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

byrnem31

silly wrote: »

yeah,you would think...
i have been in and out of court for 8 yrs, trying to get some sort of support. he doesnt pay, nothing gets done. courts are a waste of time.

Me and my partner are rasing her child. The orignal Dad has paid about €200 towards his costs. The child is seven.
Yep, Courts sure are a waste of time. I spent €200 quid on renting the hall for one of his birthdays.
He has never seen his own child in person. How anyone can do that I dont know?
Tell your mate to man up and support the girl, not just financially, emotionally too. This mate isnt you by any chance ?

smash

Biggins wrote: »

You can't reverse the fertilisation of an egg either - you can only opt later, afterwards to get rid of what its growing into!

A person willing to take an action must in doing that action, be willing to accept all consequent of his actions.
...Be it a crash in a car that normally they drive safely, a woman they have sex with or someone doing a crime with a weapon!

You take the risks knowingly, you should pay the price of the outcomes

I agree that there's a price to pay. But you can easily reverse a pregnancy, you can not reverse death or serious injury.

hightower1

Lets throw more analogies out here......

Tis likegetting into a plane with a woman and she decides half way through to stop piloting the plane , ditch and parachute down. You dont have a choice in this at all so what... is the guy suposed to sit there and think "I shoul have known the risks before flying". Of coarse not, she's making a decision for herslef when its going to effect more than just herself.


..... bitches love analogies.

ash23

hightower1 wrote: »

Lets throw more analogies out here......

Tis likegetting into a plane with a woman and she decides half way through to stop piloting the plane , ditch and parachute down. You dont have a choice in this at all so what... is the guy suposed to sit there and think "I shoul have known the risks before flying". Of coarse not, she's making a decision for herslef when its going to effect more than just herself.


..... bitches love analogies.

That's bullsh*t though.
You're making out like there is spite in a woman having an unplanned pregnancy and choosing to keep it.

Misticles

Women hold all the cards in this on going debate. As someone has previously mentioned, men are shafted both ways.
If the woman dosn't want it - man does - shafted.
If the woman wants it - man dosn't - shafted.

If the woman can make the choice to abort without the man agreeing then I fully condone a man being able to make the same choice and not be a part of the childs life and live his life as if it does not exist. Child free until he ready to make that kind of committment.

It's better for all involved. Why force him into something that clearly he does not want? It's the same principle as forcing a woman to have an abortion which of course if frowned upon.

Would he be a better person if he stuck around for the sake of the child he does not want? NO he would not as he would end up resenting the child. Best for him to bow out now and let it be known that he does not want anything to do with the child.

Case of double standards IMO.

Biggins

smash wrote: »

I agree that there's a price to pay. But you can easily reverse a pregnancy, you can not reverse death or serious injury.

Your missing the point.
The egg gets fertilised. (clean-up of mess is later)
The man hits the ground. (clean-up of mess is later)
The gun with bullets damages something, anything. (clean-up of mess is later)

Cause...effect!
Cause...effect!
Cause...effect!

If you risk taking the action, you risk an effect.
...How you try cleaning up the mess afterwards is the next stage AFTER the initial damage done.

EVERYTHING we do has consequences.
If you can't accept the consequences, do not to the action. Simple.

Carlos_Ray

I think all us men should go out now and burn our boxer shorts on the street! The last time I tried to arrange a boxer shorts burning there was a terrible turnout. Just me and a hobo on Abbey Street behind a bin. It was horrible. I'm hoping for better results this time.

conorhal

ntlbell wrote: »

This is fair if he also has a decision in the abortion process but he doesn't.

You can't have the butter and the money for it.

You can't get half pregnant, nor can you have half an abortion.

We all have to play the cards we're delt, and every one of life's packs has a joker, how you deal with it when it shows up says a lot about the character of a man.

Tell your mate to man up, and act like one.

K-9

Misticles wrote: »

Women hold all the cards in this on going debate. As someone has previously mentioned, men are shafted both ways.
If the woman dosn't want it - man does - shafted.
If the woman wants it - man dosn't - shafted.

If the woman can make the choice to abort without the man agreeing then I fully condone a man being able to make the same choice and not be a part of the childs life and live his life as if it does not exist. Child free until he ready to make that kind of committment.

