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

ash23

Daftendirekt wrote: »

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.

No it's not.
Abortion isn't like a delete button. It's not as simple as that and there are far more complex issues.
The stupidity of people lies in them thinking that it's an easy option if a pregnancy does occur. There are moral, physical and emotional issues and nobody knows how they will feel about it until it's on their doorstep therefore it should never be relied on as a back up plan.

omahaid

I love the "man up" comments. Would ye tell a woman contemplating abortion or adoption to "woman up". I bet ye wouldn't

K-9

ibarelycare wrote: »

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

Obviously I didn't mean that literally!

She didn't choose to be pregnant either, it's a biological happening. It isn't something she can be blamed for, despite posters doing it on here, same as a miscarriage is a biological happening, outside her control.

Put it this way, both took reasonable precautions, accidents still happen. The woman is biologically pregnant and hence has more rights because it is her body.

Man doesn't want the baby. She has options, either an abortion, adoption or she has the baby. The man can't biologically have an abortion so he wants to have the same right.-

Misticles

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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?

Yes, but it doesn't mean he is trying to persuade her into I would say. The subject was brought up and it was shot down by the mother.

Donnielighto

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.

Some people would say that abortion is that outlook as well.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

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.

It's not impossible. If the mothers knows she can have an abortion, but chooses not to, if she knows the father isn't going to sign up, but chooses to continue, she's made her choices.

The rights of a mother are not equal. She is responsible for the child from birth, legally.

Not if she has an abortion. Not if she give the child over to the father who wants it. By not having the abortion, she wants the child - why wouldn't she be legally responsible in that instance?

She cannot revoke her right unless she gives the child up for adoption, ensuring she never ever has rights to that child again.

What are you arguing now? She has the choice of abortion, but chooses not to, ergo she wants the child. Are you saying she shouldn't be legally responsible for her own child?

If a father walks away he can change his mind at a later stage and look to the courts to have his rights back.

...and in the hypothetical situation we are talking about (ie the man legally aborts the child) then he should have voided all rights.

That's nonsense though. So the father has no obligation for choosing to have sex but the woman does.

Sorry what? The woman can have an abortion. She is choosing not to.

By her having the child and taking on 100% of the responsibility (other than financial) she is surely accepting her responsibilities for her actions.

...well other that the financial ones. Remember, she is CHOOSING NOT to have an abortion KNOWING the father doesn't want to support her.

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

The state paying has little to do with this. The father can feic off, just like the mother can kill his child.

BTW, assuming the woman wanted to or was in agreement: I'd fully support a woman bearing the mans child, and giving it to him, and signing away all responsibilities, leaving him as a sole parent. In this case, I feel he'd also need to support the woman during her pregnancy, covering medical fees etc.. However, I doubt it would happen.

ibarelycare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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?

That's not "persuading" though. He told her he wanted her to have an abortion and she said no.

K-9

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's not "persuading" though. He told her he wanted her to have an abortion and she said no.

That's what this comes down to. Sometimes women have abortions against the wishes of the fathers, therefor fathers should have their own type of abortions against the mothers choice.

partyatmygaff

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's not "persuading" though. He told her he wanted her to have an abortion and she said no.

Wrong choice of word then I suppose but my opinion of the father still hasn't changed.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

It's not impossible. If the mothers knows she can have an abortion, but chooses not to, if she knows the father isn't going to sign up, but chooses to continue, she's made her choices.

Not if she has an abortion. Not if she give the child over to the father who wants it. By not having the abortion, she wants the child - why wouldn't she be legally responsible in that instance?
What are you arguing now? She has the choice of abortion, but chooses not to, ergo she wants the child. Are you saying she shouldn't be legally responsible for her own child?

...and in the hypothetical situation we are talking about (ie the man legally aborts the child) then he should have voided all rights.

Sorry what? The woman can have an abortion. She is choosing not to.
...well other that the financial ones. Remember, she is CHOOSING NOT to have an abortion KNOWING the father doesn't want to support her.

The state paying has little to do with this. The father can feic off, just like the mother can kill his child.

BTW, assuming the woman wanted to or was in agreement: I'd fully support a woman bearing the mans child, and giving it to him, and signing away all responsibilities, leaving him as a sole parent. In this case, I feel he'd also need to support the woman during her pregnancy, covering medical fees etc.. However, I doubt it would happen.

