Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mums 4 Justice
Options
Comments
-
As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.I know the law is a crock of shíte and it cuts both ways with women being left to do the parenting when mean walk, so it's not roses on the other side of the fence, the law hurts parents male and female and more importantly the children.
Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?The law and system should be imho child centred and not about a war between genders or parents.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.
It is unfair to both more unfair to men and it goes back to the notion that if a man really wants to acknowledge a child as his he will marry the mother, that needs to change.The Corinthian wrote: »Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?
Children become children and get rights as children when they are born.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.
I'm sorry but thats total rubbish.
The law is more biased towards the mother in terms of rights to the child. But when it comes to the mother wanting the father to be involved and responsible for the child, then the odds are stacked against them.
My daughter has a father. I have no right to access his details (privacy laws) and therefore cannot chase him for maintenance.
Maintenance orders are a joke from what I understand and the long and short of it is that while fathers who WANT rights to their child are deprived, mothers who want the father involved haven't a leg to stand on.
To call the plight of thousands of women who have been left to raise their children 100% alone a "bit rich" is as insulting as what the mothers in this article have done.0 -
It is not simply more unfair - the point is that there is such a gap in injustice that it comes close to laughable to compare the relative positions.It is unfair to both more unfair to men and it goes back to the notion that if a man really wants to acknowledge a child as his he will marry the mother, that needs to change.
Not really true, because the woman is charged as the sole and unquestioned interpreter of these rights. A child may be better off in an adoptive family or in the custody of the father, for example. A woman may also put a child up for adoption regardless of whether it is in the child's best interests - the fact that adoptions have decreased in inverse proportion to the increase of abortions would tend to point to this.Children become children and get rights as children when they are born.
All before we consider the morality of a 'get out parenthood option' or that only one gender is afforded it.
Don't make me laugh - this is nowhere near to the the injustice faced by men.I'm sorry but thats total rubbish.
The law is more biased towards the mother in terms of rights to the child. But when it comes to the mother wanting the father to be involved and responsible for the child, then the odds are stacked against them.
It begins with the assumption that the woman should have custody, not to mention automatic guardianship. Even were the man to have the latter (or win it in court), it offers very little and the reforms that are presently being mooted in this area further erode the rights of a guardianship.
To add insult, woman cannot even lose guardianship - she could abandon her child to the father, abuse or harm the child and unless the child is formally adopted, she remains a legal guardian. An unmarried father, instead needs to prove his worth as a parent before being afford this recognition and can always lose it.
Then there is financial responsibility. There are laws in place that (up until recently and I believe they are again) were enforced to the point of incarceration on a regular basis. The few laws afforded towards a, typically male, non-custodial parent have almost never been enforced.
The only thing that is not enforced is active involvement - and that is not enforced for women either, the only difference is that when a woman has a child she wants no active involvement with she puts them up for adoption. Assuming of course, she has not had an abortion first.
Of course you can chase him for maintenance and he has to demonstrate earnings and expenditure in court.My daughter has a father. I have no right to access his details (privacy laws) and therefore cannot chase him for maintenance.
However there are limits to how far this should be pressed for anyone. Should he have a right to see that his money is going only on his child, that you account for all of it? That he can see all your financial assets? If not, you can hardly demand such audits of him.
You'll really have to explain what you mean by this as you are discussing maintenance orders and in the same breath involvement - financial involvement appears to be you mean, yes?Maintenance orders are a joke from what I understand and the long and short of it is that while fathers who WANT rights to their child are deprived, mothers who want the father involved haven't a leg to stand on.
No one is suggesting that single mothers have it easy, but in terms of rights and law they have an obscene imbalance in their favour. To compare the disadvantages that they have against those faced by men is utterly laughable.To call the plight of thousands of women who have been left to raise their children 100% alone a "bit rich" is as insulting as what the mothers in this article have done.0 -
In terms of the law men have the shítty end of the stick.
In terms of being left to rear the child alone women have the shítty end of the stick
and the children suffer in either case.
Both situations have parents who want fathers to be invovled unfortunately, the other parent doesn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
We are discussing law and rights though, inspired by a group - 'Mums 4 Justice' - that feels they are hard done by in this regard. And it is this comparison that I find both ridiculous and offensive.In terms of the law men have the shítty end of the stick.