It's better for all involved. Why force him into something that clearly he does not want? It's the same principle as forcing a woman to have an abortion which of course if frowned upon.

Would he be a better person if he stuck around for the sake of the child he does not want? NO he would not as he would end up resenting the child. Best for him to bow out now and let it be known that he does not want anything to do with the child.

Case of double standards IMO.

The big difference is a child exists if a father aborts, it doesn't if the mother does. Harsh as that maybe there is a third party involved that gets forgotten about.

As others said, many men choose to walk away anyway. Legalising deadbeat Dads is a different thing completely.

Peanut2011

If you are a MAN, than you know the consequences of your actions. What would be next?? People wanting their virginity back just cos they did it while drunk??

Seriously anyone who thinks it's ok to just sleep around and not take the responsibility and consider what could happen is just immature.

I see no reason why any man should be allowed to dictate if woman should keep the child or not, at the end of the day they don't have to go trough that. At the same time, I am in favour of abortions being legal but anyone who has one as a lifestyle would not have much respect in my eyes.

On the other side, no man should be allowed to father a child just to get away from responsibility that follows and for that child to become someone else's financial burden.

Also, I can not understand any father than never wants to have any contact with their children. And you know what, those kids are probably better off in these cases!

smash

Biggins wrote: »

If you can't accept the consequences, do not to the action. Simple.

But really it's not that simple because only one parts holds rights in the situation.

She's like Anglo, he's a tax payer. He injected some cash and lost the bet. But the baby is the bondholder and he now has to keep paying. He can't cut his losses here whereas she can cut hers whenever she wants.

He's being held to ransom and while I agree that morally he should own up to his responsibilities the question arises as to whether he should have to or not because while there was a risk that both parties took, the outcome wasn't planned by either participants and precautions were made to ensure it didn't happen yet only one has the right to determine what happens next.

ibarelycare

byrnem31 wrote: »

Me and my partner are rasing her child. The orignal Dad has paid about €200 towards his costs. The child is seven.
Yep, Courts sure are a waste of time. I spent €200 quid on renting the hall for one of his birthdays.
He has never seen his own child in person. How anyone can do that I dont know?
Tell your mate to man up and support the girl, not just financially, emotionally too. This mate isnt you by any chance ?

No, I'm a girl. And no, I'm not the girl in the story either!

Show Time

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.

Your "friend" sounds like a cowardly piece of crap.

Nasty_Girl

I think it should be like an adoption.
The parent (male or female) who doesn't want the child signs away any rights and responsibilities. Ideally there would be some sort of counselling service for them so they could be sure before they make that decision. But if we lived in an ideal world these situations wouldn't occur at all.

Ultimately it is the baby that loses out, as I'm sure if they had a choice they'd want two parents who'd love them and take care of them but sadly there are so many deadbeat parents out there and maybe the children would be better off without them anyway.

Very sad all round.

With regards to abortion and men not having a choice, well I think it is awful if a guy was ready and willing to take full responsibility for a baby once it was born but the woman aborted.
That said, from a female point of view holding all the cards is not necessarily a good thing either. Yes you have more choices but those choices are not easy ones at all.
I really don't envy anyone who finds themselves in these positions on either side.

ntlbell

conorhal wrote: »

You can't get half pregnant, nor can you have half an abortion.

We all have to play the cards we're delt, and every one of life's packs has a joker, how you deal with it when it shows up says a lot about the character of a man.

Tell your mate to man up, and act like one.

right so if the woman decides to remove all the man's descions why can't play the hand off ****ing off and not dealing with it?

Biggins

smash wrote: »

But really it's not that simple because only one parts holds rights in the situation.

She's like Anglo, he's a tax payer. He injected some cash and lost the bet. But the baby is the bondholder and he now has to keep paying. He can't cut his losses here whereas she can cut hers whenever she wants.

He's being held to ransom and while I agree that morally he should own up to his responsibilities the question arises as to whether he should have to or not because while there was a risk that both parties took, the outcome wasn't planned by either participants and precautions were made to ensure it didn't happen yet only one has the right to determine what happens next.

Over complicating the issue.

Both have the tools to initiate life.

If either willingly use those tools, knowing the risks, they must accept the consequences of their actions - and life teaches us that nothing ever turns out all the time as it should - so if they go ahead, either one must be aware of all outcomes!

