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

LH Pathe

Only if it's claimed that its his

K-9

Many women think about abortions or adoptions, sometimes they wish if circumstances were different, things had turned out different.

Men have have the option to think things could have worked out different, find the child and make amends. That's our advantage, we can change our minds 5/10 years later.

Women can make choice about abortion and never go back. What is done is done.

So is our advantage worth paying maintenance every week, which often doesn't happen either, despite the law. Personally, I see the value in that ability to change my mind, maintenance is the price to pay.

Others see the price of everything, the value of nothing.

k.p.h

That a fecked up situation really.

Ideally no child should be born outside a loveless relationship,a relationship must be at a place where both parties are happy to have the child and are able to financially support the child. A case could be made for a single mother who could financially support a child, but again ideally a couple is required. Gay couples would be equally entitled.

Anything outside of this scenario is wrong IMO.

I honestly think some people are not fit to have children. I think a fanny should have a set of master mind specialist questions, if you don't get them right you are not smart enough to run the risk of being responsible for another human being and it's a no go area..

k.p.h

K-9 wrote: »

Many women think about abortions or adoptions, sometimes they wish if circumstances were different, things had turned out different.

Men have have the option to think things could have worked out different, find the child and make amends. That's our advantage, we can change our minds 5/10 years later.

Women can make choice about abortion and never go back. What is done is done.

So is our advantage worth paying maintenance every week, which often doesn't happen either, despite the law. Personally, I see the value in that ability to change my mind, maintenance is the price to pay.

Others see the price of everything, the value of nothing.

Not saying this is right or wrong but it's worth noting that the choice to go back and have a planned child is always there. Would that not be the best option. If everyone only had planned children ..? Just saying..

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

So hypothetically you wouldn't be anti-abortion?

Not at all, I can be anti abortion but pro equal rights all at the same time!

K-9 wrote: »

He did take a risk, condoms aren't 100%, he did take a risk, she took the same risk.

...but then she decided to continue with the pregnancy knowing she didn't have the fathers support. She made an adult decision, all on her own, so she's 100% responsible for that particular decision.

If he cares that much, get the snip, as near as 100% you get, just wait a month or so.

Sigh, don't be so trite. Getting the snip at this point will not prevent the baby being born.

If they don't know the risks, well they will have difficulty with the idea of aborting a child, forever.

This is nonsense, as in I can't understand it. How does not knowing the risks of contraception mean you'll have difficulty with abortion

Step 2. You as a man can walk away. If you don't understand or mentally grasp step 1, you don't have a hope in hell of grasping step 2.

Wow. Thats a pretty poor opinion you have of men there. Men are so emotionally and mentally immature that they can just "walk away"? It's a sad indictment of our society if people have such a low opinion of men.

smash

K-9 wrote: »

He did take a risk, condoms aren't 100%, he did take a risk, she took the same risk.

As far as I'm concerned he did his part with contraception to ensure he didn't get her pregnant, she didn't do her part to ensure she didn't get pregnant.

K-9 wrote: »

If he cares that much, get the snip, as near as 100% you get, just wait a month or so.

And practically irreversible so why would he do that? Chances are that he wants kids later in life with someone he will love.

ash23

smash wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned he did his part with contraception to ensure he didn't get her pregnant, she didn't do her part to ensure she didn't get pregnant.

How is that even logical?
So what if the woman is on the pill and the man doesn't use a condom and she gets pregnant? Is it still her fault or is it his?

And practically irreversible so why would he do that?

An abortion is irreversable and can also bring the risk of infertility for the woman so why would she do that?

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

If he cares that much, get the snip, as near as 100% you get, just wait a month or so.

Orly? It can be pretty tough getting a vasectomy when you're below a certain age and if you don't have kids but you knew that right? That's assuming the guy doesn't want kids as opposed to doesn't want kids with some randomer

K-9 wrote: »

He did take a risk, condoms aren't 100%, he did take a risk, she took the same risk.