Obviously I was talking about an instance where a woman didn't want an abortion for whatever reason.
She takes on 100% of the legal responsibility of the child. Her rights to abscond and change her mind are not equal to the fathers. There is and will never be total equality for men and women on this issue because the woman is the one to give birth.


You keep saying that it doesnt matter if the state picks up the tab for the mans choice to have sex.
Sure the state has plenty of money to be covering the costs of these kids. :rolleyes:

So basically it's all the womans fault. She has sex with a willing partner and gets pregnant. She should have it if the father wants it. She should have an abortion if the father wants it. She should suffer financially to raise her bast*rd child if she disobeys the father and keeps the child.
Yadda yadda yadda.

Modern Ireland my arse.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

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.

Ash, why are you avoiding the fact that the mother can choose to abort?

And the only way she can walk away from that is to sign it over completely by placing the child for adoption,

....or (what you keep avoiding) abort.

littlewagonX

WindSock wrote: »

I think he should just head off and not give a hand in raising the child for the first few years, then come in and out into the kids life momentarily when he feels like it and demand his rights, then piss off again for a bit in a continuous cycle to ensure constant disappointment for the kid.

Daddy....? Is that you...?

ash23

K-9 wrote: »

That's what this comes down to. Sometimes women have abortions against the wishes of the fathers, therefor fathers should have their own type of abortions against the mothers choice.

Thats not possible though. If a mother has an abortion there is no child to be fed, clothed, maintained and minded.
Once the child has arrived it's not about what is best for the mother or the father but what is best for the child involved in the whole sorry mess.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

Ash, why are you avoiding the fact that the mother can choose to abort?

....or (what you keep avoiding) abort.

I'm not avoiding it. It is a choice but it is not a choice for everyone. I've addressed that issue in practically every post. YOU are choosing to ignore that an abortion is not always an option for a myriad of reasons.

Biggins

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?

...I did say: "If the man REALLY wants no kids, SNIP!"
I didn't say "if men don't want children at a particular stage" or similar in words.

If he wants the opportunity to have kids later at some stage, he takes temporary measures - knowing though that any other subsequently is not 100% safe by that route - but if they choose to go down that route, they MUST accept all the consequences - not just the ones they like and not the ones they don't!

Whatever happened to a person taking complete responsibility for ones own actions?

ibarelycare

K-9 wrote: »

That's what this comes down to. Sometimes women have abortions against the wishes of the fathers, therefor fathers should have their own type of abortions against the mothers choice.

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

Misticles

ash23 wrote: »

Thats not possible though. If a mother has an abortion there is no child to be fed, clothed, maintained and minded.
Once the child has arrived it's not about what is best for the mother or the father but what is best for the child involved in the whole sorry mess.

What's best for the child here is that the father does not get involved from the get go and therefore cannot disappoint the child by being a part time Dad.

He does not want it, why should he sacrifice parts of his life for something he does not want? He should not have to. If the mother does want to have an abortion then she can look after it, feed it, clothe it etc

She could have been a Ronnie Mitchell for all we know and poked holes in the condoms!

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

Obviously I was talking about an instance where a woman didn't want an abortion for whatever reason.
She takes on 100% of the legal responsibility of the child.

Yup, she's made an adult decision with all the facts.

Her rights to abscond and change her mind are not equal to the fathers.

This late in the day, she can adopt.

You keep saying that it doesnt matter if the state picks up the tab for the mans choice to have sex.
Sure the state has plenty of money to be covering the costs of these kids. :rolleyes:

Save the rolleyes - putting a monitary value on human life is crass so I was avoiding it. The sate has a responsibility to all children, so yea, if the mother can't afford the child she's choosing to have, knowing the father isn't going to support her, the state should provide. But trying to blame anyone other than the adult making that decision is pretty naive.

So basically it's all the womans fault. She has sex with a willing partner and gets pregnant. She should have it if the father wants it. She should have an abortion if the father wants it. She should suffer financially to raise her bast*rd child if she disobeys the father and keeps the child.
Yadda yadda yadda.

Wow, just wow. Absolve the adult woman of all responsibility so if it makes you feel better. Sure the man will sort it all out - like we see in our own society every day.