If women did not almost automatically get custody, they would share this stick with men, so it's difficult to sympathize with a disadvantage largely predicated on an injustice.In terms of being left to rear the child alone women have the shítty end of the stick0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »We are discussing law and rights though, inspired by a group - 'Mums 4 Justice' - that feels they are hard done by in this regard. And it is this comparison that I find both ridiculous and offensive.
If women did not almost automatically get custody, they would share this stick with men, so it's difficult to sympathize with a disadvantage largely predicated on an injustice.
I think the injustice cuts 3 ways, on both parents and the children.
I can understand either side esp when it's very personal not being able to see the flip side and have sympathy, but either way there are children being denied
knowing their fathers.0 -
Unfortunately that is sometimes inevitable, just as many adopted children grow up never knowing their biological parents. Or some never get born. Or they grow up with parents that should never have been parents to anyone.I can understand either side esp when it's very personal not being able to see the flip side and have sympathy, but either way there are children being denied knowing their fathers.
But that is not the discussion we're having here.0 -
If you were left to raise a child 100% alone, with no financial help or involvement from your partner you may feel differently about that gap you speak of. It's hardly laughable.The Corinthian wrote: »It is not simply more unfair - the point is that there is such a gap in injustice that it comes close to laughable to compare the relative positions.
No I can't. He left, moved away and left me no forwarding details. I had his old places of employment, college details etc but these were no good to me. Privacy laws prevented me finding him. I have never recieved maintenance. He has never seen his child who is now 7. I told him I was pregnant, he ran and that was that. i had no rights in this case. And it's not uncommon.Of course you can chase him for maintenance and he has to demonstrate earnings and expenditure in court.
No I mean any involvement. A father cannot be forced to take responsibility. it is the flip side of the argument you present. Men struggle to get rights when they want them but on the other hand it makes it much easier for them to walk away and much harder for the woman to get them to be involved in any way.You'll really have to explain what you mean by this as you are discussing maintenance orders and in the same breath involvement - financial involvement appears to be you mean, yes?No one is suggesting that single mothers have it easy, but in terms of rights and law they have an obscene imbalance in their favour. To compare the disadvantages that they have against those faced by men is utterly laughable.
I think that if you are only looking at it from one side then yes, it's laughable. However if you look at both sides, it's far from anything to laugh at.
You're looking at it from the side of a father who wants rights but cannot get them/has to fight for them. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a woman who was literally left holding and raising a baby because those rights you speak of, resulted in my daughters father being able to walk away and never be seen again.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?
The woman has the right to choose up to a cut off point. After that point the foetus has some rights. But in terms of parental rights the rights of the child apply from birth.
Abortion is a totally separate issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is a seperate issue and one more suited to humanities.0
-
The law is an ass as far as I'm concerned when it comes to fathers who walk away. I speak from experience. I have an 8yr old who's father left when I was pregnant. He lives locally and now has 2 children in a new relationship.
My son wants to know his dad. He wants to meet him. To date, I've been able to be as truthful as possible, without actually telling him that his dad lives 2 miles away and chose to raise his other children, and not him.
What about the rights of my child?
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child/Article 7/ States:
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
Constantly human rights organisations campaign for the rights of the child stating that children have equal rights to adults.
What about the fact that my child has the right to know this man who is his father?
And before anyone says it, NO, I obviously wouldn't want this man involved in my sons life if he doesn't want to be, but I'm trying to keep that side of it out of my argument.
My child has rights and one of them is to know his father.
But because his father decided to walk, he is growing up with no father.
And there are many, many children like my son.0 -
It can sometimes feel that while the fathers may not have many legal rights, they do tend to get more sympathy. The fathers4jutice get a fair amount of press and also the media tends to usually portray a better image of single fathers. If you've a man whose wife deserts him and he's left with the kids he gets a damn sight more "poor him" than a woman in the same boat.
Not true completely, single fathers often have a terrible name, I mean when I was young I just refused to go out with a guy who had a kid, I just assumed he had upped and left, it was the general consensus of young girls.