Um the unfortunate biological reality is that he didn't. He can't get pregnant, as far as the breeding process is concerned he can go step out under a bus once he's done his bit. Everything else is social convention.

smash

ash23 wrote: »

How is that even logical?
So what if the woman is on the pill and the man doesn't use a condom and she gets pregnant? Is it still her fault or is it his?

He didn't want to get her pregnant so he used the only contraception available to him. She didn't want to get pregnant? Then why did she leave the contraception up to him?

If she's on the pill then she's done her part disregarding failure or not. It's up to both parties to do their bit. They're not in a relationship where having a kid wouldn't be a bad thing, if you're going to have a one/two night stand and don't want a baby as a result then make sure you're covered. If she doesn't want to take the pill and wanted to make sure she didn't get pregnant she could have got the morning after pill over the counter for less than a tenner.

ash23 wrote: »

An abortion is irreversable and can also bring the risk of infertility for the woman so why would she do that?

Why are you talking about abortion when I'm talking about irreversable preventative measures?

ash23

smash wrote: »

Why are you talking about abortion when I'm talking about irreversable preventative measures?

Because about 80% of this thread has been about the woman not having an abortion, it being her choice to keep the child etc.

I was just pointing out that there's not much difference between someone saying "she can have an abortion" and someone saying "he could have had a vasectomy".

smash

ash23 wrote: »

Because about 80% of this thread has been about the woman not having an abortion, it being her choice to keep the child etc.

Well no, it's been about his lack of rights in the situation and the fact he took measures to try and prevent it happening.

ash23 wrote: »

I was just pointing out that there's not much difference between someone saying "she can have an abortion" and someone saying "he could have had a vasectomy".

There's a massive difference between the procedures. The original comment was "If he cares that much, get the snip, as near as 100% you get, just wait a month or so." which doesn't make sense in itself because the deed is done anyway. But I was just pointing out that it's practically irreversible.

stanley 2

you cant get pass the fact that abortion is child abuse is neglecting your duties as a father

Zulu

stanley 2 wrote: »

you cant get pass the fact that abortion is child abuse is neglecting your duties as a father

No, I think.
I can't get past the fact that your post doesn't make sense!

OldNotWIse

Bambi wrote: »

Um, except it's not a risk he took, it's a risk she took, nature did not put the same stakes up for both sexes in that gamble.

There are methods to deal with a fertilized egg before abortion comes into play. She's decided she wants a baby and he doesn't want any part of it. Him being be roped into dealing with her decision in this day and age is nonsensical. it's her right, her decision and her consequences.

You're assuming she knew about the pregnancy as soon as the egg was fertilised. It's not just a risk she took, it's a risk they both took. Just because she may not want to abort her unborn child does not negate him of his responsibilities.

That said, I would still insist on a paternity test because the kid may not even be his. Re being involved in the child's life, I think he should have some input, and deal with the consequences of his choices, but if this woman has any sense, she'll cut all ties and have nothing more to do with him.

I do feel sorry for him (especially given that he did take precautions), and if he doesn't want any input, at the end of the day we all know he cant be forced and I am sure that will suit everyone involved, but I just dont think you can get someone pregnant and then say, "I am absolved of all responsibility now because the woman I impregnated won't get an abortion".

OldNotWIse

n900guy wrote: »

On the other hand, the sort of potential mother who is willing to get pregnant and have a child without a supportive relationship, should also be under the spotlight.

Is that some kind of generalisation about the effectiveness of single parenting? Hope not Also, why you would put any woman "under the spotlight" for choosing to give her baby life instead of aborting it is beyond me. Come to think of it, when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, you shouldn't be putting her "under the spotlight" for judgement, regardless of her decision.

Zulu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Come to think of it, when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, you shouldn't be putting her "under the spotlight" for judgement, regardless of her decision.

ergo, when a woman makes a decision vis unplanned pregnancy they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, is it?

Interesting "get-out" clause.

MagicSean

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Is that some kind of generalisation about the effectiveness of single parenting? Hope not Also, why you would put any woman "under the spotlight" for choosing to give her baby life instead of aborting it is beyond me. Come to think of it, when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, you shouldn't be putting her "under the spotlight" for judgement, regardless of her decision.

I don't think anyone can deny that two good parents will be better than one.

smash

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Come to think of it, when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, you shouldn't be putting her "under the spotlight" for judgement, regardless of her decision.

Should the father be put under the spotlight without any say in the matter?

OldNotWIse

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think anyone can deny that two good parents will be better than one.

Actually, I think the attitude of the father in question nicely negates your assumption.

OldNotWIse

Zulu wrote: »

ergo, when a woman makes a decision vis unplanned pregnancy they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, is it?

Interesting "get-out" clause.

What do you mean by "they" - the woman? I think you'll find she will be held accountable for her decision - she will either have to live with the emotional trauma of an abortion or she will have a child to rear. She has no choice but to be held accountable. Isn't that kind of obvious? :rolleyes:

Donnielighto

Donnielighto

Feeona wrote: »

Jesus I've heard it all now. Some of the replies in this thread are bordering on deranged. A woman is 'lucky' because she gets to decide if she wants an abortion or not.

A huge possible life threatening decision with a future changing outcome, both physical and emotional. I wouldn't wish the decision of an abortion on my worst enemy.

Since it's so dangerous should we stop people from travelling for it?

Zulu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What do you mean by "they" - the woman? I think you'll find she will be held accountable for her decision - she will either have to live with the emotional trauma of an abortion or she will have a child to rear. She has no choice but to be held accountable. Isn't that kind of obvious? :rolleyes:

Apparently not.
We were discussing the hypothetical where a man could opt out given that the woman had the right to abort their child but choose not to.

Ie: if the woman is afforded the right to kill his child without him having any say in the matter, she shouldn't also be afforded the right to hold the man to economic ransom.

In short, if abortion is available as an option, it should be available to both parents - not just one. (Clearly the woman can't be forced to have a physical abortion, so a "legal" abortion is afforded the man)

MagicSean

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Actually, I think the attitude of the father in question nicely negates your assumption.

i said good parents

OldNotWIse

MagicSean wrote: »

i said good parents

So are you saying that he will comprise 50% of this "two good parents" package then?

Unless you think this guy will be a good parent, your argument about "two parents", though it may be valid elsewhere, has no place in this discussion.

OldNotWIse

Zulu wrote: »

Apparently not.
We were discussing the hypothetical where a man could opt out given that the woman had the right to abort their child but choose not to.

Ie: if the woman is afforded the right to kill his child without him having any say in the matter, she shouldn't also be afforded the right to hold the man to economic ransom.

In short, if abortion is available as an option, it should be available to both parents - not just one. (Clearly the woman can't be forced to have a physical abortion, so a "legal" abortion is afforded the man)

Oh I see what you mean sorry! Actually, this kind of makes sense... I never agreed with the idea that a woman could abort a man's child just because it happens to live inside her for 9 months so I suppose yeah we have to support the other side of that coin. Well argued

cloud493

He should take responsibility, he did it. If he didn't want to risk it, he shouldn't have done it.

My dad didn't want me(to be born) and I'd have been much better off without him. But this guy should man the **** up.

Zulu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Actually, this kind of makes sense......

Yea my faith in the internet is restored And it's a Friday. :) And its a bank holiday weekend.

OldNotWIse

Zulu wrote: »

Yea my faith in the internet is restored And it's a Friday. :) And its a bank holiday weekend.

Can't wait. Sleep sleep sleep :P

iguana

Donnielighto wrote: »

Since it's so dangerous should we stop people from travelling for it?

We did stop people from travelling for it not so long ago. Up until the 13th constitutional amendment in 1992. Maybe read up on a bit of recent history.

smash

iguana wrote: »

We did stop people from travelling for it not so long ago. Up until the 13th constitutional amendment in 1992. Maybe read up on a bit of recent history.

not so long ago? that's 20 years ago!

iguana

smash wrote: »

not so long ago? that's 20 years ago!

Exactly, not so long ago at all.

Not even long enough for us to legislate for the 12th amendment yet.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Not at all, I can be anti abortion but pro equal rights all at the same time!

Looks more like pro abortion to me!

...but then she decided to continue with the pregnancy knowing she didn't have the fathers support. She made an adult decision, all on her own, so she's 100% responsible for that particular decision.

Indeed.

Sigh, don't be so trite. Getting the snip at this point will not prevent the baby being born.

Valuable lesson learned then.

Wow. Thats a pretty poor opinion you have of men there. Men are so emotionally and mentally immature that they can just "walk away"? It's a sad indictment of our society if people have such a low opinion of men.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said! :rolleyes:

Plenty of men do walk away because they aren't ready. Many change their minds and do become a valuable part of the childs life.

I don't want to take that right away from them. You do if you are arguing for abortion for men. It's a right we have that women don't.

Though I suppose people are too bothered looking at rights they don't have, they don't appreciate rights they actually have.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

Looks more like pro abortion to me!

...only it's not.

You do if you are arguing for abortion for men.

No I don't.

It's a right we have that women don't.

In what charter is this right you think men have? And women can't do the same, no? ...because I child was never abandoned.

Though I suppose people are too bothered looking at rights they don't have, they don't appreciate rights they actually have.

Indeed, we should all just acknowledge the right we have, and leave it at that. There you have it folks; that's progressive thinking for you, in modern Ireland.

xsiborg

Zulu wrote: »

Apparently not.
We were discussing the hypothetical where a man could opt out given that the woman had the right to abort their child but choose not to.

Ie: if the woman is afforded the right to kill his child without him having any say in the matter, she shouldn't also be afforded the right to hold the man to economic ransom.

In short, if abortion is available as an option, it should be available to both parents - not just one. (Clearly the woman can't be forced to have a physical abortion, so a "legal" abortion is afforded the man)

please correct me if i am misunderstanding what is being talked about here but is it that the man should not be held responsible financially for the child should the woman decide she wants to keep the child?

i can see where you're coming from, but honestly i cannot see any country in the world ever legislating for this option, not least because of the fact that it would be a legal minefield it would create as they would endeavour to encompass all scenarios in a world where the law has yet to catch up with technology.

it would also be a system open to abuse on a phenomenal scale, where a man could impregnate a woman and then walk away, impregnate another, and another, and so on, with no responsibility towards these offspring. most legislators would see it as de-valuing a human life, and would try to avoid it like a hot potato.

this is not to mention the huge financial cost to the state of supporting these children, not to mention how its impact on a society's structure. jeremy kyle would have enough material to keep him going for the next 100 years!

the simple fact of the matter is that the government would want to ENCOURAGE personal responsibility, not legislate for abdication of it. if they were to legislate for this it would be seen as encouraging promiscuity (oh i said it, i must be a closed minded old fart!). im only saying that people should think about all the consequences before they act, and then might actually think twice before they jump into bed together on a whim!

the old "it'll never happen to me!" is how most people think before they think "well, it COULD happen to me!". if we are to take the case of the individual in the OP, the simple fact that he only surmised AFTERWARDS that this girl was a "psycho", is an indicator that he didnt really think it through before he jumped into bed with her, and that maybe if he had, he would never have jumped into bed with her in the first place, and therefore never gotten her pregnant.




TL : DR - the goverment isn't going to introduce legislation to protect people for being thoughtless idiots!

Helix

cloud493 wrote: »

He should take responsibility, he did it. If he didn't want to risk it, he shouldn't have done it.

isnt the thinly veiled point of the thread to say that if roles were reversed, that the mother decided on an abortion but the father wanted it, the father would have absolutely no say and the pregnancy would be aborted?

Zulu

xsiborg wrote: »

please correct me if i am misunderstanding what is being talked about here but is it that the man should not be held responsible financially for the child should the woman decide she wants to keep the child?

...in the event that she has the right to kill his child without his permission, yes.

i can see where you're coming from, but honestly i cannot see any country in the world ever legislating for this option,

That may be so, but it wasn't until people pushed hard enough, that the weekend was created.
There was a time went people worked everyday, and no one would have honestly seen a country legislating for them to get two days off every week! Yet here we are on the cusp of another weekend that we take for granted.

not least because of the fact that it would be a legal minefield it would create as they would endeavour to encompass all scenarios in a world where the law has yet to catch up with technology.

What legal minefield? If the woman chooses to keep the child, the man can declare himself legally "out". No minefield. Certainly no worse than giving one person the ability to legally kill another child.

it would also be a system open to abuse on a phenomenal scale, where a man could impregnate a woman and then walk away, impregnate another, and another, and so on, with no responsibility towards these offspring.

What? I don't think financial ransom or abortion is a good solution to preventing men from "walking away" again, and again.
Frankly I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that. There are two people involved, contraception can be used by both parties. You think providing a legal ability for a man to opt out of parenthood will lead to "phenomenal" amounts of men getting women pregnant and walking away?!?
More really poor opinions of men coming to the fore.

most legislators would see it as de-valuing a human life, and would try to avoid it like a hot potato.

You mean worse than physical abortion? How does that work??

this is not to mention the huge financial cost to the state of supporting these children,

Why would the state be supporting these children? Perhaps these mothers would be able to provide for themselves. Not all single parents require state support.
Poor opinions of single parents also.

not to mention how its impact on a society's structure.

Indeed, I can see how parents NOT bickering over child support would really improve a childs well being. Parents NOT being forced into faux-relationships would really improve a childs well being.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

.
In what charter is this right you think men have? And women can't do the same, no? ...because I child was never abandoned.

Posters are so obsessed and blinkered with getting equality they can't even see you can never have equality with a woman who has an abortion. With an abortion, there is no child, it ceases to exist! What you are looking for is the right to walk away from a an actual person.

If posters would stop looking at "sure woman can abort, we must therefor be able to", they'd see that it isn't the same thing. You I'm sure argue for the childs right in abortion debates, well I'm arguing for the childs right in this. If anything it is more important in this debate because the reality is there is/will be a living baby to think of.

Indeed, we should all just acknowledge the right we have, and leave it at that. There you have it folks; that's progressive thinking for you, in modern Ireland.

Why so dismissive of young men, changing their minds and becoming good fathers? I mean, why would you dismiss that so easily. Barnardos have reunited fathers and childen successfully. Many were just young, innocent and just a bit ignorant. I value that right, it's more important than monetary measures.

That's what this debate comes down to, to me. A mix of a money saving measure and some ill thought out concept to have equality with the feminists, completely ignoring the third party, the child.

For somebody who is anti abortion, I find it astounding you'd dismiss childrens rights so easily. I tend to look at how changes would effect people now, weigh up the pros and cons.

Atm, women have the advantage of the final choice with abortion, men legally have to pay maintenance but can never see the child. They can also change their mind in a couple of years. Women don't have that right with abortion as it's kind of a final solution, something posters seem to be having difficulty grasping.

Men would have to give up that right in this new idea. They could be living in the same town as their own child and never be able to contact them. Women don't even have to do that with abortion.

fatbastard

Sindri wrote: »

Like.... leave them at the lost and found? Or in a pillow case beside the wheelie bin?

eehhhhhhhhhh :eek: is this supposed to be funny?

K-9

Helix wrote: »

isnt the thinly veiled point of the thread to say that if roles were reversed, that the mother decided on an abortion but the father wanted it, the father would have absolutely no say and the pregnancy would be aborted?

You are into a difficult area of forcing a woman to have a baby against her wishes. It's something that should be considered more, the father having the right to adopt the child of the mother, but it can only work practically if she is willing to adopt. Coercion generally fails in these areas!

Adoption levels are tiny in this country, probably due to historical reasons in this country and big social changes in the last 30 years or so.

fatbastard

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?

Well it's the man's life, why should he be forced to be tied down for 18 years. Same logic.

smash

fatbastard wrote: »

Well it's the man's life, why should he be forced to be tied down for 18 years. Same logic.

Have you read the thread? I never said he did!

xsiborg

Zulu wrote: »

xsiborg wrote: »

please correct me if i am misunderstanding what is being talked about here but is it that the man should not be held responsible financially for the child should the woman decide she wants to keep the child?

...in the event that she has the right to kill his child without his permission, yes.

i can see where you're coming from, but honestly i cannot see any country in the world ever legislating for this option,

That may be so, but it wasn't until people pushed hard enough, that the weekend was created.
There was a time went people worked everyday, and no one would have honestly seen a country legislating for them to get two days off every week! Yet here we are on the cusp of another weekend that we take for granted.

not least because of the fact that it would be a legal minefield it would create as they would endeavour to encompass all scenarios in a world where the law has yet to catch up with technology.

What legal minefield? If the woman chooses to keep the child, the man can declare himself legally "out". No minefield. Certainly no worse than giving one person the ability to legally kill another child.

it would also be a system open to abuse on a phenomenal scale, where a man could impregnate a woman and then walk away, impregnate another, and another, and so on, with no responsibility towards these offspring.

What? I don't think financial ransom or abortion is a good solution to preventing men from "walking away" again, and again.
Frankly I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that. There are two people involved, contraception can be used by both parties. You think providing a legal ability for a man to opt out of parenthood will lead to "phenomenal" amounts of men getting women pregnant and walking away?!?
More really poor opinions of men coming to the fore.

most legislators would see it as de-valuing a human life, and would try to avoid it like a hot potato.

You mean worse than physical abortion? How does that work??

this is not to mention the huge financial cost to the state of supporting these children,

Why would the state be supporting these children? Perhaps these mothers would be able to provide for themselves. Not all single parents require state support.
Poor opinions of single parents also.

not to mention how its impact on a society's structure.

Indeed, I can see how parents NOT bickering over child support would really improve a childs well being. Parents NOT being forced into faux-relationships would really improve a childs well being.

i'll have to wait till im back on the laptop Zulu to address your points because i can see fackall on the touch site at the moment typing on the phone.

but can i just say that you seem to be over-simplifying the issue rather than seeing the much broader implications such legislation would have on a society.

my second point would be that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the 'killing of a child', you cannot use over-simplified terms in one instance and then use emotive terms when it suits you.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

If posters would stop looking at "sure woman can abort, we must therefor be able to", they'd see that it isn't the same thing

For the record, no one here said it's the same thing. You accuse posters of being blinkered & obsessed, but perhaps you need to look in the mirror. Of course it isn't the same thing. What it is is a construct that enables both parents wash their hand of a child. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying its fair.
Remember at this point, the child doesn't exist in the eyes of the law - or at least the life of the child is worth so little, the mother has the option to kill it.

You I'm sure argue for the childs right in abortion debates, well I'm arguing for the childs right in this.

Why? The child can be killed at this point by the mother. If you are concerned about the rights of the child, don't worry about a father walking away, worry about a mother that has the ability to kill it at her whim.

If anything it is more important in this debate because the reality is there is/will be a living baby to think of.

No, the reality is there could be a living baby. Or there could be a dead baby.

Why so dismissive of young men, changing their minds and becoming good fathers? I mean, why would you dismiss that so easily.

I'm not & I don't.

Barnardos have reunited fathers and childen successfully.

After they've been aborted?

That's what this debate comes down to... some ill thought out concept to have equality with the feminists

Feminism has little to do with what I'm discussing, why are you dragging that red herring in here?

For somebody who is anti abortion, I find it astounding you'd dismiss childrens rights so easily.

Indeed, I'd prefer a society where there is no abortion at all (save when the mother life is in real danger), as such this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm not dismissing the rights of the child. I'm managing to consider a society where the life of the unborn child isn't held in the regard I hold it, and then conceive circumstances around that.

Frankly I find it astounding that you can't or won't manage to do that yourself, &/or you can't believe I'd be able to accomplish such a relatively simple mental exercise.

Women don't have that right with abortion as it's kind of a final solution, something posters seem to be having difficulty grasping.

Who hasn't grasped that? I think you are being quite disingenuous now. Everyone here knows abortion is a finality.

Men would have to give up that right in this new idea. They could be living in the same town as their own child and never be able to contact them. Women don't even have to do that with abortion.

We're all aware of that, and it currently happens everyday just about everywhere in the world.

Dyr

xsiborg wrote: »

it would also be a system open to abuse on a phenomenal scale, where a man could impregnate a woman and then walk away, impregnate another, and another, and so on, with no responsibility towards these offspring. most legislators would see it as de-valuing a human life, and would try to avoid it like a hot potato.

this is not to mention the huge financial cost to the state of supporting these children, not to mention how its impact on a society's structure. jeremy kyle would have enough material to keep him going for the next 100 years!

you mean like the abise on a phenomenal scale of single mothers witha rake of kids from different fathers . Is that devaluing life cost the state a packet blah blah blah

K-9

Zulu, you seem more interested in having a debate about abortion for women than men.

worry about a mother that has the ability to kill it at her whim.

I don't agree with abortion personally but I recognise reality, I'm doing the same here. It is obvious you are so opposed to abortion for women that it is informing your opinion on this. I'm astonished at somebody so opposed to killing at a whim as you put it, that you see a father abondoning his child, a real, living child as some type of equality.

Tbh, I think it is punishment you are after, not equality.

After they've been aborted?

Don't be so ridiculous.

Indeed, I'd prefer a society where there is no abortion at all (save when the mother life is in real danger), as such this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm not dismissing the rights of the child. I'm managing to consider a society where the life of the unborn child isn't held in the regard I hold it, and then conceive circumstances around that.

Frankly I find it astounding that you can't or won't manage to do that yourself, &/or you can't believe I'd be able to accomplish such a relatively simple mental exercise.

I'd like world peace too. Abortions happen, I don't like it but they do. Thus I don't want to give men the right to abort to basically just save money and for some perceived inequality.

Men have an important right, the right to walk back into a childs life, something I'm all for over saving money.

I tend to tire of debating with zealots and that's the impression I'm getting for you. You can't get your way on abortion so let's have an abortion for all.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

you mean like the abise on a phenomenal scale of single mothers witha rake of kids from different fathers . Is that devaluing life cost the state a packet blah blah blah

Wondered how long it would take to get that raised.

Phenomenal scale? Got any figures for this phenomenon?

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

Zulu, you seem more interested in having a debate about abortion for women than men.

No. I don't, where have I implied that?

It is obvious you are so opposed to abortion for women that it is informing your opinion on this. ...
Tbh, I think it is punishment you are after, not equality...
I tend to tire of debating with zealots...

To be honest, the only thing that's obvious here is your wish to create false positions for me, make unfounded assumptions about me, and be rude.

I think our conversation has run it's course.

xsiborg

Bambi wrote: »

you mean like the abise on a phenomenal scale of single mothers witha rake of kids from different fathers . Is that devaluing life cost the state a packet blah blah blah

yes that is one unfortunate phenomenon as a result of people that dont seem to give a damn about personal responsibility, but i would never tar all women with the same brush, in the same way as i would never tar all men with the same brush that all they want to do is dump their load and move on to the next one.

two wrongs as they say, dont make a right, and generous state handouts have allowed this type of behaviour to flourish. i would not encourage anyone to become dependent on financial aid from the state as a lifestyle choice and to then blame somebody else for their lack of personal responsibility and to be quite frank about it- ignorance.

what you seem to forget is that the children of these types of people with a "the state will pay for it" mindset is that these children themselves dont have much of a start in life, so that is why i would disourage this type of behaviour in both men AND women, not make it a thing where as Zulu alluded to earlier- give both parents the right to abandon or disown the child.

that to me is the height of irresponsible, selfish behaviour, and completely immature and nothing "forward thinking" or equality of any sort about it.

Zulu seems to want to argue that he or she is against abortion, but if they are going to legislate for abortion for women, they should legislate that a man should be able to abdicate all responsibility for "a child he didnt want". abortion and abandonment are nowhere near equal in terms of legislation or consequences for either party, so even trying to compare the two is just all sorts of ridiculous!

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

Wondered how long it would take to get that raised.

Phenomenal scale? Got any figures for this phenomenon?

oh dear, read the quoted post before knee jerking from a high horse, it'll bolt and ye'll be trun off it