Modern Ireland my arse.

Whats wrong with your arse? This isn't ireland we are talking about.

K-9

ash23 wrote: »

Thats not possible though. If a mother has an abortion there is no child to be fed, clothed, maintained and minded.
Once the child has arrived it's not about what is best for the mother or the father but what is best for the child involved in the whole sorry mess.

Exactly. It isn't an equal scenario as much as some want it to be.

The difference is the child exists. But the child is irrelevant you see, hence it being ignored. People saying a man should be able to walk away aren't that bothered about the child anyway, makes sense.

Strange to see ardent pro-lifers arguing this though!

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

YOU are choosing to ignore that an abortion is not always an option for a myriad of reasons.

No. I'm not. In this case abortion is legal and available.

What are the myriad of reasons it's not an option?

Misticles

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly. It isn't an equal scenario as much as some want it to be.

The difference is the child exists. But the child is irrelevant you see, hence it being ignored. People saying a man should be able to walk away aren't that bothered about the child anyway, makes sense.

Strange to see ardent pro-lifers arguing this though!

How exactly does that make sense?

I think he should walk away because he has no remote interest in being a father. I think no father is better than a part time one or one who does not want you or resents your existence.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

Strange to see ardent pro-lifers arguing this though!

Why? We are talking about a hypothetical where abortion is allowed. Is there a reason a "pro-lifer" (I prefer anti-abortion btw) couldn't conceive a hypothetical?

smash

Biggins wrote: »

...I did say: "If the man REALLY wants no kids, SNIP!"
I didn't say "if men don't want children at a particular stage" or similar in words.

If he wants the opportunity to have kids later at some stage, he takes temporary measures - knowing though that any other subsequently is not 100% safe by that route - but if they choose to go down that route, they MUST accept all the consequences - not just the ones they like and not the ones they don't!

Whatever happened to a person taking complete responsibility for ones own actions?

The point is that he did take temporary measures, they didn't work. It's far from an ideal situation for him. I keep saying that morally he should take responsibility but legally should he have to considering he tried to stop it?

I'd still like to know what kind of contraception was used by both people.

ibarelycare

smash wrote: »

I'd still like to know what kind of contraception was used by both people.

They used a condom. He didn't notice anything wrong with it afterwards but he said he was pretty drunk and it's entirely plausible that there could have been a split and he didn't notice. Despite the fact that he's asking for a paternity test, and despite his ill-feelings towards the girl at the moment, he does believe deep down that it's his baby.

CdeC

A lot of arguements here

If she wanted to terminate and he didn't he'd be shafted etc. Well reality is it's her body, that's just life.

Anyway another person is on the way. A person who is half him. if he doesn't want to see the kid then that is his choice but he should have to pay child support. make sure the kid has a good chance.
If he doesn't want to pay that then I'm sure he just doesn't have to bother. The courts probably arent that great at chasing down deadbeat dads.

He should man up and take care of the kid!!!

facemelter

ibarelycare wrote: »

the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

He had sex , the made the choice when he decided to have sex , simple as.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

No. I'm not. In this case abortion is legal and available.

What are the myriad of reasons it's not an option?

Moral, ethical, emotional, physical, financial. Similar to the issues a woman faces re: adoption. We are humans with emotions. Not all of us can be as clinical about it as you think we should be.

putting a monitary value on human life is crass so I was avoiding it.

lol, how noble of you. But it's not about putting a monitary value on life. It's about providing for a child and it's needs. And you think the state should take up where the father leaves off. Nice!

Yup, she's made an adult decision with all the facts.

As did he when he ejaculated inside her vagina. Why has he no responsibility for his decisions?

Absolve the adult woman of all responsibility so if it makes you feel better. Sure the man will sort it all out - like we see in our own society every day.

What society do you live in? How am I absolving the woman of her responsibility. She either has to go through an abortion or have a child and give it up for adoption or raise it. None of which are as easy as what you are suggesting the father be able to do which is say "no ta" and walk away into the sunset.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

They used a condom. He didn't notice anything wrong with it afterwards but he said he was pretty drunk and it's entirely plausible that there could have been a split and he didn't notice.

