Should men be allowed to have a "legal abortion"?

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

More point scoring. I'm really not sure why you get so competitive in discussions.:D

It's really not pointscoring, SugarHigh. I'm not a competitive person at all. I actually like it when I can talk to people using generalizations and have it understood that it's simply a generalization and doesn't apply in all cases. I find it insanely refreshing here on boards sometimes, discussion is much faster and more efficient, and gets less bogged down in pointless nitpicking and joyless arguments and the insulting of everyone else's intelligence.

I just need to know who I can do it with and who I can't, and I was explaining to him that's why I was generalizing and that it was not that I legitimately thought that all cases were the same.

You really need to stop projecting, I'm not in competition with you, I have no ill will toward you, I'm not point-scoring, just simply responding to people in the fashion in which they respond to me. I'm neutral and will probably never be anything other than neutral. I don't do grudges.

bluecatmorgana

liah wrote: »

If I did not want a child, I would use protection. So, with that in mind, if I got pregnant while using protection and wanted an abortion, but my partner forced me to give birth to his child and put me through that, my complete definition of hell, I would be pretty damn pissed off and think it was unjust and honestly try to abort the thing myself, because I had taken the precaution by using birth control and would have told my partner that I do not want kids. This is 2011, sex isn't purely for recreation - we should be able to have sex without the end result being forced into having someone's kid! Nobody should ever have any say as to what goes on in my body except me. Ever.

Maybe there's a serious cultural difference at play here but the idea of forcing a woman to term is absolutely insane to me for so many different ethical reasons that I'm really surprised to see so many in support of it.

The only protection that is 100% full proof is abstinence, so technically even if you use multiple contraceptives you can still get pregnant. So in my view when you agree to have sex you also agree that you could conceive. So back to the question when you have sex are you not agreeing to the point that you could end up pregnant?

I understand your view about women going through pregnancy and birth because the father wants it, but I'm not interested in it.

Also did you know that if you have a mental health illness that deems you not able to make decisions or that your mental illness is interferring with you making the choice of ECT, you can be forced to have ECT therapy against your consent? Out of curiosity how does that resound with you?

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Are you allowing for generalizations in the context of scientific discussion or not? I'm really not trying to point score and wish you could stop trying to portray me that way, I just need to know how elaborate I'm going to have to be in my replies.

Your not really on the side of Science though are you? Linking to the first thing google throws up isn't Science.:D

I never claimed this was always the case and never would, I just assumed that since you had previously indicated you were okay with generalizations within the context of scientific discussion, it was okay generalize here with you. Is it or isn't it?

I'm fine with them but not how you're using them. If a woman doesn't want her child she clearly doesn't have a strong bond with that child. So using a woman who does have a strong bond to prove your point doesn't make sense.

Is the number of these women compared to men high enough to justify the legislation required for men to have dominion over the womb of the potential mother?

It only affects the women who don't want their child so it doesn't matter how many of them there are. It won't affect a woman who does have a strong bond with her child because she wouldn't want an abortion in the first place.



Mistype really, multitasking and typing doesn't work well for me sometimes. Just meant bond.

Do you have any studies to back up what you're saying to make it the majority case? I figure it's as well as understood that there's exceptions to literally every rule. But if you have studies to indicate that this is the majority case and therefore it should dictate legislation, I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Women have had pregnancies where they only found out they were pregnant the day they went into labor. How could you have a bond with something that you didn't know existed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/theticket/2008/0620/1213810607381.html

I am not arguing that men don't ever have any kind of bond. That is not my argument. My argument is that this is not enough of a reason to force a woman to term based upon his decision, because ultimately, and yes, coldly and scientifically and in the true fashion of the law, the cons of the mother's forced pregnancy outweigh the cons of the father's loss when it comes to legislation, which is what we are arguing. Law. Not who'll be sadder.

Stop claiming to be backed up by Science when you really aren't. No offence but you don't really know how to use Science to back up a point. You are ignoring the fact that someone who doesn't want their child must not have a strong bond. All the Science you have posted is in relation to a woman who does have a strong bond and therefor does not want to get rid of her child.

This isn't Science so stop claiming it is. All you have done is found the first thing off google which you think relates to what you are saying. I don't like to get into Scientific discussion for this reason, it's people linking to studies they haven't even read fully and applying how they like to their own argument to try and give themselves an undeserved authority on the back of Science.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Your not really on the side of Science though are you? Linking to the first thing google throws up isn't Science.:D

I am firmly planted on the side of science, this is very well-documented science and I'm surprised it isn't as well-known as I thought, but you learn something new every day.