---

As for "yet only one has the right to determine what happens next."
Well thats an issue for a courtroom at the end of the day.
If a man can't accept that sadly the law at times espouses "only one has the right to determine what happens next" - he should not take the risks he does in the first place in helping to create the later problem!

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

An abortion isn't like side stepping. It has emotional and physical and financial effects on a woman. It may also go against what they believe in. It's rather simplistic to portray it as an easy get out clause when for most women it isn't.

While I somewhat agree with you, it doesn't change what I've said. Emotional, physical, and financial effects are present with a pregnancy also.

The point is, if the woman has the "choice" to walk away, effectively "choosing" to kill the fathers child, or to "choose" to make the man a father, then the father should also have a "choice".

I don't think what he did was right.

And I don't think abortion is right. But as I said earlier, if we are talking about "rights" then they should be somewhat equal, and not loaded solely in the womans favour. EQUAL rights.

Biggins wrote: »

Well sticking with my analogy, firing the gun, the bullet has to land somewhere and have an effect!
If a woman steps up and allows herself to be a target, yes, she must accept the price too - but we are not arguing about that here anyway.

Yes we are, she wasn't raped.

Put it another way: If a person jumps off a cliff wearing a parachute,

lets not Biggins, we're over complicating & confusing. We all know what we are talking about so the analogies aren't helping.

As I said earlier, if the woman can choose to abort (and I'm assuming she can) but chooses not to, then the man equally should be entitled to choose, and not be forced into something.
If the woman has the opportunity not to be forced into parenthood, the same opportunity should be awarded to the man.

strobe wrote: »

The element not being mentioned by you above though Zulu is that in scenario one, the woman aborts and then there is no more child. In scenario two there is a child and if the woman can't support it on her own it is society/the state/whatever that picks up the bill.
So the two aren't perfectly comparable. It's not like for like in pragmatic terms, maybe in terms of ideals of fairness but not in actual real world application.

When dealing with a civilians "rights" I prefer to deal in "ideals of fairness", as does the ECHR. Thankfully.

shopaholic01

As a female I can safely say that I would have an abortion if I became pregnant. I have simply never wanted children, but don't want to be celibate either.

Being a parent is a huge responsibilty - emotionally and financially. You are commiting to placing the needs of a child above your own. You are responsible for the emotional, physical and psychological needs and development of another person. I really admire people who are good parents, but I believe that it is not something you can force on someone.

So like I said I would not continue with a pregnancy regardless of the father's opinion. I really don't think men should be forced either. Poor parents damage children more than absent ones in the long run.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

...if the woman can choose to abort (and I'm assuming she can) but chooses not to, then the man equally should be entitled to choose, and not be forced into something.
If the woman has the opportunity not to be forced into parenthood, the same opportunity should be awarded to the man.

If a man even with half a brain knows that a woman might not get rid of something he helped create - and he's not willing to accept that his own actions also caused this situation in the first place - he should not be having sex with her also in the first place.

Its not rocket science, if you know all the risks/possible outcomes and still go ahead, your obviously willing to accept the price.

strobe

Biggins wrote: »

If a man even with half a brain knows that a woman might not get rid of something he helped create - and he's not willing to accept that his own actions also caused this situation in the first place - he should not be having sex with her also in the first place.

Its not rocket science, if you know all the risks/possible outcomes and still go ahead, your obviously willing to accept the price.

Ah, but what Zulu is arguing for is not that outcomes not be acknowledged but just for one more possible outcome to be recognised in law along with the others.

Without going back into the 'consequence of actions' stuff Biggins, how do you feel about the actual additional outcome being added as an option along with the rest, such as abortion?

R0ot

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time y0.

:pac:

conorhal

ntlbell wrote: »

right so if the woman decides to remove all the man's descions why can't play the hand off ****ing off and not dealing with it?

Because there's an innocent third party involved remember?

Anybody that looks their own kid in the eyes and says 'to hell with you, I want nothing to do with you' is an arse. End of story.

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

If a man even with half a brain knows that a woman might not get rid or something he helped create - and he's not willing to accept that his own actions also caused this situation in the first pace - he should not be having sex with her also in the first place.

Biggins, don't be daft. People don't sit down and trash out the fine print before a one night stand. Most people don't consider it beyond packing a condom/taking the pill. ...but that's pretty much moot.