Re the man whose wife leaves him with the kids, well that was my dad, and yes he earned a huge amount of respect for it and fair dues to him, he was of an age where men went to work and women stayed at home with the kids, he didnt cook, he didnt to laundry, he got up at 3am and sometimes worked 3 jobs. he adjusted very very well to living alone with 3 teenagers and a young child. And also, the amount of women wanting to go on dates with him, we used to find it funny!
I agree the women for justice are going about it the wrong way and the article basically makes them appear to be bitter fools.0 -
No, but to suggest that the injustice and inequality in this area suffered by women is the same or even comparable to that suffered by men is.If you were left to raise a child 100% alone, with no financial help or involvement from your partner you may feel differently about that gap you speak of. It's hardly laughable.
TBH, I'd prefer not to get into personal examples as they are seldom unbiased is there is only one party present to recount them.No I can't. He left, moved away and left me no forwarding details. I had his old places of employment, college details etc but these were no good to me. Privacy laws prevented me finding him. I have never recieved maintenance. He has never seen his child who is now 7. I told him I was pregnant, he ran and that was that. i had no rights in this case. And it's not uncommon.
Yet it is much easier legally for a woman to walk away, even without an abortion, precisely because of this inequality of rights.No I mean any involvement. A father cannot be forced to take responsibility. it is the flip side of the argument you present. Men struggle to get rights when they want them but on the other hand it makes it much easier for them to walk away and much harder for the woman to get them to be involved in any way.
No if you look at the legal rights afforded to both men and women you can objectively say that it is laughable to suggest that the deficiencies are comparable.I think that if you are only looking at it from one side then yes, it's laughable.
Seriously, list out where the system is unjust against the mother and for the father and chances are I will be able to give you two examples for every one of yours. Maybe three.
That is why it is so offensive.
Very convenient and also not terribly convincing.The woman has the right to choose up to a cut off point. After that point the foetus has some rights. But in terms of parental rights the rights of the child apply from birth.
Abortion is a totally separate issue.
Lets accept for a moment that at the time when a termination can occur, we are not talking about a child.
So, you are suggesting that a woman may unilaterally make a gigantic, life-changing decision for the man and he must share the cost of her unilateral decision. If it is a child at this stage, I can understand why there is no moral choice but to go to term, but it's not.
As you said yourself, a "woman has the right to choose" - fine, but then should she not deal with the price of that choice?
Even once born the mother may choose to put the child up for adoption. If unmarried, she has no obligation to even tell the father, let alone seek his permission.
Overall, you cannot morally claim rights without responsibilities and what you are essentially suggesting is that a woman can have all of the former without paying the price of the latter.
Now, I am not suggesting that women should not have the right to choose or men should - that would be a discussion for a different forum. However, I believe that it is this 'cake and eat' it sense of entitlement to rights - legitimized by a grotesque legal system - that some mothers have that blinds them to the lack of rights that fathers have in return and thus will often end up making any form of cooperative parenting impossible even when the father wants to be there.0 -
Well, coming at it from a different perspective, I disagree.The Corinthian wrote: »No, but to suggest that the injustice and inequality in this area suffered by women is the same or even comparable to that suffered by men is.
I think it is equally difficult to fight for the rights to see your child as it is to bring up a child 100% alone. It might be apples and oranges in terms of similarities, but I think saying that women complaining about the lack of interest and support from the fathers of their children is not laughable and imo, you are as bad as the women mentioned in the OP for dismissing this reality.TBH, I'd prefer not to get into personal examples as they are seldom unbiased is there is only one party present to recount them.
The same can be applied to any reference though. The women that stop access may have a good reason. We are currently only hearing one side from the fathers who are denied access.Yet it is much easier legally for a woman to walk away, even without an abortion, precisely because of this inequality of rights.
I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.Seriously, list out where the system is unjust against the mother and for the father and chances are I will be able to give you two examples for every one of yours. Maybe three.
I'm sure you can but the point remains that while the fathers rights groups may have reason to be vocal, it doesn't mean the women who are left without any support from the fathers who aren't interested, do not have the right to protest about the problems with maintenance, exs getting access and not showing up etc etc.That is why it is so offensive.
I think you are easily offended to be honest.Very convenient and also not terribly convincing.
Not convenient at all. Just stating the way things are. A person has no rights as a parent until their child is born.