I'm fine with them but not how you're using them. If a woman doesn't want her child she clearly doesn't have a strong bond with that child. So using a woman who does have a strong bond to prove your point doesn't make sense.

I'm not using a woman who does have a strong bond to prove my point about women who don't, and I'm not sure how you're getting that impression or how what you just said correlates in any way to that quote.

It only affects the women who don't want their child so it doesn't matter how many of them there are. It won't affect a woman who does have a strong bond with her child because she wouldn't want an abortion in the first place.

Not what I'm asking. I'm asking if the amount of men who would be significantly traumatized from the experience of losing a child within the first few weeks of being notified of its existence is high enough to justify legislation forcing women to have children they do not want.

Women have had pregnancies where they only found out they were pregnant the day they went into labor. How could you have a bond with something that you didn't know existed.

Why are you using minority cases to justify a majority ruling?

Stop claiming to be backed up by Science when you really aren't. No offence but you don't really know how to use Science to back up a point. You are ignoring the fact that someone who doesn't want their child must not have a strong bond. All the Science you have posted is in relation to a woman who does have a strong bond and therefor does not want to get rid of her child.

Yes, I do. You're just mixing up what I'm saying. You're attempting to use minority cases to justify legislation, and the law doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

Prove to me that this is true in the majority of cases, prove to me that the amount of men who are psychologically traumatized long-term by an early-stage abortion is high enough to justify forcing a woman to undergo biological, physical, and hormonal changes as well as potentially long-term psychological damage against her will being law.

This isn't Science so stop claiming it is. All you have done is found the first thing off google which you think relates to what you are saying. I don't like to get into Scientific discussion for this reason, it's people linking to studies they haven't even read fully and applying how they like to their own argument to try and give themselves an undeserved authority on the back of Science.

It's not the "first thing off google." There are references there - use them. Do research of your own. The majority of men will not suffer from long-term psychological damage from an early-term abortion, a minority will and nobody has ever denied this, but the majority will not due to simple biology and the fact that men do not have a bond with a child that is still in the womb. Since it is only a minority of men who would undergo long-term psychological damage from an early-term abortion, it is not just to apply this method as legislation for those reasons alone. Nevermind the violation of rights issue which doesn't seem to matter to you at all.

liah

Ah ye know what feckit, I don't care anymore, that's my debating done for the day. It's not like either of us is going to change our minds so I'm just going to agree to disagree here and let it go. I'm tired of these multi-page wars.

HellFireClub

liah wrote: »

I'm sure there are some men that would react as your friends do. I never once claimed that men shouldn't or wouldn't be upset or horrified at the idea. And you're right, this issue IS too serious for generalizations, and I wouldn't normally use them when arguing with anyone other than SugarHigh, but according to him they're okay so I use them for shorthand when arguing with him. I firmly understand that no generalization is valid for all people. Everyone should understand that, which is why I use generalization shorthand.

The difference is that one is both biological, physical, and emotional (pregnancy and childbirth), and the other is completely emotional (losing the unborn child). Therefore, speaking PURELY from a legislative and scientific perspective, and keeping in context with the argument you quoted me out of context from, it is unfair to compare forcing a woman to term to a man losing a child he has not yet met or felt inside of him in order to justify forcing a woman to term by using the emotional devastation argument.

You're trying to argue something that isn't on the context of what I'm saying and something I don't even disagree with; either read the whole debate and quote according to the context, or start another discussion, but mixing the two is just getting hard to follow.

Where are you getting this "forced pregnancy" rubbish from?????? I've never even heard of any such thing until it was mentioned on here, it doesn't exist, I never in my life heard of a woman being forced to carry a baby that she did not wish to carry.

liah

HellFireClub wrote: »

Where are you getting this "forced pregnancy" rubbish from?????? I've never even heard of any such thing until it was mentioned on here, it doesn't exist, I never in my life heard of a woman being forced to carry a baby that she did not wish to carry.

Read the thread. It is not something that references you but is relevant to the context that you quoted me in. Quoting me out of context in order to pursue an argument doesn't really work; I was clarifying the context for you which you seem adamant to ignore, which is why I'm done with the debate.