We are talking about a society where abortion is legal (not our own).
The man & woman have sex with/without contraception.
They conceive.
The woman "chooses" not to abort.
The man has no "choice".

The woman "chooses" to abort.
The man has no "choice".

If you legalise abortion, provision should be made for both parents of the child - not just one.

Its not rocket science, if you know all the risks/possible outcomes and still go ahead, your willing to accept the price.

You're right it's not rocket science. The "acceptance" of the "price" should be equally afforded to both parents equally. NOT to one parent only.

Banditoo

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.

No. He should have engaged his brain before getting his lad out.

Drumpot

smash wrote: »

Because the discussion was whether or not the father should have a say in the matter, if the woman does not want to have the child.


The medical risks are there because you have actually given birth.


That's bs. Do you think that people who don't want children should just not have sex just in case they get pregnant?


Bottom line there.


That's subjective. Only your opinion.

Its not subjective at all . . You make having an abortion sound like throwing an old jumper out. If you dont value a fertilized embryo then I suppose you will have a blaise attitude towards it and easily dismiss.

And yes, it is that simple. Dont have sex if you are not prepared with the consequences, otherwise you are completely devaluing conception and pregnancy itself.

It is irresponsible to take risks on something you arent prepared to deal with the consequences. Just because premiscuous sex is an accepted part of society doesnt mean the moral obligation that comes with potential outcomes is any less. I am not judging people for having sex, I am judging them on how they face up to their responsibilities.

You are choosing to have sex when you know what might happen. You are choosing to take a risk with your body yet also choosing the result of your actions are not something you are prepared to live with. That is irresponsible, selfish and childish (I dont believe this is subjective at all).

You can role out as many excuses as you want, it doesnt change the fact that you are talking about people aborting mainly down to lifestyle choices and not wanting to deal with something that happened to them as a result of their actions. For the record, we are talking about people who just dont want to have a baby but get pregnant by accident after consentual sex.

ntlbell

conorhal wrote: »

Because there's an innocent third party involved remember?

Anybody that looks their own kid in the eyes and says 'to hell with you, I want nothing to do with you' is an arse. End of story.

and there's an adult deciding to ignore another adults wishes. so if she wants to continue with the pregancy against the fathers wishes then the father should have an option to "opt out" of any dealings with the child. the same way a mother can hand a baby up for adoption.

As I said you can't have a full barrel and a drunk wife.

Gummy Panda

Banditoo wrote: »

No. He should have engaged his brain before getting his lad out.

In what way?

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

The point is, if the woman has the "choice" to walk away, effectively "choosing" to kill the fathers child, or to "choose" to make the man a father, then the father should also have a "choice".

He does. He cannot be forced to see the child. His only obligation is financial. And the alternative to him being able to walk away from his financial obligation is for the state to pick up the tab.

And I don't think abortion is right. But as I said earlier, if we are talking about "rights" then they should be somewhat equal, and not loaded solely in the womans favour. EQUAL rights.

The rights cannot be equal because the pregnancy cannot be equal. It's surely not that hard to grasp.

As I said earlier, if the woman can choose to abort (and I'm assuming she can) but chooses not to, then the man equally should be entitled to choose, and not be forced into something.
If the woman has the opportunity not to be forced into parenthood, the same opportunity should be awarded to the man.

With the state picking up the tab for the mans night of "passion"?

ntlbell

Gummy Panda wrote: »

In what way?

smoked pot?

intensify the orgasm

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

You're right it's not rocket science. The "acceptance" of the "price" should be equally afforded to both parents equally. NOT to one parent only.

I find that concept strange, especially for somebody anti abortion!

Abortion is available to a woman because of her biology. It's a bit like a man arguing for the right to have a miscarriage!

ibarelycare

K-9 wrote: »

I find that concept strange, especially for somebody anti abortion!

Abortion is available to a woman because of her biology. It's a bit like a man arguing for the right to have a miscarriage!

That doesn't make sense. A miscarriage isn't something you choose to have

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

He does. He cannot be forced to see the child. His only obligation is financial. And the alternative to him being able to walk away from his financial obligation is for the state to pick up the tab.

So her choice is holding him to economic ransom? ...or her choice kills his child?
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. I wouldn't want to live in such a society.