I think the man made the decision for himself by engaging in sexual intercourse. Its just biology that the woman gets to choose whether to progress with the pregnancy.Lets accept for a moment that at the time when a termination can occur, we are not talking about a child.
So, you are suggesting that a woman may unilaterally make a gigantic, life-changing decision for the man and he must share the cost of her unilateral decision. If it is a child at this stage, I can understand why there is no moral choice but to go to term, but it's not.
When men can get pregnant then it will be their choice also.
And should the man not deal with it also?As you said yourself, a "woman has the right to choose" - fine, but then should she not deal with the price of that choice?
What price are you talking about? She does deal with it, either by choosing abortion, adoption or keeping the child.Overall, you cannot morally claim rights without responsibilities and what you are essentially suggesting is that a woman can have all of the former without paying the price of the latter.
Where on earth did I say that?
I believe that it is the mothers choice as to what to do with the pregnancy. Thats just biology. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a woman having to be pregnant is unfair. But it's a ridiculous argument. Men cannot have babies and there is no point in debating the fairness of that.
Once the child is born and kept, then both parents should be equally responsible for it. Access, maintenance, legal rights.... all of it.
I've never slated the fathers4justice agenda, I actually said in my first post that the women were wrong to slate them. However I find your attitude towards the plight of women left to parent alone, offensive and very narrow minded.
I can see that the system is unfair. To both men and women. In different measures and in different areas. But I wouldn't deem either point of view as "laughable". There is nothing funny about being abandoned to raise a child alone. It's as hard as trying to fight for the right to see the child, just a different challenge.However, I believe that it is this 'cake and eat' it sense of entitlement to rights - legitimized by a grotesque legal system - that some mothers have that blinds them to the lack of rights that fathers have in return and thus will often end up making any form of cooperative parenting impossible even when the father wants to be there.
Have my cake and eat it?
Because I want my daughters father to be involved, to do right by his child and yes, to contribute financially to her upbringing?
I can assure you if I wanted my cake and to eat it, I would not have chosen to get pregnant by a man who would abscond, leaving me to raise my child alone.
Do i think fathers should have more rights? Yes.
Do I think fathers who leave and never contribute should be severly punished by the system? Yes.
Do I think both parties should have a right to campaign for that? Absolutely.0 -
I don't believe that is true, based on experience! My mother was paid maintenance for the day or two we'd spend with her every week! My dad used to call it babysitting money, he paid all school fees, mortgage and all bills, clothes, treats, everything and when we went to mams he paid for that too, court ordered! A second occasion in court actually made him pay more! He also had to give 50% of the value of the house at the time of seperation too.I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.
aintenance, legal rights.... all of it.
.
It could have changed since then but maintenance payments did not stop until 5 yrs ago when my brother reached 18!0 -
That's not what I said. It is one thing to complain it is another thing to claim that both are suffering comparable injustice as this group does.I think saying that women complaining about the lack of interest and support from the fathers of their children is not laughable and imo, you are as bad as the women mentioned in the OP for dismissing this reality.
And as I pointed out even when they do not, a judge tells them they do not and applies a court order, they may ignore it with little consequence.The same can be applied to any reference though. The women that stop access may have a good reason.
A woman rarely needs to if she does not want to be an unmarried mother. She can put up a child for adoption unilaterally. No maintenance then. Assuming it got out of the womb alive, that is.I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.
Again, I have never said this - see above.I'm sure you can but the point remains that while the fathers rights groups may have reason to be vocal, it doesn't mean the women who are left without any support from the fathers who aren't interested, do not have the right to protest about the problems with maintenance, exs getting access and not showing up etc etc.
It is convenient for the person who decides if they ever get that far.Not convenient at all. Just stating the way things are. A person has no rights as a parent until their child is born.
This is sexist crap and exactly the same type of tripe that used to be used against women who "got into trouble" 60 years ago.I think the man made the decision for himself by engaging in sexual intercourse. Its just biology that the woman gets to choose whether to progress with the pregnancy.
When men can get pregnant then it will be their choice also.
Actually, deals with it, but expects others to share the price of her unilateral choice.What price are you talking about? She does deal with it, either by choosing abortion, adoption or keeping the child.
Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a man having to be a father because someone else has made a lifestyle choice for herself is pretty unfair too.Where on earth did I say that?
I believe that it is the mothers choice as to what to do with the pregnancy. Thats just biology. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a woman having to be pregnant is unfair. But it's a ridiculous argument. Men cannot have babies and there is no point in debating the fairness of that.
I won't get into the whole male abortion discussion (again as this is the wrong forum) but I would say that you cannot force someone to be a father. And even if they are willing, you cannot force them to be a father according to your dictate either. You can try, but you'll likely end up on your own before long.Once the child is born and kept, then both parents should be equally responsible for it. Access, maintenance, legal rights.... all of it.
No, and perhaps my indignation gave the wrong impression. Single mothers do not have an easy time of it at all. However, to suggest that men and women suffer similar levels of injustice is just WRONG.I've never slated the fathers4justice agenda, I actually said in my first post that the women were wrong to slate them. However I find your attitude towards the plight of women left to parent alone, offensive and very narrow minded.
Again, I prefer not to discuss your case.I can assure you if I wanted my cake and to eat it, I would not have chosen to get pregnant by a man who would abscond, leaving me to raise my child alone.0 -
Thats an opinion you are entitled to hold. And I think that being the parent who deals with the child and the emotional problems they face bt either being ignored or messed around, is a major deal. I have spent many hours consoling my daughter about her absent father and yes, I get it, you don't want to discuss personal cases. But at the end of the day, both women and men whose children are being messed around are seeing their children hurt and I think that gives them all equal footing when it comes to complaining about the injustices done to their children.The Corinthian wrote: »That's not what I said. It is one thing to complain it is another thing to claim that both are suffering comparable injustice as this group does.
Pretty much the same as men so. Maintenance orders are rarely enforced. On either men or women. Access is not forced. So it's equal rights across the board there.And as I pointed out even when they do not, a judge tells them they do not and applies a court order, they may ignore it with little consequence.
We are not really discussing women who choose not to have or raise the children though. The article is about women who have been left holding the baby while the father disappears without paying maintenance or having regular access and their campaign.A woman rarely needs to if she does not want to be an unmarried mother. She can put up a child for adoption unilaterally. No maintenance then. Assuming it got out of the womb alive, that is.
As is the womans right. That will not change.It is convenient for the person who decides if they ever get that far.
No its not. it's the same logic that was used when a father objected to his ex using their frozen embryos. The embryos were not living in the true sense of the word. He was granted his rights not to have them implanted and not to have a child he did not want. A mother has the right to choose in the majority of cases as she is the one who is pregnant. But at the end of the day, men have sex, that is the time at which they make their choice. It's never going to change that a woman has control over her body if/when she gets pregnant. Rather than lamenting that, men should double or treble the protection they use when having sex to ensure it is a decision that will never be made for them.This is sexist crap and exactly the same type of tripe that used to be used against women who "got into trouble" 60 years ago.Actually, deals with it, but expects others to share the price of her unilateral choice.
Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a man having to be a father because someone else has made a lifestyle choice for herself is pretty unfair too.
Ok, so you basically want men who want a baby to have equal rights to it. But those that don't to be able to walk away if the woman decides to keep it? And she should just put up with it because she made the choice not to abort and to proceed with the pregnancy and keep the child? And you say that these women want their cake and to eat it? Double standards.No, and perhaps my indignation gave the wrong impression. Single mothers do not have an easy time of it at all. However, to suggest that men and women suffer similar levels of injustice is just WRONG.
In your opinion. But the children of both suffer equally. Yes the legal system is more biased in terms of the mother getting the rights to the child. But thats only a bad thing for the man if he wants the child. If he doesn't he can walk, and easily.
The children of both are the ones who are suffering. Equally. Therefore yes, the plight of women left holding the babies are on as equal a footing as those men campaigning for justice.0 -
Yes, because especially in cases of family law you tend to get three sides to any story - his, hers and the truth.yes, I get it, you don't want to discuss personal cases.
Actually, that is untrue and while it can be difficult to sometimes get them enforced they certainly are. There has been a temporary situation whereby all bench warrants have been frozen due to a case of non-payment of debts by a woman forcing a review of the law, but I believe this has subsequently been resolved.Pretty much the same as men so. Maintenance orders are rarely enforced.