I feel I've made my opinion clear and am not going to change my mind, I do feel you've taken me up wrong due to (purposefully?) taking me out of context but I see no point in trying to clarify that further.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I am firmly planted on the side of science, this is very well-documented science and I'm surprised it isn't as well-known as I thought, but you learn something new every day.

I never disagreed with Science you posted and yes it is well known. i'm disagreeing with how you are using it.

I'm not using a woman who does have a strong bond to prove my point about women who don't, and I'm not sure how you're getting that impression or how what you just said correlates in any way to that quote.

Well yes you are. Your study was about women with strong bonds. A woman who gives up her child does not have a strong bond.

Not what I'm asking. I'm asking if the amount of men who would be significantly traumatized from the experience of losing a child within the first few weeks of being notified of its existence is high enough to justify legislation forcing women to have children they do not want.

I have no idea. However if the numbers are small than it also means the number of women it affects are small.

Why are you using minority cases to justify a majority ruling?

I'm not. you asked for evidence that the women can have no attachment to her baby. I gave you some.

Yes, I do. You're just mixing up what I'm saying. You're attempting to use minority cases to justify legislation, and the law doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

You getting ahead of yourself.:D

Prove to me that this is true in the majority of cases, prove to me that the amount of men who are psychologically traumatized long-term by an early-stage abortion is high enough to justify forcing a woman to undergo biological, physical, and hormonal changes as well as potentially long-term psychological damage against her will being law.

What would be high enough? You just want a google competition. Where I post a bunch of links that you skim over and then you post a bunch of links that I skim over. I don't find that very interesting.

It's not the "first thing off google." There are references there - use them. Do research of your own. The majority of men will not suffer from long-term psychological damage from an early-term abortion, a minority will and nobody has ever denied this, but the majority will not due to simple biology and the fact that men do not have a bond with a child that is still in the womb. Since it is only a minority of men who would undergo long-term psychological damage from an early-term abortion, it is not just to apply this method as legislation for those reasons alone. Nevermind the violation of rights issue which doesn't seem to matter to you at all.

I consider the fact a man has been denied the chance to bond with his child to be pretty awful but you view this differently.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Ah ye know what feckit, I don't care anymore, that's my debating done for the day. It's not like either of us is going to change our minds so I'm just going to agree to disagree here and let it go. I'm tired of these multi-page wars.

I agree.

I didn't see this post when I posted my last one.

flowerchild

Count Duckula wrote: »

Someone's comments in another thread got me thinking about this. There's no provision for it under EU law as far as I'm aware, but in a discussion about men's rights I wondered if this would crop up.

Note that I am not talking about the actual act of abortion. That, I'm sure we will all agree, is for the mother to decide herself. She is the one carrying the child and only she can decide whether she will or will not have an abortion. In this way, if a woman gets pregnant and the father wants to keep the child but she does not, she is legally entitled to have it aborted.

However, men do not seem to have these same rights. Of course we as a gender cannot enforce the termination of pregnancies in other people's bodies, but it does work out that if a woman decides she wants to keep the baby, the man will often be asked for child support further down the line.

Is this fair? Surely both partners should have the same rights and options available? Whilst a man cannot and should not be able to enforce a physical termination upon a woman, could he enforce a "legal abortion"? One that, during the pregnancy itself, he can distance himself completely and utterly from the child and therefore when it's born not have anything to do with it.

Of course, he would also therefore not have any rights or claims to the child. He would have no hold over its life, or any right to see it. To him it should be as if the child were aborted; ie, it doesn't exist in his life.

Is this feasible? Would there be moral objections? Does a man have a duty, whether he wants to or not, to provide for a baby that he has helped bring into the world?

Please keep this thread free from flaming and personal attacks; I understand that it's an emotive subject, but I'd like to provoke a reasoned and rational discussion on the topic.

I had a male friend where he felt the mother had 'engineered' the pregnancy. He put enormous pressure on her to have an abortion and when she refused he cut her off, gave no monetary support and refused forever to acknowledge the child.

His son was devastated as he grew up to be so ignored. He acted out and evntually in his late teens he suicided. My friend felt very guilty, as he should, and suicided himself.

A lot of pain from a decision to act as if he did not have a son.

Kaleb Huge Billiards wrote: »

Interesting topic.

People will say that he did the deed and he should take the responsibility, but you could equally say that about the female involved.

I wonder is there many cases of women aborting pregnancies when the male wants to have the child? That must be a pretty heart breaking scenario.