I think this changes things a bit. I't only my opinion but I'll explain why:

If she had been on the pill and he didn't use a condom and she got pregnant then he's stupid for not taking the extra precaution as she had done her part in trying not to get pregnant. But he had used a condom and she wasn't on the pill. The implication here is that he took the precaution and she didn't care either way so realistically only one party acted responsibly and now as a result he'll be trapped.

Misticles

facemelter wrote: »

He had sex , the made the choice when he decided to have sex , simple as.

It's really not as black and white as that. It would be if it were unprotected sex!

ash23

smash wrote: »

I think this changes things a bit. I't only my opinion but I'll explain why:

If she had been on the pill and he didn't use a condom and she got pregnant then he's stupid for not taking the extra precaution as she had done her part in trying not to get pregnant. But he had used a condom and she wasn't on the pill. The implication here is that he took the precaution and she didn't care either way so realistically only one party acted responsibly and now as a result he'll be trapped.

He was drunk. He said it's possible the condom split. He's no more trapped than she is. She might have trusted him to be capable of putting a condom on properly.

Bullseye1

If the woman doesn't want the child that is okay?

But if the father doesn't want the child he has no choice.

What sort of society do we live in?

ntlbell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What sort of society do we live in?

One where everyone wants equal rights as long as it suits them.

ibarelycare

facemelter wrote: »

He had sex , the made the choice when he decided to have sex , simple as.

That's not true. He didn't make the choice to become a father when he had sex. He made the choice to have protected sex.

smash wrote: »

I think this changes things a bit. I't only my opinion but I'll explain why:

If she had been on the pill and he didn't use a condom and she got pregnant then he's stupid for not taking the extra precaution as she had done her part in trying not to get pregnant. But he had used a condom and she wasn't on the pill. The implication here is that he took the precaution and she didn't care either way so realistically only one party acted responsibly and now as a result he'll be trapped.

Well I don't think it's fair to say because he put a condom on then he was the only one taking responsibility. You can't say she didn't care either way, lots of women don't take the pill and only use condoms with their partners. It should be up to both parties to ensure that the man is wearing one.

smash

ash23 wrote: »

He was drunk. He said it's possible the condom split. He's no more trapped than she is. She might have trusted him to be capable of putting a condom on properly.

you know a condom can split no matter what way you put it on right?

ibarelycare wrote: »

Well I don't think it's fair to say because he put a condom on then he was the only one taking responsibility. You can't say she didn't care either way, lots of women don't take the pill and only use condoms with their partners. It should be up to both parties to ensure that the man is wearing one.

If neither party want a baby then both parties should be taking contraception.

dj jarvis

haminka wrote: »

While I'm pro abortion I completely understand if the woman decides not to go for it. It is not about spiting the man, at the end of the day she will be a single mum and that's not an easy position.
There are potential mental and physical consequences of an abortion /it could result in complications and potential infertility for a certain % of women/ that some women simply don't want to risk. Only a wimp and moron would force a woman to get the abortion because he doesn't want the responsibility. You don't want kids, get your balls cut off.

being devils advocate here , but does the same not apply to the woman is this case also?

she could have also taken precautions ( coil ,injection pill ect ect )
(presuming here that she did not )

so i wonder how the female posters would feel if the following was posted

You don't want kids, keep your legs closed


i dont understand the line that ALL responsibility is down to the male
( not saying he has none - he is 50% responsible , but so is she )

ash23

smash wrote: »

If neither party want a baby then both parties should be taking contraception.

What if the womans choice of contraception is a condom?

ibarelycare

smash wrote: »

If neither party want a baby then both parties should be taking contraception.

So, putting this incident aside, if you're in a long-term relationship with a girl and neither of you want a baby, you use condoms AND the birth control pill?

ntlbell

ash23 wrote: »

What if the womans choice of contraception is a condom?

No one will stop her from wearing one

Battered Mars Bar

smash wrote: »

I think this changes things a bit. I't only my opinion but I'll explain why:

If she had been on the pill and he didn't use a condom and she got pregnant then he's stupid for not taking the extra precaution as she had done her part in trying not to get pregnant. But he had used a condom and she wasn't on the pill. The implication here is that he took the precaution and she didn't care either way so realistically only one party acted responsibly and now as a result he'll be trapped.