Meanwhile while orders against mothers almost never are. I only say almost because I believe that there may have be one single case where this may have happened.
So, again, attempting to equate the two is laughable.
Actually we are discussing a comparison between men seeking justice versus women seeking justice - and comparing how the system acts against each is central to this.We are not really discussing women who choose not to have or raise the children though. The article is about women who have been left holding the baby while the father disappears without paying maintenance or having regular access and their campaign.
Because you say so? Platitudes aside, rights are only what society decides them to be and it often changes its mind. This is why the 'this is how things are' argument was rejected by women a century ago and why increasingly men are rejecting the same argument leveled against them.As is the womans right. That will not change.
You'll find that what you are doing has nothing to do with frozen embryos, but simply reiterating a moral argument that used to be used against women 'in trouble' 60 years ago, that they got themselves into this mess, had no one else to blame and had no options open to them.No its not. it's the same logic that was used when a father objected to his ex using their frozen embryos.
Funny how the wheel turns.
Not really because those are exactly the choices a woman has.Ok, so you basically want men who want a baby to have equal rights to it. But those that don't to be able to walk away if the woman decides to keep it? And she should just put up with it because she made the choice not to abort and to proceed with the pregnancy and keep the child? And you say that these women want their cake and to eat it? Double standards.
You've already accepted that a woman has the option not to become a parent, an option that is actually based upon a decision to keep a child after birth or not. If you allow only one to have the option, then they have a 'cake and eat it' mentality because they want all of the choice but not all of the responsibility. Meanwhile men have no choice but must share in the responsibility of anothers choice.
Not having your 'cake and eat it' means either that you share both choice and responsibility or if you do not want to share the choice you have to accept full responsibility. This is not to say that men should walk away scott free as they are still ultimately equally responsible for the pregnancy or even that they should be able to 'force' a woman to either abort or go to term. The whole male abortion topic is a debate it itself, better suited to Humanities - all I am pointing out is the inequality that exists on several levels, of which this is one, against men.
No he can't. If he goes into hiding, potentially changes his name and looks over his shoulder for the rest of his life he can. Otherwise, while sometimes complex, he can be found and held legally accountable for the rest of his life - even his estate can be challenged when he dies.In your opinion. But the children of both suffer equally. Yes the legal system is more biased in terms of the mother getting the rights to the child. But thats only a bad thing for the man if he wants the child. If he doesn't he can walk, and easily.
That is the law - all that is lacking is enforcement - and that only in some cases. Men do not even have the law, let alone enforcement of it and this is the fundamental difference.
You'll forgive me if I don't take seriously an argument that attempts to use children (the mother by proxy in practical legal terms) as a device when they are only ball of cells or easily adopted off when it is not convenient otherwise.The children of both are the ones who are suffering. Equally. Therefore yes, the plight of women left holding the babies are on an equal footing as those men campaigning for justice.
I also think that with the move to water down guardianship rights and make custody the means by which we assign rights to our children - thus removing even the last vestiges of paternal rights in a nation that still awards custody to only women almost automatically - the situation will get worse.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »You'll forgive me if I don't take seriously an argument that attempts to use children (the mother by proxy in practical legal terms) as a device when they are only ball of cells or easily adopted off when it is not convenient otherwise.
Well then I will no longer waste my time discussing this.
Although this statement is a bit disjointed I think what you are trying to say is that because women have the right to decide to abort or adopt, you cannot take an argument about the damage done by absent/disruptive parents to children who are not aborted or adopted?
In that case I've said all I have to say because you aren't willing to see things from the other side at all really.
:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
As you wish, but you will have to admit that it is difficult to take seriously anyone who will play either the "woman's right to choose" or "won't someone think of the children" card based only upon what suits her own choices.In that case I've said all I have to say because you aren't willing to see things from the other side at all really. :rolleyes:0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »As you wish, but you will have to admit that it is difficult to take seriously anyone who will play either the "woman's right to choose" or "won't someone think of the children" card based only upon what suits her own choices.
Nope, not at all.
They are totally separate issues as far as I am concerned.
One is about a woman who chooses not to have/raise a child.