No-one would collect the stats. Heartbreaking yes, but unlikely to occur where he was loving and present and asking her to marry/be with him.

Count Duckula

flowerchild wrote: »

I had a male friend where he felt the mother had 'engineered' the pregnancy. He put enormous pressure on her to have an abortion and when she refused he cut her off, gave no monetary support and refused forever to acknowledge the child.

His son was devastated as he grew up to be so ignored. He acted out and evntually in his late teens he suicided. My friend felt very guilty, as he should, and suicided himself.

A lot of pain from a decision to act as if he did not have a son.

Was the son aware of who his father was then? I can't imagine the devastation of not having a father drove him to suicide - there are plenty of children raised in single parents families that aren't psychologically scarred by a lack of a parent.

But if he KNEW who the father was, then was was irresponsible parenting by the mother. Emotional blackmail. She knew her former lover wasn't going to get involved with the child and didn't want to, but at the risk of devastating that child through his ignoring if it, she told the son so as to put pressure on the father.

I don't mean to be rude, but single anecdotes tend to be rather worthless in broad discussions like this.

flowerchild wrote: »

No-one would collect the stats. Heartbreaking yes, but unlikely to occur where he was loving and present and asking her to marry/be with him.

You think so? It seems to me that abortion tends to be a moral thing; you either support it or you don't. In that way, if a woman isn't ready for a child or indeed knows she never wants one, whether the father is present or not she's not going to be putting her body through trauma when she doesn't want to. The father's place in her life will not affect how she decides when it comes to the impact on her own life and body, nor should it.

Otis Driftwood

Ive known and know alot of people that were abandoned by a parent and they turned out to be successful and well adjusted adults so for you trying to paint that guy as the sole contributing factor to that poor young mans suicide is nothing short of disgusting.

Count Duckula

Personally, I think the world will be a much better place when in five hundred years every baby is grown in incubators.

That sounds so... fascist. But it's true. No trauma for either parents; both can distance themselves from it if need be. No horrific pregnancy and childbirth for the mother. Fathers would get equal say in the child's life because it would not longer be dependent on the mother's body and decisions.

dearg lady

Memnoch wrote: »

So you accept that you are advocating/condoning discrimination against men in certain situations because 'men and women are different' however you don't think that this should work both ways?

This, to me is a sexist stance.

Oooh, I missed a lot, had to catch up on reading. Anyway, to reply to the specific question Memnoch, I'm not sure if you are delibrately trying to misunderstand me or not. But anyway, I'll say it again, I do not advocate or condone discrimination against anyone. My preference would always be for everyone to be treated equally. However, you cannot deny that men and women are different, woman carry babies, men cannot do this. So my point is that no matter how fair we make it in this situation, it cannot and will not ever be equal.
(well until we get to Count Duckulas', 'baby in incubators' scenario )

I mean, look at all the various solutions proposed by people on this thread to try to make things fairer. Some are unworkable, some are ridiculous, some would really go a long way to make things fairer, but not one can make things 100% equal, because it's currently impossible.

HellFireClub

liah wrote: »

Read the thread. It is not something that references you but is relevant to the context that you quoted me in. Quoting me out of context in order to pursue an argument doesn't really work; I was clarifying the context for you which you seem adamant to ignore, which is why I'm done with the debate.

I feel I've made my opinion clear and am not going to change my mind, I do feel you've taken me up wrong due to (purposefully?) taking me out of context but I see no point in trying to clarify that further.

There is no taking you out of context, your argument doesn't have a context because it doesn't exist in reality, it only exists in your head. I've never EVER heard of a woman being forced to carry a child that she did not wish to carry. To call you on that, is not to take you out of context, it's telling you the reality of the situation, which is that this "forced pregnancy" thing you have in your head, is not an actual situation that any woman would ever have to countenance, ever.

Otis Driftwood

I think what Liah was talking about,and Im open for correction on this,is that some posters queried what would happen if a situation arose where the woman wanted to abort but that the father didnt.Thats where the enforced preganacy points came up.She never said it happens.

HellFireClub

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I think what Liah was talking about,and Im open for correction on this,is that some posters queried what would happen if a situation arose where the woman wanted to abort but that the father didnt.Thats where the enforced preganacy points came up.She never said it happens.

I don't think that the situation you have protrayed equates to anything remotely close to a "forced pregnancy". At all times material to the process of pregnancy, the woman has control over her body, in respect of her decision as to whether she wants to carry a child or not.