Very good post, why can't a woman just get the coil and be responsible too. A man can do his best with condoms but sure if he's the only one making an effort to prevent a pregnancy then how is it fair.

Also, how long do we have to wait for other forms of male contraception? Give me the pill, put a clip on my gonads, anything I'll do it.

ntlbell

ibarelycare wrote: »

So, putting this incident aside, if you're in a long-term relationship with a girl and neither of you want a baby, you use condoms AND the birth control pill?

you eithier discuss it before hand and accept the risk of one alone



or both use condoms and the pill

try break that bad boy...:cool:

dj jarvis

ash23 wrote: »

What if the womans choice of contraception is a condom?

what if the person putting on the condom was drunk ? does that absolve her from all responsibility ?

no , if she wanted to make ure 100% she should have taken MORE precautions - but stupid leaving it up to a drunk bloke is it not ?

silly

smash wrote: »

The implication here is that he took the precaution and she didn't care either way so realistically only one party acted responsibly and now as a result he'll be trapped.

please show us where it was implied that she didnt care either way..
we know he wore a condom, but we dont know if she was on the pill or not.

I got pregnant while taking the pill correctly - does that mean that I was "trapped"...?

ash23

In a relationship fine. But for someone who has an occasional one night stand or fling, the coil, pill etc isn't really the most sensible option. Condoms protect against STDs and personally, they are my contraception of choice outside of a relationship.
The expense, doctors visits, side effects etc are a lot for the off chance you might get laid once a year.

Battered Mars Bar

ibarelycare wrote: »

So, putting this incident aside, if you're in a long-term relationship with a girl and neither of you want a baby, you use condoms AND the birth control pill?

Yes! only cum inside on birthdays, make it special ye know

ash23

dj jarvis wrote: »

what if the person putting on the condom was drunk ? does that absolve her from all responsibility ?

no , if she wanted to make ure 100% she should have taken MORE precautions - but stupid leaving it up to a drunk bloke is it not ?

Hmmm and yet she is the one getting the flak for "trapping" him. My point was they were both pretty stupid to have drunken sex where neither of them were fully aware of whether their condom worked. But it's as much his fault as hers but she is getting all the blame here.

Biggins

smash wrote: »

The point is that he did take temporary measures, they didn't work. It's far from an ideal situation for him. I keep saying that morally he should take responsibility but legally should he have to considering he tried to stop it?

Well to be honest, IF he hadn't allowed himself to get into that impregnation situation/moment in the first place, then...

Side issue:
Now if a man was raped by a woman totally against his will and subsequently she became pregnant, certainly he should technically be not be held to account for the outcome.
Morally however, that might be for theological debate.

dj jarvis

ash23 wrote: »

Hmmm and yet she is the one getting the flak for "trapping" him. My point was they were both pretty stupid to have drunken sex where neither of them were fully aware of whether their condom worked. But it's as much his fault as hers but she is getting all the blame here.

i never said anyone was trapping anyone , nor did i implie it
and i never was blaming her

read my post again , i clearly stated i was devil advocate
so please answer the question and stop with the smoke screen

how would women feel if that had been posted , keep your legs closed

becasue im sure as **** smells all hell would have broken lose
but fine to say a bloke should have his balls cut off :eek:

i dont care what other posters have said , focus on what i have said and asked please

Battered Mars Bar

ash23 wrote: »

In a relationship fine. But for someone who has an occasional one night stand or fling, the coil, pill etc isn't really the most sensible option. Condoms protect against STDs and personally, they are my contraception of choice outside of a relationship.
The expense, doctors visits, side effects etc are a lot for the off chance you might get laid once a year.

Could you not use two contraceptions, condoms and something else :pac: the coil is cheap and lasts 5 or 10 years.

strobe

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Also, how long do we have to wait for other forms of male contraception? Give me the pill, put a clip on my gonads, anything I'll do it.

This thing looks quite promising. One to keep an eye on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056597365

Petre

There's enough dead beat dads out there without giving more a free pass

To be fair, it's the insufferability of the mothers that's driving these "dead beat dads" away. If women were taught to act like real women and be feminine and conservative, none of these problems would be happening, but instead they're being taught to act like men; the end result: Lots of promiscuous behavior which results in unwanted pregnancies and lots of unfeminine/insufferable behavior which drives the fathers away from their should-be families.