The other is about a woman who faces her responsibility if you will, and is left dealing with the long term impact on her child of an absent parent.
It's like someone saying that no fathers should have a right to complain about being denied access when so many men walk away.
It makes no sense at all.0 -
Which as I said is very convinent.They are totally separate issues as far as I am concerned.
Or chooses not to face her responsibility.One is about a woman who chooses not to have/raise a child.
Or chooses to have/raise a child and is left dealing with the long term impact on her child of her decision.The other is about a woman who faces her responsibility if you will, and is left dealing with the long term impact on her child of an absent parent.
Both those statements and the alternative interpretations I've given amount to the same thing in the end.
Actually your comparison makes no sense at all. It would only make sense if men were allowed to walk away as a right or stay, again as a right. But this is not the case - men do not have the right to walk away, we have the right not to be involved, but there's no legal walking away.It's like someone saying that no fathers should have a right to complain about being denied access when so many men walk away.
It makes no sense at all.
I pointed this out already in my post before last.
I'm not sure if this discussion has gone completely OT or not, but the only reason we are now here is because I listed a number of areas where men are discriminated upon in law and you have falsely denied this, claiming that men can walk away (legally false) and then attempting to justify a contradictory and hypocritical legal right that women, denied of men, have as in some way just.
This is why Mums 4 Justice and their like really piss off a lot of men. It's like a slave being told by his master how hard life is for them.0 -
This debate always goes back to the same old same old, men vs women lark.
I wouldn't waste my energy 'debating' this issue with a man who says (and this sentence JUMPED off the page at me).....
'Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy'......
The consequences of her choice....lovely way to refer to a child, or any human being for that matter....let's hope no one ever calls you the 'consequence of your mothers choice...'
I've just picked up the 'consequence of my choice' from school and am ready to help him with his homework. Oh sorry, you don't want to discuss personal issues....:rolleyes:0 -
Given the topic of this thread, I think this was inevitable.This debate always goes back to the same old same old, men vs women lark.
But I am only following her logic. She is the one who conveniently only sees it as a child once she has made a choice to keep it - if she chooses otherwise, then its not. Even without the topic of abortion she has avoided the question of adoption - somehow even then it is still a choice and not 'avoiding responsibility'.I wouldn't waste my energy 'debating' this issue with a man who says (and this sentence JUMPED off the page at me).....
'Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy'......
The consequences of her choice....lovely way to refer to a child, or any human being for that matter....let's hope no one ever calls you the 'consequence of your mothers choice...'
So ultimately all I am doing is setting the same standards on a woman as are being set on men - and codified by an unequal law. So please don't get indignant with me for pointing out the hypocrisy unless you subscribe to it.
More a question that I don't want to hear a self-serving account of how someone has been hard done by as an example of irrefutable evidence. I would actually be equally cynical of the man's account, btw.I've just picked up the 'consequence of my choice' from school and am ready to help him with his homework. Oh sorry, you don't want to discuss personal issues....:rolleyes:0 -
"She is the one who conveniently only sees it as a child once she has made a choice to keep it"
And what, prey tell would you suggest she sees 'it' as???????????????????????????????????????????????????/
Enlighten me
0 -
i think the whole area is being muddied with rights for everyone.. there are lots of different circumstances and it cannot be a one size fits all law.
the pregnancies that result from rape, incest, drunken one night stands where names are not exchanged sperm bank dad's... what rights apply to these men and women??
religon also plays a part, some will scoff but there are still some who take it seriously, and this is where the whole abortion discussion can blow up.
its not always either affordable mentally or physically.
no-one can win this debate, its too emotive. there are too many different and difficult situations this is why the courts exsist to exercise your rights. morally whether either party sticks to an agreement is not the point, everybody can point out one example that will cancel out another.
the laws are based on the traditional family unit. mother father marry have children. its archaic..
time has always been more unkind to women. magdelene laundries and the like. married women have only recently gotten their rights. it wasn't really possible for a married woman to work outside the home. hence the law was changed on child benefit to be paid to the mother so no woman would be left without money for the benefit of the child.
a woman did not have the right to contraception til 1979..
no woman in ireland has the right to have an abortion
they have the right to travel
A woman always has the right to say what happens to her body, it's a basic human right, as is the case with men. this is one of the reasons that rape is illegal. It's a no brainer, would a man also have the right to say a woman could not get a tumour removed?? some pregnancies can pose a risk to the mothers health
a mans name on a birth cert does not give automatic guardianship.. the flip side to this is he has no rights or responsibility unless proven he is the father.
