Should a father be able to disclaim a child if he doesn't want it?

laoch na mona

its his responsibility now tell him to man up

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

This may or may not have been brought up already but...

Should a mother have the same right? And if so, and the both choose it, what then for the child?

Awful idea.

facemelter

smash wrote: »

You can't reverse it like that. It's her body, why should she have to do that to her body if she doesn't want to?

because she decided to risk the possibility of a pregnancy its not just her body what about the babies body ?

Defiler Of The Coffin

This thread is a brilliant form of contraception.

2 condoms at the same time for me anymore.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Feeona wrote: »

I don't think any parent should be able to disclaim a child 'because he/she doesn't want it'. Selfishness of the highest order, and a true indication of a person's worth.

Same people as children probably abandoned their pets once the Christmas tree was taken down.

Come on now, do you think people in favour of euthanasia are the same ones that would destroy a horse because of a broken leg?

Jester252

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

This thread is a brilliant form of contraception.

2 condoms at the same time for me anymore.

double bagging
Friction heat failure baby.

Drumpot

Zulu wrote: »

Good for you, but there's no need for the personal insult. It doesn't strengthen your point at all. In fact, insulting people anonymously is considered cowardly by most, and rude by the rest.
For the record Drumpot, you stated:An parent of a child offered up for adoption is hardly "present" now are they? Apologies if you didn't mean to include said parents, but that's what you posted.
Perhaps take your own advice & reread your own posts?

.

You completely took my entire post out of context and tore me to shreds for a view I didnt even take. What do you expect ? I went over the top by calling you stupid and for that I apologise.

I am not really sure how you could interpret "an absentee parent" as a biological parent who gave their child up for adoption but then again you did think I was posting stuff that I wasnt so we can put it down to a lost in translation error.

I am not looking to strengthen my point, nor do I need anybody on this forum to qualify my views. If I cared what others thought I would probabley of made at least one friend since I joined boards.ie!

Many of the people here are speaking from absolutely no experience in abortions or adoptions (alternatives to abortions). The fact that I have been involved with close friends and family (and personally) with both doesnt make my views correct beyond question, but it certainly shows that I am making a much more informed opinion based on life experience.

Some people here have such little regard for the concept of personal responsibility its just not funny.

Dudess

I guess he should be allowed if he put on a condom but an accident happened. If he changed his mind in a few years though, I also think he'd have the right to get involved in his child's life. People change and mature - I don't think it would be right to punish him for a position he held a few years before that. It's a difficult one though - hard to know for definite when every case is different. I know of situations where the father was an absolute dick to the mother when she told him, and I'd understand her finding it difficult to welcome him back after such behaviour.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

I guess he should be allowed if he put on a condom but an accident happened. If he changed his mind in a few years though, I also think he'd have the right to get involved in his child's life. People change and mature - I don't think it would be right to punish him for a position he held a few years before that. It's a difficult one though - hard to know for definite when every case is different. I know of situations where the father was an absolute dick to the mother when she told him, and I'd understand her finding it difficult to welcome him back after such behaviour.

Exactly. The current situation is a 19 year old woman aborts now, that's it, there is no going back.

19 year old lad now can walk away and in a few years time change his mind and become an important part in his child's life.

The grass isn't always greener, be careful what you wish for and other cliches.

The right to change your mind is a very important, wise and valuable right. In something like this, it cannot be measured in monetary terms.

Sparklepants!

I'm in two minds on the subject. I think a father should be able to disown a child in the same way a mother can abort it, but both parties have to come to some agreement. I don't condone it but i think he should have a choice. He might not be ready to be a father or have the financial means to be a father. He might have a career ahead of him. I wouldn't expect anyone to give up their dreams and life for a child that happened by accident.

firedancer

Sparklepants! wrote: »

I'm in two minds on the subject. I think a father should be able to disown a child in the same way a mother can abort it, but both parties have to come to some agreement. I don't condone it but i think he should have a choice. He might not be ready to be a father or have the financial means to be a father. He might have a career ahead of him. I wouldn't expect anyone to give up their dreams and life for a child that happened by accident.

there's just so much wrong with this statement I dunno where to begin....:mad:

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

It can be passed. I'm asking you what the consequences of that are. To do that you need to answer questions I ask of your opinion first. When you answer those, then I can answer questions you pose.