As a consequence of that absolute degree of control, which I believe she is entirely entitled to, she also maintains full control over the wider consequences of her decision, insofar as they extend to the male who she conceived the child with.

The debate here seems to be over what a guy might be allowed to do for his own situation, should the woman exercise that control in a manner which could be considered unfavourable for him, and by that I mean that should the woman decide to give birth to the child for whatever reason and that this is not in communion with what he considers might be more suitable for him.

A guy kicking the kitchen chairs around the house in anger at a woman announcing that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry that child until birth, in disagreement with his wishes, this does not amount to a "forced pregnancy". A difference of opinion, even a very strong one, even God forbid a violent one, I do not think equates to such a thing as a forced pregnancy. The only time I've ever heard of what was clearly a forced pregnancy, was the Josef Fritzel case, and I don't think we should all start pointing to Josef Fritzel and start legislating on the basis of what happened there...

cocoa

HellFireClub wrote: »

A guy kicking the kitchen chairs around the house in anger at a woman announcing that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry that child until birth, in disagreement with his wishes, this does not amount to a "forced pregnancy". A difference of opinion, even a very strong one, even God forbid a violent one, I do not think equates to such a thing as a forced pregnancy.

What about the hypothetical situation where legislation and law enforcement enforce the man's wishes that the pregnancy be carried to term (i.e., ensuring an abortion is not carried out), would that amount to a forced pregnancy? True, the conception would not be forced, but the carrying to term would be.

liah

If you read the thread, you would understand that I was not even the one who brought up the idea of 'forced pregnancy,' and if you read the thread you would very clearly see I was responding to others who had brought up the idea, and if you read the thread, you would clearly see that my argument is completely contextual and based on what those posters had said.

You clearly did not read the thread, so don't try to say you did - if you had, you wouldn't be saying I had brought it up out of nowhere (because I was clearly not the one to bring it up) and you would understand why I was arguing it.

I am not responding to you further until you have actually read the thread PROPERLY.

Otis Driftwood

HellFireClub wrote: »

A guy kicking the kitchen chairs around the house in anger at a woman announcing that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry that child until birth, in disagreement with his wishes, this does not amount to a "forced pregnancy". A difference of opinion, even a very strong one, even God forbid a violent one, I do not think equates to such a thing as a forced pregnancy. The only time I've ever heard of what was clearly a forced pregnancy, was the Josef Fritzel case, and I don't think we should all start pointing to Josef Fritzel and start legislating on the basis of what happened there...

You seem to be picking and choosing small sections of the entire thread to base your argument on,whether that is deliberate or not,Im not so sure.

I will repeat what I perceive to be the crux of the matter.

Some posters queried what happens in a situation when the mother wants a termination but the father does not.As it stands,there is no provision,legal or otherwise for the mother being made to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes.

Of course forcing the woman to carry to term against her wishes would fly in the face of basic human rights,its simply not feasible,even on the most basic moral terms.The above section of your post,you seem to have pulled that out of the air.

HellFireClub wrote: »

A guy kicking the kitchen chairs around the house in anger at a woman announcing that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry that child until birth, in disagreement with his wishes, this does not amount to a "forced pregnancy"

Nobody said or implied that the man disagreeing about a termination is forced pregnancy,on what level could it be????

You seem to be misinterpreting things to base a pointless argument on and to pick a fight with Liah.

HellFireClub

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

You seem to be picking and choosing small sections of the entire thread to base your argument on,whether that is deliberate or not,Im not so sure.

I will repeat what I perceive to be the crux of the matter.

Some posters queried what happens in a situation when the mother wants a termination but the father does not.As it stands,there is no provision,legal or otherwise for the mother being made to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes.

Of course forcing the woman to carry to term against her wishes would fly in the face of basic human rights,its simply not feasible,even on the most basic moral terms.The above section of your post,you seem to have pulled that out of the air.



Nobody said or implied that the man disagreeing about a termination is forced pregnancy,on what level could it be????

You seem to be misinterpreting things to base a pointless argument on and to pick a fight with Liah.

I'm not trying to pick an argument with anyone, I just think the argument being made is not grounded in any reality whatsoever. A forced pregnancy is as likely a notion to be found in any civil society as is a government incentivised rape scheme, both of which are clearly complete and utter ludicrious sickening notions.

And throwing out comments to the effect that a man ought not really have any pyschological issue with being informed that a child that he had conceived had been aborted, or was going to be aborted, I think is highly offensive to a lot of men, and for the record I'm not carrying any historical or personal baggage whatsoever on the subject.

