Swedish Liberals propose “legal abortion” for men.

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

Which is different in what way to the mother opting out via adoption?

I think giving a child up after 9 months pregnancy to two loving parents who want him/her is different from signing a piece a paper that instantly resolves you of any responsibility to a child you had a hand in creating. It's not fair, but I don't think the two are the same.

Pawwed Rig

Why though?

Can a Father not want to give up a child to two loving parents who want him/her? Or is that the sole remit of the Mother? Both would be signing a piece a paper instantly absolving them of any responsibility to a child they had a hand in creating.

The only difference is a sexist attitude that some have forwarded here that the Mother does it for the good of the child whereas the Father would be doing it for selfish reasons.

Adoption is usually done in the best interests of the child. A father who does this will probably be thinking only of himself.

:rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

Seems odd to me that men who would consider this are automatically branded feckless and selfish while women aren't, speaking specifically of the posts in this thread, not the world outside of course! I am aware that abortion is a medical procedure and that it's usually not entered into lightly but it's also one of the safest around. Another thing I've noticed is that men in this situation are often told that they should have kept it in their pants, another thing women don't usually get told but then, they have a way out.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why though?

Can a Father not want to give up a child to two loving parents who want him/her? Or is that the sole remit of the Mother? Both would be signing a piece a paper instantly absolving them of any responsibility to a child they had a hand in creating.

The only difference is a sexist attitude that some have forwarded here that the Mother does it for the good of the child whereas the Father would be doing it for selfish reasons.

:rolleyes:

I think it's safe to say if you go through 9 months pregnancy and labour prior to giving up the child then you're not acting for selfish reasons. So both signing a piece of paper under entirely different circumstances. Getting an abortion might be a closer comparison, but still not the same.

Lemming

newport2 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say if you go through 9 months pregnancy and labour prior to giving up the child then you're not acting for selfish reasons. So both signing a piece of paper under entirely different circumstances. Getting an abortion might be a closer comparison, but still not the same.

Unless of course religion has told you that abortion is a sin, or you believe abortion to be murder for whatever moral viewpoint, so you're carrying to term for your own conscience. Very selfless indeed.

I'm not going to stand in judgement of anyone who chooses the above - or any other course of action - because it's not my place to do so. But I wont assume it's some noble act of sacrifice either on behalf of all women ever who surrender for adoption ever.

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

Unless of course religion has told you that abortion is a sin, or you believe abortion to be murder for whatever moral viewpoint, so you're carrying to term for your own conscience. Very selfless indeed.

So one possible scenario of many. Doing something you don't want because your conscience tells you it's the right thing to do is not selfish anyway IMO.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I don't believe father's should be able to sign away all responsibilities of supporting their children, so let's agree to disagree.

Lu Tze

newport2 wrote: »

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I don't believe father's should be able to sign away all responsibilities of supporting their children, so let's agree to disagree.

But mother should be able to.

ancapailldorcha

While I acknowledge that parity between parental rights regarding pregnancy and abortion is a fantasy it would be nice to see men have some control over the process. This is just one idea and it's unlikely ever to be policy for better or worse. I'm not saying that fathers should have autonomy over women's bodies or anything but they should have some degree over control. Aside from this idea, I've no idea what that could be.

newport2

Lu Tze wrote: »

But mother should be able to.

How? If you mean adaption, then I don't think going through 9 months pregnancy, labour and then a process where the child ends up with a family that want him/her is the same as absolving yourself of all financial responsibility to your own child before they're born.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

While I acknowledge that parity between parental rights regarding pregnancy and abortion is a fantasy it would be nice to see men have some control over the process. This is just one idea and it's unlikely ever to be policy for better or worse. I'm not saying that fathers should have autonomy over women's bodies or anything but they should have some degree over control. Aside from this idea, I've no idea what that could be.

I would agree with this. If there was some way of doing it, I'd be all for men having a say in whether they become a father, or whether the child would be adapted or not. Should the father be given first preference if the mother wants the child put up for adaption for instance?

ancapailldorcha

newport2 wrote: »

I would agree with this. If there was some way of doing it, I'd be all for men having a say in whether they become a father, or whether the child would be adapted or not.

Allowing the father to block an abortion or to necessitate his permission would compromise the mother's autonomy over her own body. As I said, I haven't a clue hence starting this thread. Mum has a way out, Dad doesn't. I think this needs addressing.

newport2 wrote: »

Should the father be given first preference if the mother wants the child put up for adaption for instance?

This shouldn't even be a question IMO. Absolutely, 100%.

Lu Tze

newport2 wrote: »

How? If you mean adaption, then I don't think going through 9 months pregnancy, labour and then a process where the child ends up with a family that want him/her is the same as absolving yourself of all financial responsibility to your own child before they're born.