I could just ignore your questions and ask more, like you just did We end up with loads of unanswered questions and little else.

In circumstances where there are no extenuating circumstances, such as abuse or rape, for example - I'm proposing that a father should have equal legal rights to the mother.
That means that if either party do not want the child aborted - then that right should be upheld by law.

I'm fully aware that some women will choose to go ahead with abortion, anyway - and hope the father never finds out.
BUT - and it's a very big but - some women will also realise that there are two other people involved - and those two people should also be considered.
The legislation giving equal rights to the father wouldn't be an ideal solution - but it would be an improvement on his having no rights at all, imo.

Now I realise that many women would resent having to carry a child to term - but why should that give them the right to kill a child that is not just theirs, but also the fathers? I don't accept that women should have that right, so I'm proposing that the fathers have a say in the decision, too.
However, with that right would also come the responsibility to rear the child.
Otherwise, you would end up with some men not wanting their child terminated - but also unwilling to put the time and effort into being a parent.
That's taking equality too far in the other direction, imo.

The fly in the ointment is in rape or abuse cases.
That's a minefield.
I don't accept that any rapist, or so-called man who has physically abused a woman should have any rights over her - or his child.
How to prevent such a clause being abused is where the difficulty comes in - and I do not have enough knowledge of abuse or rape to even begin to suggest anything other than strict standards of proof being required.
Then there is still the issue of the babies rights - and I personally do not accept that an unborn child is anything other than a baby - hence this would have to be taken into account, also. (I know - that horse has bolted in most of Western society - unfortunately, imo.)


Would there be problems? Of course! But, there are huge problems right now, with fathers (lack of) rights - and just because we ignore them doesn't mean they're not there.
So, I believe that our legislators need to look long and hard at the situation, come up with some proposals, and have some serious public discussion, before any legislation could be passed.
The next potential problem then is enforcement.
There needs to be a fast track system where a father can challenge the womans right to abortion, otherwise some women who want an abortion will just wait until they have a date set for the abortion, leaving the father insufficient time to challenge the decision through the courts.
The same is true in reverse. Fathers should not be able to drag out proceedings until it is too late for the woman to make her choice, and then abdicate responsibility.

It's a tall order. But I think it's worth striving for. Certainly the situation as is is unacceptable, so change is needed.

The next issue is financial support.

Right now, a father can be forced to support a child he never wanted.
So, if the roles were reversed, and the father took over the care of the child - then the mother should be equally financially responsible, imo.

Again, there will be those who ignore maintenance orders - but that is surely a question of enforcement. And it's one for our legislators to deal with.
Throwing our hands in the air wont solve the very real human rights abuses that are taking place - so I'm proposing that we at least try to do something to resolve the issue.

Not a perfect solution, by any means - but, with time and effort, I think we could probably do better than the current situation.
We definitely have a duty to at least try.

Noreen1

Zulu wrote: »

Thats a horrible story Noreen, but in a society where elective abortion is legal, one that is likely to keep happening. The poor, poor man.


I'd be strongly in favour of being allowed to adopt and unwanted child from the mother, but you'd be doing well to convince someone to go through a full term of pregnancy & give birth in a society where elective abortion is available. In such a society, "forcing" a woman to do the same would be an exceptionally hard sale, and not one I'd believe people would see reasonable.

Hypotheticals aside, it's either that or be a "deadbeat" dad at this point. Of course the correct thing to do is to embrace his child and try and raise them in a safe and loving environment, and lets hope he does that.

I don't think it can Noreen tbh. I'd imagine it'd be easier to allow a parent to disown a child than force a woman to carry an unwanted child through pregnancy, & give birth, in a society that permits elective abortion.

@Southsiderosie: I think you might have picked up on a comment (a little out of context) from a hypothetical situation.