Otis Driftwood

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'm not trying to pick an argument with anyone, I just think the argument being made is not grounded in any reality whatsoever. A forced pregnancy is as likely a notion to be found in any civil society as is a government incentivised rape scheme, both of which are clearly complete and utter ludicrious sickening notions.

/bangs head off table.

For the last time,Liah,nor anyone else was arguing for or said that "enforced pregnancy" happens or should happen.

It cannot be said any clearer.


Mod hat on.

You seem to be missing the point completely and Im beginning to suspect you are doing so deliberately to try and get a rise,thats trolling and it doesnt fly here or anywhere else.

HellFireClub

liah wrote: »

So you're telling me that, if the roles were reversed and you were forced against your will to give birth to someone else's child, despite it changing your body permanently, despite not wanting it, despite it using all your resources for nine months, despite it messing with your hormones and making you batshit crazy, despite it causing you hours of physical agony in childbirth, days of bedrest, bruising, and general physical recovery, that you would be completely okay with it?
And that the psychological subjugation and forced submission would not eat away at your mental health, would not traumatize you? The idea that you were being forced against your will to operate as someone else's factory, that you were being treated as inhuman, that another person's human right supercedes your own right to your own body? The implication that you are lesser, you are not equal, that your choice has no validity even though it is growing inside of your own body and using you as a host, something that you do not want?

I'll never believe anyone would be okay with that tbh and would question the empathy and basic humanity of anyone who would be fine with forcing another person to do undergo that based upon their own whim, especially when all they have to do is go bang another bird to make a new one. And that's the hardest thing they have to do - have sex.

It's all nice and clean cut for a guy looking in and maybe that's the reason you have so much disconnect here, but believe me, if you were talking about yourself right now I'd find it very hard to believe you would be perfectly fine with the scenario.

This is the post here that caused the issue. This argument above is very clearly based on a situation that can actually never come to pass, save in circumstances whereby a Josef Fritzel type event occurs again. Now, when I say that this situation above outlined by Liah can actually never come to pass, am I right or wrong in saying that???

K-9

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is the post here that caused the issue. This argument above is very clearly based on a situation that can actually never come to pass, save in circumstances whereby a Josef Fritzel type event occurs again. Now, when I say that this situation above outlined by Liah can actually never come to pass, am I right or wrong in saying that???

Well maybe it is similar to the X case, the state intervening to stop a young girl going to England to abort?

metrovelvet

How equal are you talking about?

Are you saying that he has as much time as the woman to decide? Because there is no time limit on when a woman can give a child up for adoption, but I believe in Ireland she is required to care for the baby for a minimum amount of time.

Are you saying that his family's rights would also be terminate too?

Can he do this as much as he likes with as many kids as he likes?

Are you ok with taxes going up to supplement the social welfare bill for men who dont want to pay for their kids?


Its really unclear what people mean by equal.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

How equal are you talking about?

Are you saying that he has as much time as the woman to decide? Because there is no time limit on when a woman can give a child up for adoption, but I believe in Ireland she is required to care for the baby for a minimum amount of time.

I think a parent should be allowed to give up their child anytime they like. I don't see the purpose of the state forcing a family to stay together. If a parent doesn't want their child I don't think it's good for either of them to force them together. If you give up all entitlements to your child you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Are you saying that his family's rights would also be terminate too?

yup

C

an he do this as much as he likes with as many kids as he likes?

yup, we don't limit the number of times a woman can abort of place a child up for adoption. In the states a woman could drop off another baby at a cop station every 9 months if she wished.

Are you ok with taxes going up to supplement the social welfare bill for men who dont want to pay for their kids?

Yes but I don't think there would be the massive increase every else seems to be implying. If you don't want to pay child support I'd imagine there are currently plenty of ways of getting away with it. it simply be legalizing what already happens so there isn't an extra burden because the state is already paying that burden.

Its really unclear what people mean by equal.

I don;t think full equality is possible on this issue because a man will ever be able to biologically abort the child but I do believe after the birth equality is possible. Women seem to have numerous ways of legally disowning an already born child with or without the fathers permissions but the father doesn't.

metrovelvet

^ Just to clarify what you said about women dropping kids off at the fire stations [yes it's the firestations, not the cops]- that is tied into custody, not mothers necessarily. One state was having a big problem with parents dumping their teenagers.