Is adoption not initiated before birth or is it only after birth that a mother considers it as a option?

Regardless, I'm just highlighting the dichotomy of the point of view you appear to be suggesting, all mothers are doing it for selfless reasons, all fathers would be dong it for selfish reasons, and not giving it any thought as they only need to sign a piece of paper.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Allowing the father to block an abortion or to necessitate his permission would compromise the mother's autonomy over her own body. As I said, I haven't a clue hence starting this thread. Mum has a way out, Dad doesn't. I think this needs addressing.

Agreed, but it reminds me of The Life of Brian. As a man, I can't have babies, but we should fight for my right to have babies Never gonna happen though....

Mum has a way out, Dad doesn't.
Mum has to carry the chld, Dad doesn't.
Mum has to go through labour, Dad doesn't.
Mum has to have an abortion, Dad doesn't.

I know I'm being facetious, but these are things that are never going to be equal.

newport2

Lu Tze wrote: »

Is adoption not initiated before birth or is it only after birth that a mother considers it as a option?

I'd say you're right and it's prior to birth all right.

Lu Tze wrote: »

Regardless, I'm just highlighting the dichotomy of the point of view you appear to be suggesting, all mothers are doing it for selfless reasons, all fathers would be dong it for selfish reasons, and not giving it any thought as they only need to sign a piece of paper.

I never said that. I was just making the point that if a woman was purely acting from a selfish point of view, why would she go through 9 months of pregnancy? Why not just get an abortion?
And if a man knew that he was going to have a child, irregardless of his stance, why else would he sign away supporting that child except for selfish reasons? I think the father having some sort of option to give the child up for adoption would be different and I wish that option was available to them.

Lu Tze

newport2 wrote: »

I'd say you're right and it's prior to birth all right.



I never said that. I was just making the point that if a woman was purely acting from a selfish point of view, why would she go through 9 months of pregnancy? Why not just get an abortion?
And if a man knew that he was going to have a child, irregardless of his stance, why else would he sign away supporting that child except for selfish reasons? I think the father having some sort of option to give the child up for adoption would be different and I wish that option was available to them.

She may not want a child, she may not want the impact on her lifestyle, but fundamentally disagrees with abortion?

Equally, a father may not be in a position to provide the emotional or financial support required?

Your comment on the father giving a child up for adoption, is this not the same thing?

Pawwed Rig

newport2 wrote: »

And if a man knew that he was going to have a child, irregardless of his stance, why else would he sign away supporting that child except for selfish reasons?

A few reasons
1. Too young to look after baby,
2. Not financially secure,
3. Not emotionally prepared,
4. Mental health reasons,
5. Religious reasons,
6. wants child to have better opportunities than he can provide,
7. wants child away from the mother.

Pretty much the same reasons a mother might do the same thing.

Equally either could give up or keep a baby for entirely selfish reasons.

One eyed Jack

I'm still no closer to understanding what benefits the affording of these rights to men, would actually offer society as a whole?

I'm thinking should we not be arguing for encouraging and supporting men who are experiencing the issues Pawwed Rig mentioned above, so that they can be present in their children's lives?

We offer support to women to help them as mothers. Why, could anyone please explain, should we pass legislation that would allow men to become worse fathers? I would see the legislation as encouraging the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of men, when what we should as a society be doing, is offering those men the same support as we do women, to help them be present in their children's lives, and to encourage them to be socially responsible, so that their children too learn what it is to be socially responsible and to look out for and take care of others.

Passing legislation that allows anyone to abandon their children where they are likely to end up in the care of the State just doesn't seem very socially progressive at all, in fact it flies right in the face of social progress and the protection that society is supposed to offer children.

I just don't understand that mentality at all, and it's nothing to do with sexism or any of the rest of it, it's just such a bizarre proposal no matter what angle I come at it from.

silverharp

if women have the option of undoing a mistake so should men.

Lu Tze

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still no closer to understanding what benefits the affording of these rights to men, would actually offer society as a whole?

I'm thinking should we not be arguing for encouraging and supporting men who are experiencing the issues Pawwed Rig mentioned above, so that they can be present in their children's lives?

We offer support to women to help them as mothers. Why, could anyone please explain, should we pass legislation that would allow men to become worse fathers? I would see the legislation as encouraging the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of men, when what we should as a society be doing, is offering those men the same support as we do women, to help them be present in their children's lives, and to encourage them to be socially responsible, so that their children too learn what it is to be socially responsible and to look out for and take care of others.

Passing legislation that allows anyone to abandon their children where they are likely to end up in the care of the State just doesn't seem very socially progressive at all, in fact it flies right in the face of social progress and the protection that society is supposed to offer children.