I have no doubt it would be a hard sell - and yet, 30 years ago, abortion was considered unacceptable by the vast majority of people in this Country.
Equal rights have never come easily, but does that mean that they are not worth fighting for?

I'm sure it would be easier to allow a parent to disown a child than to force a woman to carry an unwanted child - but would it be right, or fair, or just?
I don't accept that legislation should be based on what is easiest.
It has to strive for justice for all - otherwise it's not worth having at all, imo.

eviltwin

Noreen never in a million years is that going to work.

Can you see any woman even telling a man she is pregnant in that situation? No she will go away and end the pregnancy and he will never know. You cannot force women to have babies they don't want, its very unfair but that is life, when one party is the only one who can carry a child there is never going to be an equal middle ground.

Mr.Crinklewood

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

He should take responsibility for his actions.

+1

Sadly a modern solution to an problem and coming more to light in ireland. Make a balls up and then try to wash our hands of it.

We've seen it in the banks, in politics, in medicine, the church and in plenty of cases where the so called 'man' thinks he is the ultimate and suave sophisticated Alpha Male doing as he pleases and gaining loads of power from it but when control is taken out of their hands, they distance themselves as far as possible from the situation like the spineless wimp they are and even have the cheek to act like they done nothing wrong.

Id hate to painted by the same brush as these people.

Noreen1

eviltwin wrote: »

Noreen never in a million years is that going to work.

Can you see any woman even telling a man she is pregnant in that situation? No she will go away and end the pregnancy and he will never know. You cannot force women to have babies they don't want, its very unfair but that is life, when one party is the only one who can carry a child there is never going to be an equal middle ground.

Only if she legally can.

What if, for example, she was required by law to have the father sign his consent?
With fraud proceedings being taken against any male who falsely declared himself the father?

Though there is still the possibility that she could deny knowledge of who the father was.......

eviltwin

Noreen1 wrote: »

Only if she legally can.

What if, for example, she was required by law to have the father sign his consent?
With fraud proceedings being taken against any male who falsely declared himself the father?

Though there is still the possibility that she could deny knowledge of who the father was.......

Again no woman would admit pregnancy in that situation, they will just travel to the uk and no one will be any the wiser. I don't like the idea of it. Would a woman who does abort without a fathers consent be made into a criminal then? What would that do to any woman who needs help and support before or after? More than likely she will be too afraid to seek it out.

No its not going to work. Its just going to make an unplanned pregnancy a thing of fear, something to be hidden and will bring all the associated problems with it. We need to find ways of moving forward, not back.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

In circumstances where there are no extenuating circumstances, such as abuse or rape, for example - I'm proposing that a father should have equal legal rights to the mother.
That means that if either party do not want the child aborted - then that right should be upheld by law.

I'm fully aware that some women will choose to go ahead with abortion, anyway - and hope the father never finds out.
BUT - and it's a very big but - some women will also realise that there are two other people involved - and those two people should also be considered.
The legislation giving equal rights to the father wouldn't be an ideal solution - but it would be an improvement on his having no rights at all, imo.

Now I realise that many women would resent having to carry a child to term - but why should that give them the right to kill a child that is not just theirs, but also the fathers? I don't accept that women should have that right, so I'm proposing that the fathers have a say in the decision, too.
However, with that right would also come the responsibility to rear the child.
Otherwise, you would end up with some men not wanting their child terminated - but also unwilling to put the time and effort into being a parent.
That's taking equality too far in the other direction, imo.

The fly in the ointment is in rape or abuse cases.
That's a minefield.
I don't accept that any rapist, or so-called man who has physically abused a woman should have any rights over her - or his child.
How to prevent such a clause being abused is where the difficulty comes in - and I do not have enough knowledge of abuse or rape to even begin to suggest anything other than strict standards of proof being required.
Then there is still the issue of the babies rights - and I personally do not accept that an unborn child is anything other than a baby - hence this would have to be taken into account, also. (I know - that horse has bolted in most of Western society - unfortunately, imo.)


