie, try not to do so when the evidence is on the same page as your denial.

Very constructive. Anyway, this is getting boring now, and I'm sure other readers gave up long ago. I think I'll join them.

If it's easier than facing up to an argument, be my guest. As I pointed out, who am I to stop your self-deception?