She cannot register him as the father unless he is present at the Register Office. That's a definite.
If she makes a claim for child support, he can state that he is doubtful that he is the father. DNA tests will then have to be done.
if they are married she must have a copy of the marriage cert.
if he doesn't want to be a dad then he has the right to use protection and if he's afraid it'll fail then we all know how not to get pregnant.
as the saying goes don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
its fair to say children are used as leverage and pawns in relationships that go wrong, but what can the courts do?? jail every defaulter?? its not possible and the damage to kids would be immense.
men walk away, women walk away and the kids are the ones who suffer. this is the reality. they either lose a dad or a mam and they are the ones who grow up with the hostility and bitching or poverty or you never know it may turn out that an abusive parent was taken out of the picture.
there is a lot of middle ground here in very few cases is it a definate right or wrong, morally people have to do the right thing but it doesn't always happen.
And if quoting any of this please don't quote out of context, i dont' have any agenda here other than my 2 cents worth and i don't want to get pulled into a row that can't be won;)0 -
Consistently as opposed to cherry picking whatever best justifies her personal choices.And what, prey tell would you suggest she sees 'it' as???????????????????????????????????????????????????/
I agree.the pregnancies that result from rape, incest, drunken one night stands where names are not exchanged sperm bank dad's... what rights apply to these men and women??
Not really as all I am arguing is that there is an imbalance in the law that allows rights without corresponding responsibility.no-one can win this debate, its too emotive. there are too many different and difficult situations this is why the courts exsist to exercise your rights. morally whether either party sticks to an agreement is not the point, everybody can point out one example that will cancel out another.
Which would be fine except that a child is not just for nine months. Even without getting getting into a discussion about abortion, it is bizarre that suddenly someone can make a unilateral decision one way or another and impose it on another human being - two, in fact.A woman always has the right to say what happens to her body, it's a basic human right, as is the case with men.
Yet even if he is proven the father he still has no rights, but has responsibilities.a mans name on a birth cert does not give automatic guardianship.. the flip side to this is he has no rights or responsibility unless proven he is the father.
Which was essentially what girls were told 60 years ago - if you don't want to 'get in trouble' don't sleep around. That women now are using the same argument that was unfairly used against them now is utterly reprehensible.if he doesn't want to be a dad then he has the right to use protection and if he's afraid it'll fail then we all know how not to get pregnant.
as the saying goes don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Except how it works out is that not every defaulter translates to only the men, and that too is reprehensible.its fair to say children are used as leverage and pawns in relationships that go wrong, but what can the courts do?? jail every defaulter?? its not possible and the damage to kids would be immense.
Men, women and children suffer, but ultimately it is women who are given the vast majority of rights (including those of the children by proxy) and men end up last on the list.
Even where it comes to the right of children women still trump them. A woman may put the child up for adoption or not (regardless of the best interests of the child) because it is assumed she has the best interests of the child - even when it is obvious that is this not always the case.
It is this grotesqe inequality combined with claims that we are all hard done equally by that makes me see red because in terms of rights and responsibilities we are not. Not even close.0 -
My question was What would you suggest she sees 'it' as? You said she 'chooses' to see' it' as a child.
Your reply, "Consistently as opposed to cherry picking whatever best justifies her personal choices." is not an answer. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Because it is an 'it' only until she accepts 'it'. If she wants a child it becomes a person, if not it remains an 'it' and is aborted.My question was What would you suggest she sees 'it' as? You said she 'chooses' to see' it' as a child.
Even if it 'it' is born, that does not mean that he or she magically can override his or her mother's choices. She can still choose to put the child up for adoption or not, regardless of whether it is in the child's best interests. Indeed, she can have the child adopted - without the father's knowledge or consent - when married, even though the father may have taken custody.
Who's rights are being served there?
It is actually.Your reply, "Consistently as opposed to cherry picking whatever best justifies her personal choices." is not an answer.0
Advertisement