Would there be problems? Of course! But, there are huge problems right now, with fathers (lack of) rights - and just because we ignore them doesn't mean they're not there.
So, I believe that our legislators need to look long and hard at the situation, come up with some proposals, and have some serious public discussion, before any legislation could be passed.
The next potential problem then is enforcement.
There needs to be a fast track system where a father can challenge the womans right to abortion, otherwise some women who want an abortion will just wait until they have a date set for the abortion, leaving the father insufficient time to challenge the decision through the courts.
The same is true in reverse. Fathers should not be able to drag out proceedings until it is too late for the woman to make her choice, and then abdicate responsibility.

It's a tall order. But I think it's worth striving for. Certainly the situation as is is unacceptable, so change is needed.

The next issue is financial support.

Right now, a father can be forced to support a child he never wanted.
So, if the roles were reversed, and the father took over the care of the child - then the mother should be equally financially responsible, imo.

Again, there will be those who ignore maintenance orders - but that is surely a question of enforcement. And it's one for our legislators to deal with.
Throwing our hands in the air wont solve the very real human rights abuses that are taking place - so I'm proposing that we at least try to do something to resolve the issue.

Not a perfect solution, by any means - but, with time and effort, I think we could probably do better than the current situation.
We definitely have a duty to at least try.

Can't disagree with much of that. First step would be getting real about abortion and recognising about 4/5,000 go abroad every year to have one, atm judges basically have to pretend that doesn't happen. Most of us know the woman has a choice to have an abortion, the law doesn't even recognise that.

eviltwin

And how do you force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? How do you see that working in real terms?

K-9

ibarelycare wrote: »

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by fathers having "their own type of abortions against the mother's choice"

A father walking off against the mothers wishes.

kowloon

If the Mother is allowed wipe her hands of the responsibility of a child I don't see why it's fair to deny the Father an equivalent opportunity.
Even given the above, the rights of the Father are still less than those of the Mother in a case where the Father wishes to keep the child and the Mother doesn't, but that's an unavoidable fact of life.

All the same, I would look down on anyone that would walk out on a child.

K-9

kowloon wrote: »

If the Mother is allowed wipe her hands of the responsibility of a child I don't see why it's fair to deny the Father an equivalent opportunity.

A Woman having an abortion means no child exists.


A father walking away, the child still exists. That's a bit unfair? Yep.

A man can walk back into a childs life after a few years? That's also hugely unfair.

outtagetme

ibarelycare wrote: »

My friend has got a girl pregnant. Contraception failed. They're not in a relationship, they only slept together a few times. Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion.

This leads to my question. If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

This is something I've been thinking about for the last few days since I found out. If no contraception had been used I would have said straight away that the man should own up and take responsibility, but since he 100% didn't, and still doesn't, want the baby, yet the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

I'll take his kid. I earn good money, have a decent sense of humour, and enjoy caring for others. I also think that fruit, veg., and pets are important for a small child.....as is exercise and laughter. Gimme the little bugger. I raise him/her well.

ManCityChamps

Deleted User wrote: »

We've seen it in the banks, in politics, in medicine, the church and in plenty of cases where the so called 'man' thinks he is the ultimate and suave sophisticated Alpha Male doing as he pleases and gaining loads of power from it but when control is taken out of their hands, they distance themselves as far as possible from the situation like the spineless wimp they are and even have the cheek to act like they done nothing wrong.

If you think women don't have the exact same potential (or more) for this kind of behavior, you're in for a surprise for what's coming in the not too distant future when feminism gets even more bizarrely out of control than it already is.

AudreyHepburn

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

He should take responsibility for his actions.

As should she. It takes two to make a baby, the child is his too, surely he must have a say in what happens?

The decisions they make from here on in affect them both. The Mother should at least be willing to hear his side of things.

I fail to see why people are so afraid to allow the father the same legal and moral rights as the mother.

Zulu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I fail to see why people are so afraid to allow the father the same legal and moral rights as the mother.

Because society at a macro level doesn't trust men to be decent individuals. Men are aggressive & childish. Men can't be responsible.

ManCityChamps

Zulu wrote: »

Because society at a macro level doesn't trust men to be decent individuals. Men are aggressive & childish. Men can't be responsible.

I hope my sarcasm detectors aren't functioning correctly, because I'm almost getting the impression you are somehow being serious.

Men ARE society. In a world without men, women would have died off long before civilization could possibly come into existence.

"Women's studies" academia is not a good source of understanding any plane of reality, outside that of deluded feminists' brains.

Zulu

ManCityChamps wrote: »

Men ARE society.

Perhaps I was a little sensational, but only a little. Men are certainly "part" of society.

If I've a "poor understanding" of our "plane of reality", explain why fathers have feic all rights please?

ManCityChamps

Zulu wrote: »

explain why fathers have feic all rights please?

We live in a modern society where women demand equal rights ONLY when it suits THEM. They still want to keep the traditional aspects of gender roles such as how women are the natural care-givers to children when it amounts to them receiving privileges like parental rights.

Zulu

And this is realised how?

ManCityChamps

Zulu wrote: »

And this is realised how?

It's realized by taking one look at the law book which favors women in every last aspect, that's how.

Zulu

Well, you're right.
But I think there's a case to be made with regards to how society views men eg: the erosion of the male character in advertising; the erosion of trust men are granted with children.

ManCityChamps

Zulu wrote: »

Well, you're right.
But I think there's a case to be made with regards to how society views men eg: the erosion of the male character in advertising; the erosion of trust men are granted with children.

Such perversions are arising because of prevalent notions of female superiority; women are being promoted as possessing equal abilities to men as well as having special women-only qualities. What really needs to be eroded is female privilege, then commonly held negative stereotypes about men will start ceasing to exist. Women need to be accounted entirely equally to men in the eyes of the law for starters. Women asked for equality, they should get it.

dark crystal

ManCityChamps wrote: »

Men ARE society. In a world without men, women would have died off long before civilization could possibly come into existence.

"Women's studies" academia is not a good source of understanding any plane of reality, outside that of deluded feminists' brains.

Not only is that statement beyond arrogant, it's completely untrue. If it weren't for the 'nurturers', the 'hunter gatherers' would have no future offspring to hunt or gather for.

What really needs to be eroded is female privilege

Judging by many of your other posts, I reckon you'd rather if females were just eroded altogether. You seem to have little, if any, respect for women in general.

B0jangles

ManCityChamps wrote: »

It's realized by taking one look at the law book which favors women in every last aspect, that's how.

So the law that defines parental custody rights which was written in 1964 (yes, thats right, nearly 50 years ago) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0006.html#zza7y1964s6 was written by these rabid modern out of control feminists, not the 99% male government of the time?

Those wily time-travelling hussies...

edit 2: I checked; the dail in 1964 was made up of 138 men and 6 women.

kowloon

K-9 wrote: »

A Woman having an abortion means no child exists.


A father walking away, the child still exists. That's a bit unfair? Yep.

A man can walk back into a childs life after a few years? That's also hugely unfair.

If a man chooses not to recognise his child he should have no legal rights whatsoever over the child. He should have to live with the consequences of his choice. I've seen the results of parents deciding they suddenly have rights over a child they abandoned.

An abortion does not mean the child never existed, abortions aren't time travel. Try telling someone who had a miscarriage that their child didn't exist and see what they have to say to you.

As far as unfairness is concerned, is it right that a father can be trapped into responsibility when the mother has no such concerns and has the full power of decision?

Either way, I have no respect for a parent that abandons a child, but legal rights and morality don't walk hand in hand.

K-9

kowloon wrote: »

If a man chooses not to recognise his child he should have no legal rights whatsoever over the child. He should have to live with the consequences of his choice. I've seen the results of parents deciding they suddenly have rights over a child they abandoned.

I've seen the results too, some good, some bad.

An abortion does not mean the child never existed, abortions aren't time travel. Try telling someone who had a miscarriage that their child didn't exist and see what they have to say to you.

While true it still doesn't do away with the important difference, with an abortion there is no child to feed, clothe etc.

As far as unfairness is concerned, is it right that a father can be trapped into responsibility when the mother has no such concerns and has the full power of decision?