The rights cannot be equal because the pregnancy cannot be equal. It's surely not that hard to grasp.

You're right, pregnancy is a physicalogical state, civil rights aren't. You need to separate the two.

With the state picking up the tab for the mans night of "passion"?

Well no, with the mother picking up the tab for her decision to: have sex, continue with a pregnancy, conceive her child, and raise her child alone. As an adult citizen of the society, the women is not devoid of responsibilities. If she chooses to have a child when the father has opted out, that's her "choice".

Battered Mars Bar

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.

Good question, and I'd agree with you. I can't understand why a sane woman would want to keep the baby in this situation. He should offer to pay for flights to England and the abortion, all other cost aswell, not only that but go with her.

The other sane option would be to go full term and give it up for adoption. Let a deserving couple who can't have their own have the oppurtunity to bring the child up in a two parent family.

If all that fails, push her down a stairs? :pac: I'm joking, don't do that. He will have to just man up and take responsibility even though he really doesn't want a kid. I feel sorry for him. I was thinking about getting a vasectomy myself lately and I think I will now. Can't bear the thoughts of some woman ruining my life like that.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

I find that concept strange, especially for somebody anti abortion!

Abortion is available to a woman because of her biology. It's a bit like a man arguing for the right to have a miscarriage!

Arragh you're talking rubbish now dude.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

So her choice is holding him to economic ransom? ...or her choice kills his child?
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. I wouldn't want to live in such a society.

Where on earth did you pull that from my post?
My point was that if there is a child it is up to both parents to provide for that child. If the man is given the option not to, and walks away, the state will end up paying because it is almost impossible for one wage to provide for rent/mortgage, childcare of a baby and everything else the child needs.

You're right, pregnancy is a physicalogical state, civil rights aren't. You need to separate the two.

The rights of a mother are not equal. She is responsible for the child from birth, legally. She cannot revoke her right unless she gives the child up for adoption, ensuring she never ever has rights to that child again.
If a father walks away he can change his mind at a later stage and look to the courts to have his rights back.

Well no, with the mother picking up the tab for her decision to: have sex, continue with a pregnancy, conceive her child, and raise her child alone. As an adult citizen of the society, the women is not devoid of responsibilities. If she chooses to have a child when the father has opted out, that's her "choice".

That's nonsense though. So the father has no obligation for choosing to have sex but the woman does. By her having the child and taking on 100% of the responsibility (other than financial) she is surely accepting her responsibilities for her actions.

But the father can't just feck off and leave the state to pay for him getting his rocks off.

Daftendirekt

ash23 wrote: »

With the state picking up the tab for the mans night of "passion"?

Well, the state isn't picking up the tab for the man's night of passion, it's picking up the tab for the child the woman chose to have after it was conceived.

IMHO, I'd have no problem with the idea of a legal... abandonment?... of the child if abortion was a completely risk free, unintrusive procedure, but that's just not reality. I don't think a woman should be pressured into aborting any more than she should be pressured into having a child.

But I also think the 'he should man up' and 'he should have kept it in his pants' attitudes completely misses the point.

Donnielighto

Only way to solve this is abortions only happen if both parents want it (other than medical issues rape etc)

outside of that if one parent wants the child they get full custody after the birth

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

Biggins, don't be daft. People don't sit down and trash out the fine print before a one night stand. Most people don't consider it beyond packing a condom/taking the pill. ...but that's pretty much moot.

Your dear right - but the outcome of their actions is still the same and they go ahead wuth their one night stand knowing this.
No one has put a gun to their head forcing them into a one night stand but they still continue under their own steam.
They are accepting the percentages and taking the risk.
if you willing to take that risk, your gambling - and gamblers lose occasionally.
An idiot knows that much.
If you can't take risk, don't take the gamble!

Zulu wrote: »

We are talking about a society where abortion is legal (not our own).
The man & woman have sex with/without contraception.
They conceive.
The woman "chooses" not to abort.
The man has no "choice".

The woman "chooses" to abort.
The man has no "choice".

If the man REALLY wants no kids, SNIP!
If he don't want the risk of inducing life, don't shag a fertile target!
The man has a choice not to climb into a bed.
The man has a choice not to have a one night stand.
The man has a choice not to gamble with his seed.

Zulu wrote: »

The "acceptance" of the "price" should be equally afforded to both parents equally. NOT to one parent only.