I just don't understand that mentality at all, and it's nothing to do with sexism or any of the rest of it, it's just such a bizarre proposal no matter what angle I come at it from.

Indeed, providing the same support for men would be a positive step. For the same reasons you give above, should adoption be made illegal to encourage more responsible behaviour for a minority of women?

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still no closer to understanding what benefits the affording of these rights to men, would actually offer society as a whole?

I'm thinking should we not be arguing for encouraging and supporting men who are experiencing the issues Pawwed Rig mentioned above, so that they can be present in their children's lives?

We offer support to women to help them as mothers. Why, could anyone please explain, should we pass legislation that would allow men to become worse fathers? I would see the legislation as encouraging the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of men, when what we should as a society be doing, is offering those men the same support as we do women, to help them be present in their children's lives, and to encourage them to be socially responsible, so that their children too learn what it is to be socially responsible and to look out for and take care of others.

Passing legislation that allows anyone to abandon their children where they are likely to end up in the care of the State just doesn't seem very socially progressive at all, in fact it flies right in the face of social progress and the protection that society is supposed to offer children.

I just don't understand that mentality at all, and it's nothing to do with sexism or any of the rest of it, it's just such a bizarre proposal no matter what angle I come at it from.

The thing is, (and I am not really referring to Ireland here), I do think enacting this legislation would be a negative for society as a whole, however in most Western European societies we have given precedence to individual rights and equality over the interests of wider society.

With crashing birth rates in some European countries its arguably strongly in societies interest to roll back choice based abortion and replace it with a system based on application for the procedure but possibility for rejection if the mother is in a good position to raise a child to become a "good member of society".
Similarly we can't deport foreign offenders who have committed very serious crimes to countries where they might be at risk of death themselves

People rail against the paternalistic tendencies in Ireland but rejecting this for social ill-effect is a paternalistic move, legislating for societies interest over equality between citizens is always an option (and I think its one that should be considered but I am probably an unpalatable authoritarian) but if your going to do that you have to take it seriously and consider applying that same logic to other areas.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

if women have the option of undoing a mistake so should men.

Women don't have any option of undoing a mistake, certainly none that I'm aware of that they can do that men should equally be able to do?

Lu Tze wrote: »

Indeed, providing the same support for men would be a positive step. For the same reasons you give above, should adoption be made illegal to encourage more responsible behaviour for a minority of women?

No, adoption shouldn't be made illegal, I can't see how anyone is even managing to equate adoption with abandonment, unless they are equating them on the basis that neither biological parent is then held responsible for the welfare of their children when an adoption takes place.

There are many more reasons for the availability of adoption besides simply parents who wish to have their child adopted. I can't see how making adoption illegal would in any way make a difference to the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of women, or men, or anyone for that matter. How would outlawing adoption have any effect on people's irresponsible behaviour?

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The thing is, (and I am not really referring to Ireland here), I do think enacting this legislation would be a negative for society as a whole, however in most Western European societies we have given precedence to individual rights and equality over the interests of wider society.

I don't know that we have RDM, the ECHR appears to consistently rule in the interests of wider society than giving precedence to the rights of the individual in... well, in any area I can think of? Was there something more specific you had in mind?

With crashing birth rates in some European countries its arguably strongly in societies interest to roll back choice based abortion and replace it with a system based on application for the procedure but possibility for rejection if the mother is in a good position to raise a child to become a "good member of society".
Similarly we can't deport foreign offenders who have committed very serious crimes to countries where they might be at risk of death themselves

I know there are moves afoot to try and restrict access to abortion in some US states, but I don't think we're likely to see that in Europe, where crashing birth rates wouldn't be addressed by restricting access to abortion and forcing women into a position where they were forced to give birth. I know you weren't specifically talking about Ireland, but it provides a good example of your suggested system. I'd be on the fence as to whether that's been a positive or a negative for Irish society tbh.

People rail against the paternalistic tendencies in Ireland but rejecting this for social ill-effect is a paternalistic move, legislating for societies interest over equality between citizens is always an option (and I think its one that should be considered but I am probably an unpalatable authoritarian) but if your going to do that you have to take it seriously and consider applying that same logic to other areas.

What other areas do you mean though? Depending upon what area of the law you mean, if it's family law for instance, shouldn't the idea for a progressive society at risk of a crashing birth rate, be to try and keep families together, at least as far as is practically possible? I don't see how passing legislation to absolve anyone of their responsibility towards society would actually be intended to achieve that aim?

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still no closer to understanding what benefits the affording of these rights to men, would actually offer society as a whole?

A situation where a single parent isn't tied to some complete waster, fighting them through the courts to extract money from them on one hand while preventing them from getting access to their child on the other.