If the mother has no concerns over responsibility and the full power of decision I think the father should be considered to adopt the child. Again though it comes back to how realistic that is.

Either way, I have no respect for a parent that abandons a child, but legal rights and morality don't walk hand in hand.

What do you mean by that in this case?

kowloon

K-9 wrote: »

What do you mean by that in this case?

What I mean was that while I might think it's fair in the legal sense for a Father to abandon a child, to abort the child*, I don't think much of a Father that would actually do it.

*In a country where the Mother has the option to abort.

To be honest, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate in arguing for the rights of the irresponsible Father, and I have an agenda. The Mother gets to make the decisions while the Father, unless he's married to the Mother, only really gets the chance to pay for her decision. Be it financially in the form of child support, or worse, in losing a child.

An option for a mother to absolve responsibility and hand over the child to the Father with no option to take the child back later would be ideal, but I think in a lot of cases an abortion is preferred over going to full term.

K-9

kowloon wrote: »

What I mean was that while I might think it's fair in the legal sense for a Father to abandon a child, to abort the child*, I don't think much of a Father that would actually do it.

*In a country where the Mother has the option to abort.

Well I wouldn't think much of him either but then again I want to see the abortion rate reduced and minimised so I'm not really in favour of extending it.

To be honest, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate in arguing for the rights of the irresponsible Father, and I have an agenda. The Mother gets to make the decisions while the Father, unless he's married to the Mother, only really gets the chance to pay for her decision. Be it financially in the form of child support, or worse, in losing a child.

Interesting point about a married couple probably treating this differently, the mans opinion would probably have more credence. The married mother still makes the final decision though. I suppose it comes back to a guy who the woman may have only been out on a few dates with, having a say whether a woman aborts. I suppose the reverse applies too, the woman has a big say in the mans future and has to consider what is the best option for the baby.

A man deciding to walk away could actually play a big part in a woman aborting though.

An option for a mother to absolve responsibility and hand over the child to the Father with no option to take the child back later would be ideal, but I think in a lot of cases an abortion is preferred over going to full term.

Well adoption in Ireland is so rare now, never mind Fathers adopting.

Varied

I believe there should be a legal mediation on the issue.

If the woman finds out she is pregnant and wants to keep it, but the father wants nothing to do with it. He should be absolved of responsibility and striped of all rights.

I believe of the woman wants an abortion, it should be up to her and her alone, but only if both are afforded the same rights lawfully.

As my own personal opinion, I have to say as my own man, I would support my girl no matter what. If she wanted to keep, I would be a father and if she wanted to abort, I would make sure she had the best care. As I said that's just my own way of doing things.

ibarelycare

Just an update in case anyone's interested. The girl in question has told the guy that she miscarried the baby.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

Just an update in case anyone's interested. The girl in question has told the guy that she miscarried the baby.

Does he know if she was even really pregnant in the first place?

ibarelycare

smash wrote: »

Does he know if she was even really pregnant in the first place?

No and he doesn't believe she was.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

No and he doesn't believe she was.

Time to move on and never go near her again!

Medusa22

This is a difficult situation for both parties. As a woman, if I were in a relationship with a man then I would use contraception, as I have in the past. If I did become pregnant then I believe that I would have an abortion and I think that I am perfectly entitled to have sex, if you use protection and it doesn't work then you did the right thing. I know that some people may argue that you don't know what you will decide unless you find yourself in that situation. This would be a lifestyle choice for me as I simply don't want to have children, and I don't find this selfish, I find it more selfish to have a child that you don't want, that child will never be happy. I have a health condition which would lead to medical complications and I may even be infertile but that makes no difference to me, I don't want children regardless, not every infertile person is desperate to have kids. I am so glad that I have the choice to have children or not, men do not have the same choice. Obviously abortion isn't an easy decision but a man cannot decide whether he has a child or not. I don't think that a woman should be forced to have an abortion but if she decides to have the child then the man should also be entitled to choose not to be involved. If I were a man then I would not be pleased if someone I was sleeping with became pregnant and I had no interest in children. If he doesn't get involved then people will always think that he is an asshole, which isn't entirely fair.