In some ways this appears to be a good idea. It would stop prevaricating fathers from playing peek aboo, for a start.

On the other hand, as it stands now, fathers can cherry pick their involvement, where a mother cannot do that, so the consequences for her choices are far starker.

Do you have any suggestions on how to redress that imbalance?

Also, if you are suggesting that the burden on the state would not increase that much since it is already easy enough to get out of paying maintenance, then it would appear that men already are allowed to have their legal abortions.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Just to clarify what you said about women dropping kids off at the fire stations [yes it's the firestations, not the cops]- that is tied into custody, not mothers necessarily. One state was having a big problem with parents dumping their teenagers.

I'd heard fire stations as well but just assumed it applied to all emergency services. What's the reason behind choosing fire stations?

In some ways this appears to be a good idea. It would stop prevaricating fathers from playing peek aboo, for a start.

+1

On the other hand, as it stands now, fathers can cherry pick their involvement, where a mother cannot do that, so the consequences for her choices are far starker.

This is a good point but would it really affect whether or not to legalize what we're talking about? I don't see how. It's also something that's more society enforced than legally enforced. It can happen where it's the father who is the single parent with a mother who has sporadic involvement. I'm not denying that it's probably rare though.

Do you have any suggestions on how to redress that imbalance?

No but it is a separate issue isn't it? We are discussing the imbalance of not being able to permanently disown your child which is easier for the mother to do and I don't think is possible for a man to do on his own.

Also, if you are suggesting that the burden on the state would not increase that much since it is already easy enough to get out of paying maintenance, then it would appear that men already are allowed to have their legal abortions.

You are just twisting the law and avoiding punishment. It basically comes down to who hired the better legal team which isn't really fair. A woman doesn't need to twist the law to give her child up for adoption which she could do without the fathers permission. Although in Ireland she does need to twist the law to get a abortion. Your argument would be like saying Ireland doesn't need to legalize abortion because they can just get it done in the UK. It's more awkward than it needs to be and should be facilitated by the state.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'd heard fire stations as well but just assumed it applied to all emergency services. What's the reason behind choosing fire stations?

I don't know but I would imagibne it has something to do with better medical training. These things were originally set up in response to teenage girls abandoning newborns in dumps etc, so they tried to give them a safe alternative where the babies might get some care. Also, I would imagine that cop stations wouldn't be appropriate environments for babies.

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is a good point but would it really affect whether or not to legalize what we're talking about? I don't see how. It's also something that's more society enforced than legally enforced. It can happen where it's the father who is the single parent with a mother who has sporadic involvement. I'm not denying that it's probably rare though.

Here is a single woman's choices in Ireland. Have the baby full time or give it up for adoption. There is no inbeween. She has fulltime custody enforced on her or she can give up the child. That's it. Or go abroad for an abortion where it is legal.

If the argument is if a woman can give up a child then to be fair why can?t a man, then if the father to be OPTS in to fatherhood, then shouldn't he also have some enforced custody where he has to legally commit to the child on a minimum level [what that minimum is is anyone's guess really.]

If you argue for choice for men, then it has to cut both ways.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't know but I would imagibne it has something to do with better medical training. These things were originally set up in response to teenage girls abandoning newborns in dumps etc, so they tried to give them a safe alternative where the babies might get some care. Also, I would imagine that cop stations wouldn't be appropriate environments for babies.

makes sense

Here is a single woman's choices in Ireland. Have the baby full time or give it up for adoption. There is no inbeween. She has fulltime custody enforced on her or she can give up the child. That's it. Or go abroad for an abortion where it is legal.

but she can legallyngive up her responsibility through adoption at any time. How can a man do the same? I don't think he can give up his responsibility although he can ignore with the potential to be punished

If the argument is if a woman can give up a child then to be fair why can?t a man, then if the father to be OPTS in to fatherhood, then shouldn't he also have some enforced custody where he has to legally commit to the child on a minimum level [what that minimum is is anyone's guess really.]

I'm guessing you are talking about more than money. I'm not really sure how that would work but maybe if he misses too weekends with his kids he is then entitled to less weekends with his kids. I don't really think a court has the ability to make someone a dad.

If you argue for choice for men, then it has to cut both ways.

fair enough but I view this as cutting it both ways when compared to women having the option to permanently disown responsibility through adoption. I basically view it as signing over your guardianship to the mother(I know she already has guardianship anyway)