Like abortion, by definition this kind of measure would be used by men for whom having a child is not a good idea for them or not something they ever wanted.

It would in many cases be in the best interests of the child that this person is not involved in their life and has signed away all right to exercise any authority over what happens to that child.

Being the child of a single parent is not inherently a bad thing, and one parent having signed away their rights doesn't preclude a relationship later on when the child is far older, if both want that. In many cases it will simplify the parental situation which might otherwise be a rocky and tense experience for the child growing up.

The main opponents to this measure seem to be those who think there would be a flood of men rushing to sign away their paternity after a one-night stand, and an entire generation of children growing up weeping for the father they don't have.

Why would this measure be a bad thing for society?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

A situation where a single parent isn't tied to some complete waster, fighting them through the courts to extract money from them on one hand while preventing them from getting access to their child on the other.

Like abortion, by definition this kind of measure would be used by men for whom having a child is not a good idea for them or not something they ever wanted.

It would in many cases be in the best interests of the child that this person is not involved in their life and has signed away all right to exercise any authority over what happens to that child.

Being the child of a single parent is not inherently a bad thing, and one parent having signed away their rights doesn't preclude a relationship later on when the child is far older, if both want that. In many cases it will simplify the parental situation which might otherwise be a rocky and tense experience for the child growing up.

The main opponents to this measure seem to be those who think there would be a flood of men rushing to sign away their paternity after a one-night stand, and an entire generation of children growing up weeping for the father they don't have.

Why would this measure be a bad thing for society?

I'll be honest - initially, based upon my experience, I could think of nothing better than a law like this to allow people who don't want to be parents to sign away their rights, as there's not a whole lot has a worse impact on a child's welfare than a parent who has chosen to reject them, but remains a constant presence in their lives in spite of having chosen to reject them, and often times the children's welfare becomes the battle ground where both parents choose to spite each other. If someone doesn't want to be a parent, I'm thinking "let them off, I've seen many one parent families that have actually fared much better in the absence of one parent!"

But, that's the easy way out. It doesn't address the underlying reasons for why a person has chosen that they don't want to be a parent, and it's no use talking about "well women have abortion" as though an abortion is an easy way out of anything. It's not any way to rectify "a mistake" either as though everything is all rosy afterwards.

With the idea of allowing a parent to abandon their responsibility towards their child, who then should be charged with responsibility for the child? And when the parent who chose to waive their rights changes their mind and wants access and is willing to support the child or children, comes back into their lives, changes their mind again, essentially flip-flopping when they feel like it, that's bound to have an effect on the child or children.

I think it would be a bad thing for society because the right to waive all rights over their children would equally have to be afforded to all parents, regardless of their sex, gender, marital status, etc, and while that might be ideal from the perspective of a person who would want to abandon their children, it's not the ideal that we should be aiming for or accommodating as a society, IMO.

I think we would be better as a society to work on the underlying issues that prompted a proposal like this, rather than encouraging people to give up and walk away, because they feel unable to cope due to the lack of support from society, a society that was created a few generations earlier by the promotion of a short-sighted individualistic ideology.

Earthhorse

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With the idea of allowing a parent to abandon their responsibility towards their child, who then should be charged with responsibility for the child? And when the parent who chose to waive their rights changes their mind and wants access and is willing to support the child or children, comes back into their lives, changes their mind again, essentially flip-flopping when they feel like it, that's bound to have an effect on the child or children.

The law would have to be written in such a way that they don't have that option; once they sign away their rights that's it. When the child reaches the age of majority they may decide to involve them again should they so wish.

I think it would be a bad thing for society because the right to waive all rights over their children would equally have to be afforded to all parents, regardless of their sex, gender, marital status, etc, and while that might be ideal from the perspective of a person who would want to abandon their children, it's not the ideal that we should be aiming for or accommodating as a society, IMO.

The option would only be available during the time which an abortion is available. Once the woman's right to abort ends so does the man's right to walk away as such.

I think we would be better as a society to work on the underlying issues that prompted a proposal like this, rather than encouraging people to give up and walk away, because they feel unable to cope due to the lack of support from society, a society that was created a few generations earlier by the promotion of a short-sighted individualistic ideology.

This is true of all society's ills. We'd be better off if there were no unwanted pregnancies in the first place. We may be able to reduce that through improved sex education but there's a limit to what that will achieve. It's be great if we could get to the underlying causes of all these issues but in the meantime there should be equality before the law.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Women don't have any option of undoing a mistake, certainly none that I'm aware of that they can do that men should equally be able to do?

abortion or adoption are the 2 traditional alternatives ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. what does "equally be able to do" have to do with it. clearly the woman has the choice to abort or not. Men on the other hand have any choices taken out of their hands. Its equitable that either parent within a window can decide if they want to take on a 20 year commitment or not

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We offer support to women to help them as mothers. Why, could anyone please explain, should we pass legislation that would allow men to become worse fathers?

One can have supports to help women as mothers and still allow some avail of abortion and adoption. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Similarly one could have supports for fathers and still allow others avail of a legal abortion. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

One eyed Jack

Earthhorse wrote: »

The law would have to be written in such a way that they don't have that option; once they sign away their rights that's it. When the child reaches the age of majority they may decide to involve them again should they so wish.

Well the law might say "that's it", but in practice that would be impractical to police properly. It's almost impossible to enforce orders as it is. There's also the chance (and quite a likely one at that), that the child will inquire about the absent parent long before they ever reach the age of majority, usually about the time they start school, and twig that something ain't kosher.

The option would only be available during the time which an abortion is available. Once the woman's right to abort ends so does the man's right to walk away as such.

The two ideas simply can't be compared. If a woman decides to give birth, then there are three people in the equation whose rights need to be balanced. It could never be an issue of gender equality simply because of the biological differences between the sexes in respect of their reproductive capacity. That's why the law could never be predicated on the availability of abortion to women. Once a child is born, both parties are responsible for that child's welfare, and adoption isn't simply sign a piece of paper either.

I love it though, the hardest thing a man has to do is flick out his pen... to sign a piece of paper. The options for women? Oh well they have the option of abortion or adoption - easy as that and it's all equal...


Seriously now.

This is true of all society's ills. We'd be better off if there were no unwanted pregnancies in the first place. We may be able to reduce that through improved sex education but there's a limit to what that will achieve. It's be great if we could get to the underlying causes of all these issues but in the meantime there should be equality before the law.

"Equality" before the law is a short term solution to a long term problem. With the continuation of a short term solution, society would never address the underlying issues in the long term, and we could all pretend we've done a great thing by focusing on "gender equality" instead of addressing the real and continuing underlying social problems.

tomwaterford

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the law might say "that's it", but in practice that would be impractical to police properly. It's almost impossible to enforce orders as it is. There's also the chance (and quite a likely one at that), that the child will inquire about the absent parent long before they ever reach the age of majority, usually about the time they start school, and twig that something ain't kosher.





The two ideas simply can't be compared. If a woman decides to give birth, then there are three people in the equation whose rights need to be balanced. It could never be an issue of gender equality simply because of the biological differences between the sexes in respect of their reproductive capacity. That's why the law could never be predicated on the availability of abortion to women. Once a child is born, both parties are responsible for that child's welfare, and adoption isn't simply sign a piece of paper either.

I love it though, the hardest thing a man has to do is flick out his pen... to sign a piece of paper. The options for women? Oh well they have the option of abortion or adoption - easy as that and it's all equal...


Seriously now.





"Equality" before the law is a short term solution to a long term problem. With the continuation of a short term solution, society would never address the underlying issues in the long term, and we could all pretend we've done a great thing by focusing on "gender equality" instead of addressing the real and continuing underlying social problems.

And what of men who just for whatever reason don't want to be fathers???

Much like young wans who flat out don't want to be mothers...I see little to no value in forcing them to be??


By signing this form they can never go looking/anything to do with the child afterwards


As it quite rightly stands you can't force someone to go through with a pregnancy in much the same way you can't force someone to go in for an abortion and some people flat out aren't cut out/don't want to be parents

One eyed Jack

tomwaterford wrote: »

And what of men who just for whatever reason don't want to be fathers???

Much like young wans who flat out don't want to be mothers...I see little to no value in forcing them to be??


By signing this form they can never go looking/anything to do with the child afterwards

But how does anyone even propose to enforce that and monitor it?

There isn't a practical equivalent for men who simply don't want to be fathers.

tomwaterford

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But how does anyone even propose to enforce that and monitor it?

There isn't a practical equivalent for men who simply don't want to be fathers.

By 100% denying them all rights to??

Don't give them any info etc on it....


Do you think it's right to force fatherhood onto people who don't want it??
They haven't the option of aborting the baby...some people flat out don't want kids/to be parents


Why would someone who doesn't want kids go looking into kids they've signed away their rights to??

screamer

tomwaterford wrote: »

And what of men who just for whatever reason don't want to be fathers???

Much like young wans who flat out don't want to be mothers...I see little to no value in forcing them to be??

Prevention is better than cure and they should invest in decent contraception. As I said these sorts of rules will just make a feckless society or rather a more feckless one. It's the resulting children I'd feel sorry for.

Also comparing a man signing a piece of paper to say "ah sure it was a bit of fun but i aint paying for it" is in no way comparable to a woman giving up a baby she has carried and nurtured for 9 months or having an abortion. In absolutely no way comparable and never will be until men can carry and give birth to a baby.

tomwaterford

screamer wrote: »

Prevention is better than cure and they should invest in decent contraception. As I said these sorts of rules will just make a feckless society or rather a more feckless one. It's the resulting children I'd feel sorry for.

Also comparing a man signing a piece of paper to say "ah sure it was a bit of fun but i aint paying for it" is in no way comparable to a woman giving up a baby she has carried and nurtured for 9 months or having an abortion. In absolutely no way comparable and never will be until men can carry and give birth to a baby.

Never said they were comparable tbf


So the other option is to force parenthood onto those who don't want to be parents??

What good is a parent to a child who doesn't want the child/doesn't love/care for it??


Their is nothing wrong with people not wanting kids...by signing away there rights their signing away every interaction etc they'll ever have with the child

Some people straight out aren't fit/suited to be parents....it's too late after the fact to say should've used controception (sounds a like a 1950s response IMO)



This not even about money....some people (male and female) the taught of parenthood/responsibility of kids etc makes their blood run cold


This gives at least a option however unlikely it's ever to be used (I'd not use it...but could understand those that do)

One eyed Jack

tomwaterford wrote: »

By 100% denying them all rights to??

Don't give them any info etc on it....

Social media unfortunately being what it is and all, no matter how much people move around, it's easy keep track of them nowadays, and that's how many children are finding out about and contacting and keeping in touch with their biological parents.

Do you think it's right to force fatherhood onto people who don't want it??
They haven't the option of aborting the baby...some people flat out don't want kids/to be parents

Of course I think it's neither right nor beneficial to anyone to force parenthood on them, it's also not fair on the children to expose them to that. But that sort of idealism ignores a multitude of practical realities, and there's no getting away from the fact that if she is pregnant, a woman can decide whether a man becomes a father or not. A man will never have a say in whether a pregnant woman becomes a mother or not.

There's a hell of a lot more to being a parent than just fulfilling any financial responsibilities, that would be the minimum mandated and will never be signed into law that a parent would be able to forfeit this responsibility because that would mean the State would have to provide extra support for the child or children.

Why would someone who doesn't want kids go looking into kids they've signed away their rights to??

Control.

Having control over someone else's life like that can be empowering in and of itself.

Earthhorse

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the law might say "that's it", but in practice that would be impractical to police properly. It's almost impossible to enforce orders as it is. There's also the chance (and quite a likely one at that), that the child will inquire about the absent parent long before they ever reach the age of majority, usually about the time they start school, and twig that something ain't kosher.

It's far easier to enforce a "stay away from" order than a pit is paternity payments. Of course the child may know the full facts from day one. That doesn't meant they can make the decision to get in touch though.

The two ideas simply can't be compared. If a woman decides to give birth, then there are three people in the equation whose rights need to be balanced.

If we allow the man an opt out then there are only two people to consider in the equation.

It could never be an issue of gender equality simply because of the biological differences between the sexes in respect of their reproductive capacity. That's why the law could never be predicated on the availability of abortion to women. Once a child is born, both parties are responsible for that child's welfare, and adoption isn't simply sign a piece of paper either.

It's not about gender equality but equality before the law; birth persons have the option to opt out.

I love it though, the hardest thing a man has to do is flick out his pen... to sign a piece of paper. The options for women? Oh well they have the option of abortion or adoption - easy as that and it's all equal...

Seriously now.

Who says it's easy? For some the decision will be easy and for others they will wrestle with it. So what? That's not what equality before the law is. Seriously. Now.

"Equality" before the law is a short term solution to a long term problem. With the continuation of a short term solution, society would never address the underlying issues in the long term, and we could all pretend we've done a great thing by focusing on "gender equality" instead of addressing the real and continuing underlying social problems.

You can say the same thing about abortion itself. Or legalizing drugs. Either we will address these issues or we won't. One law isn't going to stop us in our tracks either way.

One eyed Jack

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's far easier to enforce a "stay away from" order than a pit is paternity payments. Of course the child may know the full facts from day one. That doesn't meant they can make the decision to get in touch though.

If that's the current situation, then it's not an assertion entirely without foundation that there will be queues of men outside the Courthouse Sunday mornings after Saturday night to make sure they "sign away their rights", just in case.

If we allow the man an opt out then there are only two people to consider in the equation.

Allowing a man an opt out though, is a right that would have to be balanced with the rights of the other two parties involved, and whether these rights would be in the interests of society.

It's not about gender equality but equality before the law; birth persons have the option to opt out.

While I'm all for equality before the law, the law must also be fair and equitable. There's no equity or fairness between a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, and a man who... I'm trying to think of the physical consequences that a man at 20 weeks not pregnant might suffer from. I can't think of any.

Who says it's easy? For some the decision will be easy and for others they will wrestle with it. So what? That's not what equality before the law is. Seriously. Now.

But would it not be a better idea then to support those men who are experiencing difficulty in their lives so that they don't have to agonise over these issues?

You can say the same thing about abortion itself. Or legalizing drugs. Either we will address these issues or we won't. One law isn't going to stop us in our tracks either way.

Well you could, and you'd be right. But I'd rather address those issues, than exacerbate them further. I'm not too worried about stopping this law in it's tracks though, simply because the core argument for it seems to be - "because women have abortion and adoption available to them, men should have the equivalent right to abortion, adoption, or abandon at will".

I don't even get that tbh as it's so...out there, that even typing that last sentence was difficult to know how to even phrase it.

Lisacatlover

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the law might say "that's it", but in practice that would be impractical to police properly. It's almost impossible to enforce orders as it is. There's also the chance (and quite a likely one at that), that the child will inquire about the absent parent long before they ever reach the age of majority, usually about the time they start school, and twig that something ain't kosher.

So absolutely 100% exactly the exact same situation as with adoption then?

One eyed Jack

Lisacatlover wrote: »

So absolutely 100% exactly the exact same situation as with adoption then?

No.

Lisacatlover

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No.

Yes...?

boundlessSea

A parent who does not want a child should not be forced to spend time with them, but they should pay maintenance for them, as the child should at least be entitled to a basic standard of living, pushing the responsibility of providing for a child whose father won't financially support its upbringing to the state is wrong, at least the man had a degree of choice in the birth of the child in risking having sex with a women when they did not want a child with her, the tax payer had none.

It would not be practicable to enforce a man giving up it paternal rights to its child forever, he could change his mind in the next 18 years, and the child might try to contact them, this is totally different to adoption, in this case the parent and child would be known to each other, and might live nearby.

Maguined

boundlessSea wrote: »

A parent who does not want a child should not be forced to spend time with them, but they should pay maintenance for them, as the child should at least be entitled to a basic standard of living, pushing the responsibility of providing for a child whose father won't financially support its upbringing to the state is wrong, at least the man had a degree of choice in the birth of the child in risking having sex with a women when they did not want a child with her, the tax payer had none.

It would not be practicable to enforce a man giving up it paternal rights to its child forever, he could change his mind in the next 18 years, and the child might try to contact them, this is totally different to adoption, in this case the parent and child would be known to each other, and might live nearby.

How is it different than adoption? People give their child up for adoption and some change their minds but are bound by adoption laws.

Do you believe mothers who give their child up for adoption should also pay maintenence to the family that adopts the child?

MadJack2016

Candie wrote: »

Two people have sex, two people create a pregnancy, but one gets the option to say 'Sorry luv, you're on yer own' and walk away. Leaving the woman to abort or raise a kid that she supports alone, both of which are extremely difficult things to do.

The present situation is far from ideal but I don't see how less unjust this proposal is. It just changes the main players.

What it might do is encourage a certain kind of feckless young man, of which there are quite a few as it is, to take no responsibility at all for the consequences of sex. Why bother wearing a condom when you can walk away from the pregnancy?

Of course there's also the difference between an aborted embryo or fetus and the child who is raised knowing it's worth nothing to one half of his creators.

I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the downsides of this. Like I said the present situation is not ideal, but this is hardly the road to a fair and equitable Utopia either.

The woman can have an abortion can't she?

She has sex with the guy and then finds out later she is pregnant and tells the guy and he says he doesn't want to be a father. So why the hell would she have the baby? Get an abortion!

eviltwin

From an Irish point of view there is no chance of this ever becoming an option when abortion is illegal. First step has to be legalised abortion but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

One eyed Jack

Maguined wrote: »

How is it different than adoption? People give their child up for adoption and some change their minds but are bound by adoption laws.

Do you believe mothers who give their child up for adoption should also pay maintenence to the family that adopts the child?

But also under adoption laws, only the adoptive parents are required to maintain the child? Neither biological parent is required to maintain the child under those circumstances, so if a biological parent doesn't want to pay maintenance for their child, why would they then object to the child being adopted?

This proposal has nothing IMO to do with equality before the law, and everything to do with allowing one party to abdicate their financial responsibility towards their children (because either parent regardless of their gender or sex, may be subject to a maintenance order).

Maguined

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But also under adoption laws, only the adoptive parents are required to maintain the child? Neither biological parent is required to maintain the child under those circumstances, so if a biological parent doesn't want to pay maintenance for their child, why would they then object to the child being adopted?

This proposal has nothing IMO to do with equality before the law, and everything to do with allowing one party to abdicate their financial responsibility towards their children (because either parent regardless of their gender or sex, may be subject to a maintenance order).

Thats the point though, people saying this should not be allowed because a father has the responsibility to pay maintenence to the child do not feel the same way about adoption. Even if a mother gives the child up for adoption and the biological father becomes the sole parent of the child (only in countries/states that allow single people to adopt) the mother does not pay maintenence. When you agree to give your child up for adoption you are giving up your rights and your responsibilities towards the child.

It is equality, a mother currently has a legal option a father does not.

One eyed Jack

Maguined wrote: »

Thats the point though, people saying this should not be allowed because a father has the responsibility to pay maintenence to the child do not feel the same way about adoption. Even if a mother gives the child up for adoption and the biological father becomes the sole parent of the child (only in countries/states that allow single people to adopt) the mother does not pay maintenence. When you agree to give your child up for adoption you are giving up your rights and your responsibilities towards the child.

It is equality, a mother currently has a legal option a father does not.

I don't understand what you mean by the biological father adopting their own child? In circumstances where one parent is the primary carer of any children, the other parent pays towards the maintenance of their children (even AFAIK a nominal amount after income assessment).

In circumstances where the mother has decided to raise the child or children, it's also a cost to her too to maintain those children. It would be the same if the father were to decide to raise the children.

Adoption is different circumstances entirely from allowing one or even both parents to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. Equality would be allowing both parents the opportunity to do this, and the children becoming wards of the State.

The only thing in law a woman has, that a man does not, is automatic guardianship, which is easier to determine from the mother's perspective, than it is for a man, although now every effort is made to have the man register for guardianship rights. This proposal seems aimed at achieving the opposite effect in an attempt to ignore biology.

If I were to be particularly cynical, I'd suggest that it's no wonder liberal feminists suggested this law as it would allow for them to legislate for women to have complete control in child rearing and no man around to give his input into the children's welfare.

Maguined

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by the biological father adopting their own child? In circumstances where one parent is the primary carer of any children, the other parent pays towards the maintenance of their children (even AFAIK a nominal amount after income assessment).

In circumstances where the mother has decided to raise the child or children, it's also a cost to her too to maintain those children. It would be the same if the father were to decide to raise the children.

Adoption is different circumstances entirely from allowing one or even both parents to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. Equality would be allowing both parents the opportunity to do this, and the children becoming wards of the State.

The only thing in law a woman has, that a man does not, is automatic guardianship, which is easier to determine from the mother's perspective, than it is for a man, although now every effort is made to have the man register for guardianship rights. This proposal seems aimed at achieving the opposite effect in an attempt to ignore biology.

If I were to be particularly cynical, I'd suggest that it's no wonder liberal feminists suggested this law as it would allow for them to legislate for women to have complete control in child rearing and no man around to give his input into the children's welfare.

In many countries a mother can give the child up for adoption without the consent of the father. There is no legal requirement or onus to force a mother to name the father on the birth certificate. So if a child is born out of marriage the mother can give the child up for adotpion without the consent of the father. This is the case in Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

The consent of the parents/guardians of the child to the adoption is a legal requirement. If the child is born outside marriage and the father has no guardianship rights, only the mother's consent is needed, but the father is entitled to be consulted (if possible). However, the consent of the father is required if he marries the mother after the birth of the child or he is appointed guardian or is granted custody of the child by court order.

As a biological father you can pursue legal action to be named on the birth certificate however this takes more court time than it does for the mother to give the child up for adoption so the child is taken away generally at birth or shortly after.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520039/The-baby-Veronica-Father-fights-reunited-son-secretly-adoption-mother-consent.html

Even if the father gets named on the birth certificate and wins a court order to remove the child from the adoptive parents and placed in his care he cannot claim maintenence from the mother, she has abdicated her responsibility due to the adoption process. This exists legally for women but does not for men. None of this matters for married couples. You cannot give the child up for adoption without both partners consent. However for unmarried parents of a child one of them has a legal right to abdicate responsibility and the other does not.

walshyn93

A very progressive policy imo.

Logically this is putting men and women on an equal footing regarding the right to not have a child. Women currently have abortion in Sweden. There was never a logical argument as to why women should have that option and men shouldn't considering the fact that pregnancy only takes up about 0.4% of the child's dependent lifespan whereas men are expected to be bound by the female decision for 18 years.

It's also seen as okay for a man to have to bear the responsibility of his actions re having sex whereas a woman is allowed to avoid the consequences of sex if she chooses.

Removing the double standard is the next logical step. It's unprincipled to take the progressive approach when it suits women and the socially conservative approach when it suits women.