I thought it was as the law is currently progressing in change!

smash

Biggins wrote: »

Over complicating the issue.

Both have the tools to initiate life.

If either willingly use those tools, knowing the risks, they must accept the consequences of their actions - and life teaches us that nothing ever turns out all the time as it should - so if they go ahead, either one must be aware of all outcomes!

---

As for "yet only one has the right to determine what happens next."
Well thats an issue for a courtroom at the end of the day.
If a man can't accept that sadly the law at times espouses "only one has the right to determine what happens next" - he should not take the risks he does in the first place in helping to create the later problem!

So you think that if people don't want children at a particular stage then they should just just not have sex, or get themselves sterilised?

ash23

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Well, the state isn't picking up the tab for the man's night of passion, it's picking up the tab for the child the woman chose to have after it was conceived.

I think you'll find the primary cause of pregnancy is actually the act of sex between a man and a woman. An abortion is an option but is not a natural conclusion.
The conception occurs when a man and woman have sex. No child has one parent.

Dyr

Biggins wrote: »

If the man REALLY wants no kids, SNIP!

Just shows the clue that you don't about this tbh

smash

Drumpot wrote: »

Its not subjective at all . . You make having an abortion sound like throwing an old jumper out. If you dont value a fertilized embryo then I suppose you will have a blaise attitude towards it and easily dismiss.

Isn't that the point? The male in question doesn't value the fertilized embryo. He never wanted it.

Drumpot wrote: »

And yes, it is that simple. Dont have sex if you are not prepared with the consequences, otherwise you are completely devaluing conception and pregnancy itself.

I'd hazard a guess that most people don't have sex to conceive or get pregnant.

Everything else you said is just your opinion so no point commenting on it.

shopaholic01

smash wrote: »

So you think that if people don't want children at a particular stage then they should just just not have sex, or get themselves sterilised?

It's very hard to get sterilised here - they will only do it if you already have at least a couple of kids.

partyatmygaff

Threads like these are depressing.

A father who doesn't give a crap about his own child trying to persuade the mother to kill it. One man's selfishness and cowardice shouldn't result in a death sentence for a child who's done nothing wrong.

strobe

ash23 wrote: »

I think you'll find the primary cause of pregnancy is actually the act of sex between a man and a woman. An abortion is an option but is not a natural conclusion.
The conception occurs when a man and woman have sex. No child has one parent.

What of Minerva? Foolish woman, you'll bring the wrath of the Gods down on all our heads!

ibarelycare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Threads like these are depressing.

A father who doesn't give a crap about his own child trying to persuade the mother to kill it. One man's selfishness and cowardice shouldn't result in a death sentence for a child who's done nothing wrong.

Where are you getting this from? Nowhere did I suggest he tried/is trying to persuade the mother to get an abortion.

Daftendirekt

ash23 wrote: »

I think you'll find the primary cause of pregnancy is actually the act of sex between a man and a woman. An abortion is an option but is not a natural conclusion.
The conception occurs when a man and woman have sex. No child has one parent.

Indeed, but when a man and a woman choose to have sex, they aren't necessarily choosing to have a baby. That choice is often made afterwards.

ash23

You know for all the talk of equality, people still miss the point that the woman has to shoulder 100% of the responsibility for the well being of the child. Both have to share financial responsibility.
So the woman is already taking on more than the father by having the child. She is legally responsible for that childs welfare. And the only way she can walk away from that is to sign it over completely by placing the child for adoption, ensuring she will never have the chance to change her mind.
On the other hand if a man chooses not to seek guardianship (i.e. the legal responsibility for the childs welfare) he doesn't have to. He can walk away and stroll back in a few years later after a change of heart and get a second chance.

So things might not be equal when the abortion is considered but nor are they equal for the mother in the event of a birth.

partyatmygaff

ibarelycare wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? Nowhere did I suggest he tried/is trying to persuade the mother to get an abortion.

Well you did say

"Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion."

Doesn't that imply he wants her to abort the child?

Battered Mars Bar

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Threads like these are depressing.

A father who doesn't give a crap about his own child trying to persuade the mother to kill it. One man's selfishness and cowardice shouldn't result in a death sentence for a child who's done nothing wrong.

It's only a fetus :rolleyes: