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

xsiborg

Zulu wrote: »

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

she is not killing a child for starters, the is having a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. she does not need his permission because she is not his property, nor is the foetus she is carrying. the man should have no choice in the matter because it is not his body. when the technology evolves to a point where men are capable of beconing pregnant, then we can talk about equality. til then, there are plenty of rights that discriminate both ways, this is just one of them, and all the bawling "its not fair", isnt going to change that.

Zulu wrote: »

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.

ah come on, you hardly expect im supposed to take that seriously? :pac:

Zulu wrote: »

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.

a legal minefield if the man decided then later that he wanted access to the child and when questioned on the fact that he gave up those rights, he can claim he did so under duress, etc, or any number of reasons really, family courts are clogged up enough with custody battles over initially unwanted children as it is without adding to that burden. i know of one particular case where the father wanted nothing initially to do with the child when he went off to england and got into a new relationship, that relationship didnt work out, so he came back to ireland and used the children as leverage to torment the mother, even though she had asked him for no financial support, and non had been forthcoming in the seven years he'd been gone either!

as you can see, your idea might seem practical in theory, but in reality, it could lead to a legal mess, and each and every case would have to be judged on it's individual merits.

Zulu wrote: »

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.

its not financial ransom as you put it that i am suggesting, it's taking financial responsibility for a child which he helped to create. yes i do think providing a legal ability for a man to opt out of his responsibilities will lead to him becoming even more irresponsible and careless when he knows he can just walk away and not have to deal with the consequences of his actions. there are already a number of men with this attitude, and to provide them with a legal ability to do so only makes it even more wrong.

as for your assertion of poor opinions of men, i didnt say ALL men, nor am i the one advocating for men to have the option to walk away from their responsibility should they wish to do so. i also said earlier if you will recall that i do not advocate the idea of a woman's right to have children from several different fathers either. but that again is down to a lack of personal responsibility on the woman's part. i think i also said earlier that two wrongs dont make a right, and just because a woman chooses to act irresponsibly, does not mean a man should be granted the same right to act irresponsibly. this unfortunate situation, as i mentioned earlier, is down to the generous state welfare system, and if this was reviewed, or even better, done away with altogether, i can guarantee you these women would also think twice before jumping into bed with a man.

Zulu wrote: »

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

i never said it was worse than abortion, seriously, stop trying to twist my words, i think you know exactly what i meant. the irish government has still not legalised abortion in this country, 20 years of successive governments have side-stepped around the issue, so what do you think are the chances they'll ever get around to legislating for fathers to abdicate their responsibility towards a pregnancy they created, let alone their responsibility towards the child that is born as a result of that pregnancy.

Zulu wrote: »

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.

well you seem to be the one advocating for the rights of both parents to disown the child, so who else is going to pay for them? and just because these mothers might be able to provide for the child themselves does not mitigate the fathers responsibility towards a child he helped conceive!

poor opinions of single parents nothing! poor opinions of any parent who wants to get out of taking responsibility for their actions- yes!

Zulu wrote: »

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.

when i said "societys structure", i didnt mean the family unit, i meant society as a whole, as in if nobody took responsibility for their actions, society would fall apart. it'd be like someone walking away from their mortgage just because "they didnt want to pay for it", and we all see how that one would work out, yet you cant see how in a world with no personal responsibility the state would soon be over-run trying to provide resources for all these unwanted children?

you havent really thought this through, have you? i respectfully suggest the next time you feel like a five minute fumble between the sheets, you take a minute to think about the possible consequences of your actions. it might take the edge off your boner!

partyatmygaff

xsiborg wrote: »

she is not killing a child for starters, the is having a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

"What? I'm just cutting off his supply of nutrients and oxygen. I'm not killing him, the lack of food and air is."

she does not need his permission because she is not his property, nor is the foetus she is carrying.

The child she's carrying isn't her property either. Unless the child has a defect such as anencephaly or the mother's physical or mental health is at severe risk then there's no question of "permission" really for either parent.

xsiborg

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"What? I'm just cutting off his supply of nutrients and oxygen. I'm not killing him, the lack of food and air is."

this isnt an argument for or against abortion though, and neither is the girl who conceived the foetus killing the child. qualified doctors perform a medical procedure to terminate the life of the foetus. all the emotive language in the world will not change the fact that the legislation is there in certain countries that makes provision for an abortion within a certain time limit.

after that (and im not too well up on the legalities of all the different countries!), but then im guessing you could make the case for murder.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The child she's carrying isn't her property either. Unless the child has a defect such as anencephaly or the mother's physical or mental health is at severe risk then there's no question of "permission" really for either parent.

i never once suggested the child was her property, i would advocate that her own body is her property though, and if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy, provisions have been made in legislation in certain countries to allow her to do so.

i do like the way though you pre-qualified your statement with the word "unless", which means you have just negated the impact of your first statement, you are then suggesting that it's ok to "kill" the foetus. and then the question becomes "where do you draw the line and who decides on a quality of life", that is an entirely separate argument from who has or has not "permission" to terminate a pregnancy and under what circumstances they may choose to do so.

this is not a debate about abortion though or the rights of the unborn, this is an argument based on the fact that the mother has chosen to carry the pregnancy to full term and the father's responsibility to provide for a child he helped to conceive.

Zulu

You'll excuse us all for dismissing your acusations of "not thinking it through" after you come out with:

xsiborg wrote: »

she is not killing a child for starters, the is having a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

...and:

...nor is the foetus she is carrying.

Of course you know that the "medical procedure" is to kill the child, but if you'd prefer to call it something else, go for it. I think we can at least agree that the child (as per the dictionary definition provided) doesn't survive that procedure. I'd rather talk straight. But each to their own.
As for the property point, clearly the child isn't his "property", it is however his child.

Anyways, I think I know where this is going. Bank holiday weekend folks, and I'm drinking so...

TehDagsBass

While a woman can abort a pregnancy without the consent or actively against the wishes of the father, I fully respect men's right to walk away and have nothing to do with a pregnancy that arises out of an accident.

I would never advocate forcing a woman to either abort or to carry a child against her wishes and therefore would never see it right for a man to be forced to stick around in the scenario described. There should be no financial responsibilty attached to it either.

Then again, I'm in favour of rights for all, which appears to be an abnormality in this era where rights only seem to go one way.

partyatmygaff

xsiborg wrote: »

this isnt an argument for or against abortion though, and neither is the girl who conceived the foetus killing the child. qualified doctors perform a medical procedure to terminate the life of the foetus.

"Qualified doctors perform a medical procedure". Alright.

When it's actually a medical procedure as in for a therapeutic abortion, it's unpleasant but I have no major issue with it. In the context of this thread, it's an elective abortion.

As for whether or not she's killing the child, i'm afraid to say she is even if she isn't physically carrying out the procedure. How does "Can you cut off my son/daughter's air and food supply for me?" sound to you?

all the emotive language in the world will not change the fact that the legislation is there in certain countries that makes provision for an abortion within a certain time limit.

I don't care for what legislation says. I care for what's right and just.

i never once suggested the child was her property, i would advocate that her own body is her property though, and if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy, provisions have been made in legislation in certain countries to allow her to do so.

Imagine a closed world where only the mother and her child existed. In one case, the child is still in the mother's womb. In the other, the child has been born.

If she decided to stop feeding and essentially suffocate her child, how would you call it? Did the mother kill her child or did the child's inability to survive kill the child?

i do like the way though you pre-qualified your statement with the word "unless", which means you have just negated the impact of your first statement, you are then suggesting that it's ok to "kill" the foetus.

I haven't negated my first statement, even if you think I have. As for killing a child in pregnancy, it's horrible but unfortunately sometimes it's necessary. When the child poses a major health risk to its mother, there's no point in causing the death of the mother to save the child.

and then the question becomes "where do you draw the line and who decides on a quality of life", that is an entirely separate argument from who has or has not "permission" to terminate a pregnancy and under what circumstances they may choose to do so.

A child born with anencephaly has absolutely no chance of survival. If they even survive until the end of pregnancy and survive birth, they'll die fairly rapidly.

this is not a debate about abortion though or the rights of the unborn, this is an argument based on the fact that the mother has chosen to carry the pregnancy to full term and the father's responsibility to provide for a child he helped to conceive.

Well it does really have a lot to do with abortion. The argument being put forward is "The mother could have chosen to abort the child but she didn't. Therefore the father should not be held responsible for the child as the mother is the person who took the decision to not terminate the pregnancy."

If abortion isn't an acceptable option and cannot be "chosen" then from my viewpoint, he has an equal obligation to the child as does the mother.

lmaopml

TehDagsBass wrote: »

While a woman can abort a pregnancy without the consent or actively against the wishes of the father, I fully respect men's right to walk away and have nothing to do with a pregnancy that arises out of an accident.

I would never advocate forcing a woman to either abort or to carry a child against her wishes and therefore would never see it right for a man to be forced to stick around in the scenario described. There should be no financial responsibilty attached to it either.

Then again, I'm in favour of rights for all, which appears to be an abnormality in this era where rights only seem to go one way.

Of course that's really nice of you that a Father should be allowed walk away ,and the way out for the mother is to have an abortion. Financials etc.

Most Courts of Law deal with the 'rights' of the child not the mother or father thank goodness.

It's an odd idea to look from the point of view of a child to have a father and mother, but nonetheless - that's how they start out - do they have the 'right' to know their 'Father' and their 'Mother' - or is it all about something else.

xsiborg

Zulu wrote: »

You'll excuse us all for dismissing your acusations of "not thinking it through" after you come out with:
...and:


Of course you know that the "medical procedure" is to kill the child, but if you'd prefer to call it something else, go for it. I think we can at least agree that the child (as per the dictionary definition provided) doesn't survive that procedure. I'd rather talk straight. But each to their own.
As for the property point, clearly the child isn't his "property", it is however his child.

Anyways, I think I know where this is going. Bank holiday weekend folks, and I'm drinking so...

you can choose to play silly semantics and use emotive language all you want, my point still stands. the abortion debate is a whole other story.

as i've already pointed out, this is not about abortion or a woman's right to choose whether she has one or not. clearly in this hypothetical scenario, the woman has chosen to have the child, the man if he had not wanted the child should then have thought twice about sleeping with her if he did not want a child. accidents dont just happen, they are caused by others lack of personal responsibility or careless attitide, who then you would advocate should be rewarded for their carelessness by absolving them of any responsibility towards the child they helped conceive.

just because he doesnt want to does not mean he shouldnt have to. that's why it's called being responsible.

and as for the poster that said they were in favor of rights for all, i am too, but with those rights come responsibilities, you cannot indiscriminately express your rights without taking responsibility for the consequences of expressing those rights.

Battered Mars Bar

I can't even get sex

MadameGascar

no I don't think anyone should be allowed to disclaim a child. Reading that made me puke. The stupidest acting guys I know wouldnt even be thinking like this.

xsiborg

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Qualified doctors perform a medical procedure". Alright.

When it's actually a medical procedure as in for a therapeutic abortion, it's unpleasant but I have no major issue with it. In the context of this thread, it's an elective abortion.

we're agreed that it's an elective abortion, but you're not ok with that, so therefore you have just contradicted your philosophy of rights for all.

you also choose to make the distinction between reasons for abortion, so therefore it's down to where you yourself make the distinction. legislators do not have this luxury when they try to legislate for the majority, not just individuals who choose to believe in the rights for all philosophy while ignoring balancing that out with responsibilities for all.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for whether or not she's killing the child, i'm afraid to say she is even if she isn't physically carrying out the procedure. How does "Can you cut off my son/daughter's air and food supply for me?" sound to you?

it sounds silly, but i think we can both agree it's hardly as simple as that.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't care for what legislation says. I care for what's right and just.

and that right there is the crux of the issue- you say you want rights for all, but you dont care about the legislation that defines those rights and makes it illegal to have an abortion in this country. now imagine if everyone took the attitude that they dont care what legislation says. this would lead to the breakdown of society as there would be a lawless free-for-all when people would see it as their right to supercede the rights of others. legislation is there to try and provide the right and just balance you seek.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Imagine a closed world where only the mother and her child existed. In one case, the child is still in the mother's womb. In the other, the child has been born.

If she decided to stop feeding and essentially suffocate her child, how would you call it? Did the mother kill her child or did the child's inability to survive kill the child?

im trying to get my head around this incredibly hypothetical situation, so please do correct me if im wrong.

if the mother decided not to feed the foetus, then she would have no choice but to not feed herself also, because the foetus shares everything the mother does, so in this case i would call it that the mother committed suicide, and the foetus died of natural causes.

now if the foetus was carried to full term and we are talking about an actual child that has been born, and THEN the mother decided to suffocate it, that would be murder.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I haven't negated my first statement, even if you think I have. As for killing a child in pregnancy, it's horrible but unfortunately sometimes it's necessary. When the child poses a major health risk to its mother, there's no point in causing the death of the mother to save the child.

A child born with anencephaly has absolutely no chance of survival. If they even survive until the end of pregnancy and survive birth, they'll die fairly rapidly.

but if you are of the philosophy of rights for all, and you dont care what the legislation says, then would you not see this as the right to life of the mother superceding the right to life of the child. and if we are to use your hypothetical scenario from above, then how would YOU call it when the mother would as you put it "kill the child", deprive it of oxygen, etc.

as for a child born with ancephaly, and the denial of it's life, why stop at ancephaly? why not include a host of other conditions that would not see a child survive into adulthood? why not kill them off now to prevent them living what you would consider a life of misery?

what im saying is, where do you as an individual draw the line? that is what legislation is for, and legislation strives to draw up what is right and just for the majority, not just the individual.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well it does really have a lot to do with abortion. The argument being put forward is "The mother could have chosen to abort the child but she didn't. Therefore the father should not be held responsible for the child as the mother is the person who took the decision to not terminate the pregnancy."

it's not as simple though as "could have chosen" to have an abortion. im pretty sure it's not a decision that could be taken lightly, plus the girl would have to live with the consequences of that decision, the same way as the man should have to live with the consequences of his decision to sleep with her. he could have chosen not to, thereby not impregnating her in the first place.

this raises the point that it's practically impossible (but not completely impossible!) for a woman to have sex with a man against his wishes, but it is not impossible for a man to have sex with a woman against her wishes, so this whole "trapped man" argument is also a bit of a misnomer.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If abortion isn't an acceptable option and cannot be "chosen" then from my viewpoint, he has an equal obligation to the child as does the mother.

thank you, thats what i've been saying all along, so at least we can agree on that much.

K-9

If people see abortion as killing the child, why are they in favour of this then? Equality gone mad I tell ya!

Piste

Whoah, women can choose to put a baby up for adoption without the father's consent? That is ridiculous!

iguana wrote: »

As long as she isn't married she can. It's called adoption and it's completely her right to terminate her parental rights and responsibilities if she wants to. The father can then apply to adopt the child and as long as there is no good reason not to give him care of a child he should be granted full parental rights.

If a woman has that legal right then a man should too. Getting into a debate about who can choose and can't choose an abortion is pointless. It's a biological issue of bodily integrity rather than a legal one. However the issue of adoption is entirely legal and in that regard mothers have rights that fathers do not, which is a double standard.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

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

Ah yeah, didn't realise it was a tit for tat type post.

partyatmygaff

xsiborg wrote: »

we're agreed that it's an elective abortion, but you're not ok with that, so therefore you have just contradicted your philosophy of rights for all. you also choose to make the distinction between reasons for abortion, so therefore it's down to where you yourself make the distinction. legislators do not have this luxury when they try to legislate for the majority, not just individuals who choose to believe in the rights for all philosophy while ignoring balancing that out with responsibilities for all.

I never said "rights for all". Someone else said that.

it sounds silly, but i think we can both agree it's hardly as simple as that.

Fundamentally it's precisely the same thing.

and that right there is the crux of the issue- you say you want rights for all, but you dont care about the legislation that defines those rights and makes it illegal to have an abortion in this country. now imagine if everyone took the attitude that they dont care what legislation says. this would lead to the breakdown of society as there would be a lawless free-for-all when people would see it as their right to supercede the rights of others. legislation is there to try and provide the right and just balance you seek.

You keep confusing me with someone else.

im trying to get my head around this incredibly hypothetical situation, so please do correct me if im wrong.

if the mother decided not to feed the foetus, then she would have no choice but to not feed herself also, because the foetus shares everything the mother does, so in this case i would call it that the mother committed suicide, and the foetus died of natural causes.

now if the foetus was carried to full term and we are talking about an actual child that has been born, and THEN the mother decided to suffocate it, that would be murder.

It would be equivalent to removing the placenta. She wouldn't be killing herself but she'd definitely end up killing the child.

as for a child born with ancephaly, and the denial of it's life, why stop at ancephaly? why not include a host of other conditions that would not see a child survive into adulthood? why not kill them off now to prevent them living what you would consider a life of misery?

An anencephalic child will rarely survive pregnancy, let alone birth. A child with some other form of defect may quite possibly live a happy life.

thank you, thats what i've been saying all along, so at least we can agree on that much.

Some common ground at least

Janedoe10

So he would feel better if the child was terminated .?. Lovely boy ..
He has to man up now and take responsibility for his actions . It took 2 to tango but as he has discovered people can get caught .
He may think he can disclaim the little mite but in the long run , the girl can get him to cough up if she looks for child support .
I hope she does follow through with it and is not going to be bullied into some thing she does not want ..

K-9

Piste wrote: »

Whoah, women can choose to put a baby up for adoption without the father's consent? That is ridiculous!

In that case the father can look to adopt I assume. An unmarried father is basically a legal stranger to the child.

Not sure what the case is at birth but if a step parent is looking to adopt the child, the adoption board try and contact the father and get consent. Sometimes the father is non contactable, where he might have emigrated and never had anything to do with the child, basically aborted the child like some posters are advocating should be made legal, so there'd be little problem there. Someone like me, they'd need my consent. If I consented I'd have no obligation to pay child maintenance.

xsiborg

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Some common ground at least

ahh fúck it partyatmygaff, i had a reply almost typed out and i pressed the backspace button on my keyboard, wiped out the whole thing, lol, but im half asleep here at the mo so apologies for mixing you up with the other poster there, i'll try and get back to you with a decent reply in the morning...

westendgirlie

ibarelycare,

While my 2 daughters were growing up they would think they had done something wrong, weren't good enough, other mad crazy thoughts as to why their dad left. They were 2 and 5. Over the years he contacted them less and less. He hasn't contacted them at all since the eldest was 11/12. No calls, no texts, no cards. It is rare that we talk about him now but I know they think about him to themselves and I am sure they feel very hurt.

My girls did nothing wrong. Tell your friend not to let another child go through what my girls went through. It's not the end of his world, just the beginning of theirs.

Noreen1

True story folks.

In the early 80s, (In England) one of my neighbours sons, who was in a long term relationship, ended up in the situation where his girlfriend had an unplanned pregnancy.

He wanted the baby. She didn't.

They came to an arrangement, whereby he agreed to support her during the pregnancy, pay all her medical bills, and he would adopt the baby (a healthy girl) when it was born.

He kept his end of the bargain, supported her, took time off work to attend hospital appointments with her etc.

She decided, at a fairly advanced stage of pregnancy, to have an abortion, which was duly carried out just before the legal limit, which was 28 weeks, at the time.

The poor guy was absolutely devastated. He had a room prepared, pram, baby clothes etc. bought, and had been really looking forward to being a Dad.

I felt so sorry for him.

So - I may be castigated for this, but, - this woman may have had a legal right to an abortion, but I don't believe she had any moral right to one.

My reasoning is this.
Both parents were responsible for the pregnancy.
But, there were three people involved. Mum, Dad and baby.
Pre-term babies struggle to hold onto life, therefore it's reasonable to say this child did, too.
Since Dad wanted his child, and the baby wanted to live - then why should one person have the right to overrule the wishes of the two others involved?


By the same token - there are three people involved here.
One is a defenceless child, to whom the mother has chosen to give life.
I don't think anyone here has argued that the father should have the right to force a termination.
Therefore, the mother should not have that right either, imo.

Now, to the case in point:
The OPs "friend" works with the mother of his child - yet we are expected to believe he only found out she was a psycho after he had sex with her - a couple of times?
Not really credible tbh.

As to a "right" to a legal abdication of responsibilty for fathers?
If fathers are granted the right to adopt their unplanned babies then the balance is equal? Yes?

So:

He should stop his self-pitying bleating, and face the fact that he helped create a child. Planned or not, it's going to be born. He should deal with it!

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

True story folks.

In the early 80s, (In England) one of my neighbours sons, who was in a long term relationship, ended up in the situation where his girlfriend had an unplanned pregnancy.

He wanted the baby. She didn't.

They came to an arrangement, whereby he agreed to support her during the pregnancy, pay all her medical bills, and he would adopt the baby (a healthy girl) when it was born.

He kept his end of the bargain, supported her, took time off work to attend hospital appointments with her etc.

She decided, at a fairly advanced stage of pregnancy, to have an abortion, which was duly carried out just before the legal limit, which was 28 weeks, at the time.

The poor guy was absolutely devastated. He had a room prepared, pram, baby clothes etc. bought, and had been really looking forward to being a Dad.

I felt so sorry for him.

So - I may be castigated for this, but, - this woman may have had a legal right to an abortion, but I don't believe she had any moral right to one.

She definitely did not, but what can be done there? If she decided she couldn't basically carry to term or face adopting the child. 24 hour watch to make sure she doesn't?

My reasoning is this.
Both parents were responsible for the pregnancy.
But, there were three people involved. Mum, Dad and baby.
Pre-term babies struggle to hold onto life, therefore it's reasonable to say this child did, too.
Since Dad wanted his child, and the baby wanted to live - then why should one person have the right to overrule the wishes of the two others involved?

I agree but what can you do practically? What do you propose, with the wisdom of Solomon!

By the same token - there are three people involved here.
One is a defenceless child, to whom the mother has chosen to give life.
I don't think anyone here has argued that the father should have the right to force a termination.
Therefore, the mother should not have that right either, imo.

Now, to the case in point:
The OPs "friend" works with the mother of his child - yet we are expected to believe he only found out she was a psycho after he had sex with her - a couple of times?
Not really credible tbh.

I never got the impression he thought she was a psycho, just a pregnancy happened and they differed.

As to a "right" to a legal abdication of responsibilty for fathers?
If fathers are granted the right to adopt their unplanned babies then the balance is equal? Yes?

So:

He should stop his self-pitying bleating, and face the fact that he helped create a child. Planned or not, it's going to be born. He should deal with it!

But men can't abort like women!

Which sounds nice and simple, sure just let men abort too, but it isn't as simple as that, no matter how one tries to pretend it is.

Junco Partner

If any man could think about turning his back on his kid and leaving the girl with all the responsibilities, then that child is better off without that sack of shoite.

TehDagsBass

Janedoe10 wrote: »

So he would feel better if the child was terminated .?. Lovely boy ..
He has to man up now and take responsibility for his actions . It took 2 to tango but as he has discovered people can get caught .
He may think he can disclaim the little mite but in the long run , the girl can get him to cough up if she looks for child support .
I hope she does follow through with it and is not going to be bullied into some thing she does not want ..

Yet, it's perfectly acceptable for him to be bullied into something he doesn't want?

I don't think so. He should have as much of a right to have no legal connection to the child as the woman to have the right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by herself or not.

The double standards being shown by a lot of women in 2012 is absolutely appalling, if I can be frank.

f0ggy92 wrote: »

If any man could think about turning his back on his kid and leaving the girl with all the responsibilities, then that child is better off without that sack of shoite.

If this is the best a man's mind can muster, then conversation is better off without his input.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

She definitely did not, but what can be done there? If she decided she couldn't basically carry to term or face adopting the child. 24 hour watch to make sure she doesn't?.

If legislation can be passed that allows a mother to abort a child against the wishes of the father - then legislation can be passed that denies her that "right".

K-9 wrote: »

I agree but what can you do practically? What do you propose, with the wisdom of Solomon!

I propose that the mothers right is no greater than the rights of the other two people involved.
Like it or not, it's not just her body, or wishes, that are involved. The body of a child is also involved, as are the wishes of the father.

K-9 wrote: »

I never got the impression he thought she was a psycho, just a pregnancy happened and they differed.

See post 21, on page two of the thread.

K-9 wrote: »

Which sounds nice and simple, sure just let men abort too, but it isn't as simple as that, no matter how one tries to pretend it is.

Eh?

If both parents are granted equal rights to the child, in the sense that neither can abort without the others consent, then the parents have equal rights.

The person raising the child should receive child support from the other parent - be they male or female - therefore, equal responsibility, and equal rights, insofar as can be practically arranged.
Dunno about the wisdom of Solomon - but it seems to me to address the equal rights issue, at least in part.
Better than leaving a father with no rights over whether his child lives or dies, or the "right" to walk away from his responsibilities, under the guise of equal rights, anyway.

K-9

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Yet, it's perfectly acceptable for him to be bullied into something he doesn't want?

I don't think so. He should have as much of a right to have no legal connection to the child as the woman to have the right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by herself or not.

The double standards being shown by a lot of women in 2012 is absolutely appalling, if I can be frank.

While I see your point I wish people would stop seeing a difference of opinion as bullying.

Somebody not agreeing with my opinion is not bullying me.

partyatmygaff

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Yet, it's perfectly acceptable for him to be bullied into something he doesn't want?

I don't think so. He should have as much of a right to have no legal connection to the child as the woman to have the right to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy by herself or not.

The woman doesn't have any right to kill the child either. Running away from responsibility because "you don't want it" is nothing short of cowardice.

If this is the best a man's mind can muster, then conversation is better off without his input.

A parent who dumps their child because having a child doesn't suit them is cowardly scum.

Yakult

TehDagsBass wrote: »

if I can be frank.

Only if I can be Anne.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

If legislation can be passed that allows a mother to abort a child against the wishes of the father - then legislation can be passed that denies her that "right".

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

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

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

See post 21, on page two of the thread.

A friend of the father is just passing on his assessment she's a psycho.

Imo my ex can be a bit of a psycho!

TehDagsBass

K-9 wrote: »

While I see your point I wish people would stop seeing a difference of opinion as bullying.

Somebody not agreeing with my opinion is not bullying me.

I never claimed it was, I was responding to the person who claimed that the woman in this case was being "bullied" into doing something she didn't want to. I was merely stating that it runs in both ways, if a woman shouldn't be bullied into doing something she does not want to (and she shouldn't), then a man shouldn't be bullied into doing something he does not want to either.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The woman doesn't have any right to kill the child either. Running away from responsibility because "you don't want it" is nothing short of cowardice.

A parent who dumps their child because having a child doesn't suit them is cowardly scum.

Not really. Using contraception is a sure sign that someone does not want a child. Contraception may not work 100% of the time, but using it makes the chances of having a child very miniscule. On both the part of the male and female, if both are using contraception then it is clear that they do not want a child.

If a statistical improbability does occur and a pregnancy is formed, why should either party be bound to that? A woman can go and have an abortion if she so wishes, a man simply can't. He can, however, "abort" the child from his life by simply having nothing to do with it going forward, a choice that should be respected on equal measure as a woman deciding to not go through with a pregnancy.

It's akin to calling a woman who does not want a child, who practised safe sex yet still got extremely unlucky and got pregnant so decides to have an early abortion a coward. She's not, she's merely following through on her the intent she expressed all along by using contraception.

A man and woman have sex, using contraception, on a one night stand or fling. The woman gets pregnant. He says he'd like to keep it, she says "my body, my choice" and aborts it. He has no right to tell her to go through with it, which is fair enough, it's her body. Flip the scenario, he can't abort it, but if she should wish to continue with the pregnancy then be it on her own head and from her own pocket.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, that is her choice and I won't call her a coward for doing so. If a man gets someone pregnant and decides he does not want to be a part of the child's life, that is his choice and I won't call him a coward for doing so either. In both cases, both parties are merely acting consistent to the outlook they presented at the initiation of the sex. I'm not going to judge either for doing so.

Yakult wrote: »

Only if I can be Anne.

I'm afraid you're Beans, Beans.

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

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

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

Because there are a large number of women (and men) who think abortion is wrong.

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

The condom is male contraception, there's no excuse for a woman to not double the protection in some way in this day and age.

smash wrote: »

From a man's side, the condom is the only contraception we have. Women have a variety and like I said, we can't force someone to take a morning after pill if something goes wrong either.

smash wrote: »

I don't think it matters if women carry condoms or not though. If they don't want to get pregnant they can take the pill and still use condoms to protect against stds and as a backup of course. Condoms are a male contraceptive no matter what way you look at it. Apart from that, how can a woman be sure she's carrying the correct size if she's planning on a one night stand?

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.

smash wrote: »

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?

These have to be some of the most blinkered set of posts I've ever read on boards. Condoms are "male" contraception? No, they are CONTRACEPTION. There are plenty of women who choose condoms because of the negative side effects from using hormonal birth control...and most doctors are reluctant to prescribe an IUD for young women who have not started/aren't done having children yet.

Also, it's absurd that this is all the woman's fault for not being cautious enough. Everyone knows that condoms can fail: did this man ask the woman beforehand if she was on any kind of birth control? And to speak to zulu's point, did he ask her how she felt about abortion? Honestly, these are pretty basic questions to ask if you are having a sexual relationship with someone - if you don't ask them beforehand, then don't be surprised when you get an ugly shock when and if contraception fails. And even if you do ask, don't be surprised if one party changes their mind when a woman gets pregnant.

If a man and a woman have sex, the woman may get pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective. And whatever a woman might have said beforehand about being open to abortion may go out the window when she is actually pregnant...and whatever a man says about being excited about a baby, he may still pull a runner once it has arrived. It is a roll of the dice, but that is life, and a child should not be punished because its parents took that risk and crapped out.

Wompa1

Interesting debate. I had a similar one with an ex before we discussed what we'd do if she got pregnant by accident. I said what if I'd support and raise the child. She said she'd have an abortion, I said what if I was willing to raise the child myself and have sole responsibility and guardianship. Was told she'd still abort because it's her body and why should she have to go through discomfort for 9 months and a possibly painful pregnancy.

Some Women that would abort probably shouldn't have sex until they are married...because many seem to have a very cavalier attitude to abortion and view it as a form of contraception rather than terminating a life...just saying..

Have all the abortions you want though. Couldn't give a toss...

Zulu

Noreen1 wrote: »

He wanted the baby. She didn't...
She decided, at a fairly advanced stage of pregnancy, to have an abortion...
The poor guy was absolutely devastated.
So - I may be castigated for this, but, - this woman may have had a legal right to an abortion, but I don't believe she had any moral right to one.

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

As to a "right" to a legal abdication of responsibilty for fathers?
If fathers are granted the right to adopt their unplanned babies then the balance is equal? Yes?

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

He should stop his self-pitying bleating, and face the fact that he helped create a child. Planned or not, it's going to be born. He should deal with it!

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

Noreen1 wrote: »

If legislation can be passed that allows a mother to abort a child against the wishes of the father - then legislation can be passed that denies her that "right".

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

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

DonQuay1

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.

How do you mean "Contraception failed"!! Did the condom fail ... or was the pill not taken on time?

DonQuay1

haminka wrote: »

Legally and morally he is responsible for the baby.
It takes two to tango and contraception can fail. If he wanted to be 100% sure he wouldn't be fathering a baby he should have gotten a snip or stuck his wingilingy into a bee hive instead.
It's his baby and his responsibility now, even if he doesn't want to do anything with the woman. The notion that if the man doesn't want a baby and relied on contraception which can and sometimes will fail is not responsible for the baby's upbringing now is ridiculous.

Yeah! Guarenteed ... there's some major conspiracy for the last couple of decades as to WHY there's no male pill or it's equivelent 'invented' yet!! The amount of unmarried mothers would drop through the basement if there was! No more pyjama girls living off state handouts then!!

StudentDad

As the law stands in Ireland at the moment I would rather put my hands into a fire than run the risk of pregnancy outside of marriage in this country.

Even where a couple is married and there is a breakdown, too many times the father is shafted in terms of access to his children and maintenance etc. etc.

SD

Teyla Emmagan

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Yeah! Guarenteed ... there's some major conspiracy for the last couple of decades as to WHY there's no male pill or it's equivelent 'invented' yet!! The amount of unmarried mothers would drop through the basement if there was! No more pyjama girls living off state handouts then!!

Yeah, right!!!

xsiborg

StudentDad wrote: »

As the law stands in Ireland at the moment I would rather put my hands into a fire than run the risk of pregnancy outside of marriage in this country.

Even where a couple is married and there is a breakdown, too many times the father is shafted in terms of access to his children and maintenance etc. etc.

SD

you're making that comment in hindsight though SD, there are plenty of women who would be able to make the same statement with regard to getting maintenance from the father for the child, its as if what was asked in the OP happens already, because its an extremely hard law to enforce and prove and keep track of who fathered who already!

StudentDad

Not in hindsight I have never fathered children outside of marriage.

Hard to enforce? Not really, with medical science, paternity can be sorted fairly quickly and cheaply.

Not the point though. As it stands if a man gets a woman pregnant outside of marriage in practical terms he has bugger all rights. He is expected to pay if he recognises the child as his but in real terms is totally at the whim of the mother for everything else.

SD

bnt

There is a lot of work going on w.r.t. male contraception e.g researchers have been able to produce reversible contraception by zapping testicles with ultrasound. It needs more up-to-date testing, but there were tests on some men 40 years ago, who say the process was not only pain-free, but feels "nice and warm". :P

Not so nice, but still better than the "snip", is another new technique, which involves injecting a spermicidal gel in to the vas deferens to kill sperm there without blocking them. This is also reversible, with another injection to dissolve the gel. It's already well in to trials and may be available to us in a few years.

Teyla Emmagan

bnt wrote: »

There is a lot of work going on w.r.t. male contraception e.g researchers have been able to produce reversible contraception by zapping testicles with ultrasound. It needs more up-to-date testing, but there were tests on some men 40 years ago, who say the process was not only pain-free, but feels "nice and warm". :P

Not so nice, but still better than the "snip", is another new technique, which involves injecting a spermicidal gel in to the vas deferens to kill sperm there without blocking them. This is also reversible, with another injection to dissolve the gel. It's already well in to trials and may be available to us in a few years.

Getting the average man to agree to anything that will potentially interfere with their junk is a completely different story though.

I predict low levels of take up.

xsiborg

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

bnt wrote: »

There is a lot of work going on w.r.t. male contraception e.g researchers have been able to produce reversible contraception by zapping testicles with ultrasound. It needs more up-to-date testing, but there were tests on some men 40 years ago, who say the process was not only pain-free, but feels "nice and warm". :P

Not so nice, but still better than the "snip", is another new technique, which involves injecting a spermicidal gel in to the vas deferens to kill sperm there without blocking them. This is also reversible, with another injection to dissolve the gel. It's already well in to trials and may be available to us in a few years.

Getting the average man to agree to anything that will potentially interfere with their junk is a completely different story though.

I predict low levels of take up.

too true! its almost unheard of for a single man below the age of 40 to use anything other than a condom as his contraceptive of choice.

a lot of men would SAY give me a pill or if there was the male equivalent of the bar, etc (i dont even want to think where you'd shove an IUD coil! ), but in reality when they'd experience the side effects of any of these contraceptives, they'd immediately say 'hell no!'.

a lot of men even shudder at the mere thought of going for an STI test because of the slight discomfort it used involve (no longer the case btw as testing methods have changed!), but still try telling that to most men!

the same ignorant cavalier attitude of 'it'll never happen to me!' is still very much in the minds of the same men who when they do get a girl pregnant are the very ones that want to do a runner and not face up to their responsibilities!

DonQuay1

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Getting the average man to agree to anything that will potentially interfere with their junk is a completely different story though.

I predict low levels of take up.

I predict HIGH levels of take up. Even from average men.
They're not 'ruled' by their "..junk.." as most Irish females would like to think.

Any whoo.... conspiracy or no .... if a proper male alternative to 'the PILL' was available .... there'd be a massive corresponding reduction in un-wanted pregnancies. Only those that benefit from the present system would say different imho.

Drumpot

Zulu wrote: »

You failed to point out how its flawed?!?

There aren't any "wrongs" here, but it certainly there are rights, and lack there of.
The right for a woman to choose if she wants to have a child.
The right for a woman to kill a fathers child.
The right for a woman to lock a man into an economic obligation for the next 18 years.
Funnily, there aren't so many rights for the father.
He has no right to protect his child while the mother is pregnant.
He has no right to choose if he doesn't want a child.
He has no rights.

As I said before, assuming the woman can choose to have an abortion, then the man should be able to choose to have one also. Clearly he can't do this physically, so he should be afforded the opportunity to do so legally.

Sure it is. Abortion kills the child. Whats your point?

So parents who offer children for adoption are "pieces of ****e"? Nice.

Are they "deadbeat" mothers? or just poor unfortunates?

Clearly, in your books, sauce for the goose is COMPLETELY different from sauce for the gander. I trust you don't have the audacity to claim to support equality for all & equal rights for all?

What the flying F**k was that ????????

I am adopoted you absoulte idiot. You totally argued againts points that actually agreed comepletly with what you said. . Why would I call my biological parents who offered me up for adoption pieces of sh*t when they could of easily aborted me like the other people here who think abortion is an acceptable lifestyle choice?

Somebody close to me had an abortion because it didnt suit their lifestyle (which is what it is if you have no real reason for doing it), their partner wanted to keep the child. I supported them emotionally but I didnt agree at all with what they did or why they did it. I accepted their right to choose, but thought their choice was of poor character .

I dont know how you interpreted my post so awfully wrong, its not funny . . Perhaps if you Read my post again and every other post I have put in this thread to see what my views are and think twice before responding to something you simply dont understand . .

xsiborg

Drumpot wrote: »

Zulu wrote: »

You failed to point out how its flawed?!?

There aren't any "wrongs" here, but it certainly there are rights, and lack there of.
The right for a woman to choose if she wants to have a child.
The right for a woman to kill a fathers child.
The right for a woman to lock a man into an economic obligation for the next 18 years.
Funnily, there aren't so many rights for the father.
He has no right to protect his child while the mother is pregnant.
He has no right to choose if he doesn't want a child.
He has no rights.

As I said before, assuming the woman can choose to have an abortion, then the man should be able to choose to have one also. Clearly he can't do this physically, so he should be afforded the opportunity to do so legally.

Sure it is. Abortion kills the child. Whats your point?

So parents who offer children for adoption are "pieces of ****e"? Nice.

Are they "deadbeat" mothers? or just poor unfortunates?

Clearly, in your books, sauce for the goose is COMPLETELY different from sauce for the gander. I trust you don't have the audacity to claim to support equality for all & equal rights for all?

What the flying F**k was that ????????

I am adopoted you absoulte idiot. You totally argued againts points that actually agreed comepletly with what you said. . Why would I call my biological parents who offered me up for adoption pieces of sh*t when they could of easily aborted me like the other people here who think abortion is an acceptable lifestyle choice?

Somebody close to me had an abortion because it didnt suit their lifestyle (which is what it is if you have no real reason for doing it), their partner wanted to keep the child. I supported them emotionally but I didnt agree at all with what they did or why they did it. I accepted their right to choose, but thought their choice was of poor character .

I dont know how you interpreted my post so awfully wrong, its not funny . . Perhaps if you Read my post again and every other post I have put in this thread to see what my views are and think twice before responding to something you simply dont understand . .

i dont think Zulu knows what they want tbh, they argue against abortion but then in the next breath say that "well because women can have an abortion, men should be able to have 'em too!", that's the kind of justified reasoning and logic i'd expect to hear from a person i would expect should be old enough to know better.

christmas2012

that guy sounds like an idiot i had a boyfriend like that

Drumpot

My views are quite simple and I am not some holy Joe. Perhaps they are shaped because I am adopted, my best friend is adopted, I have cousins who are adopted and I know people who cant have children who might never be able to have their own children (because adopting a child is not easy, there just arent enough children available). It is true what they say, people dont value what comes easy to them, but its a cruel irony of life that these people can have children by opening their legs or downing their trousers when good people can spend their lives trying to have children (adoption/conceive) and never succeed.

I dont agree with abortion. I can understand why people would want it and I reluctantly think that people should have the choice (because I am pro choice most things). Unfortunatly people are either not mature, intelligent or responsible enough to make the most informed decision.

If you think having an abortion because you just dont want the baby is a responsible thing to do then either you are a child or your parents didnt bring you up very well. I believe being responsible for ones actions is a basic fundamental of what shows character in a person. I should know, being a little Sh*t growing up and not taking any responsibility for anything. I grew up and realised that I cant expect anybody else to shoulder the burden for my actions, so why should it be any differant if I am a father or mother contemplating abortion because it simply doesnt suit our lives?

Most people who have consensual sex know what might happen. Thinking that abortion is at least an out is a pathetically lazy attitude to have. To think "well why should I not have sex just because she might get pregnant" and think that abortion is an out is so so wrong (cant write it any other way that wouldnt get me banned).

In terms of rape or non consensual or real medical concerns, I would certainly have a greater understanding and empathy with a person who decides they simply cannt go ahead with a pregnancy.

Zulu

Drumpot wrote: »

I am adopoted you absoulte idiot.

Good for you, but there's no need for the personal insult. It doesn't strengthen your point at all. In fact, insulting people anonymously is considered cowardly by most, and rude by the rest.

You totally argued againts points that actually agreed comepletly with what you said. .

For the record Drumpot, you stated:

Drumpot wrote: »

Choosing to be an absentee parent shouldn't be encouraged in any circumstances , unless you are a piece of ****e and the child would be better off without you..

An parent of a child offered up for adoption is hardly "present" now are they? Apologies if you didn't mean to include said parents, but that's what you posted.

I dont know how you interpreted my post so awfully wrong...

Perhaps take your own advice & reread your own posts?

christmas2012 wrote: »

that guy sounds like an idiot i had a boyfriend like that

I take it you are talking about the person in the OP?

xsiborg wrote: »

i dont think Zulu knows what they want..., that's the kind of justified reasoning and logic i'd expect to hear from an incredibly immature person.

Sigh. Cowardly insults? You win at internet. :rolleyes: I'd suggest saving that title for someone who resorts to insulting others anonymous on the internet.

Seeing as civil conversation is dead here, I'll leave you all to agree amongst yourselves about how right you all are. Kudeos folks.

Off topic: enjoy your weekends folks.

prescar

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

That kinda isn't funny..............like, at all:(:confused:

I agree.

It takes two to tango. He really needs to grow a pair.

Feeona

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

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