'My body, my baby'

Maple

py2006 wrote: »

This thread that I created is more about the selfish attitude of some women and should they be upset if a man responded with an equally selfish statement. Please read my opening thread.

I have done and I feel both statements are equally cruel and selfish. I know men & women who have found themselves on the receiving end of each of these statements and both are equally damaging.

The man may grieve for the child that he has not gotten the chance to know. The woman may have to be both parents to a child that she had not planned for and find herself having to make a decision that she has never envisaged herself making.

No matter your sex, at that moment in your life where you hear a statement like that, your life alters.

But it's a subjective situation, entirely dependent on the two individuals involved. I sincerely doubt that no two scenarios are ever the same.

py2006

Maple wrote: »

I have done and I feel both statements are equally cruel and selfish. .

I think maybe you are missing the point! Of course both statements are selfish.

What I am asking is that the women (some) that are of the view that its 'my body, my baby etc'. Should they in turn have no argument if the father agrees with her and decides to have no part in her life or the childs?

Again, I have to repeat that I am not advocating anything I am merely interested in the responses to the above!

drkpower

py2006 wrote: »

What I am asking is that the women (some) that are of the view that its 'my body, my baby etc'. Should they in turn have no argument if the father agrees with her and decides to have no part in her life or the childs?

There seems to be a lot of missing the point in this thread.

Abortion rights, where they are granted, are almost always granted on the basis of a conflict of rights between child and its mother. That is why the ultimate legal choice can only be that of the mother. While an argument may be made that there is a degree of conflict betwen the rights of father and child, the extent of the conflict is barely comparable.

Once the child is born, issues such as financial maintenance (from the father) are rights of the child, not of the mother. Therefore any arguments that suggest that the mother, in choosing not to involve the father in the decision to have the child, has extinguished her right to maintenance, utterly misses the point.

That is not to say that it is not distasteful, or unfair, when a mother says 'my body, my baby'; it is. But the suggestion that a father who is legally cut out of the abortion decision should be legally cut out of any responsibilities to the child misses the point.

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

Once the child is born, issues such as financial maintenance (from the father) are rights of the child, not of the mother. Therefore any arguments that suggest that the mother, in choosing not to involve the father in the decision to have the child, has extinguished her right to maintenance, utterly misses the point.

Actually, that's not true. Maintenance is awarded as a result of a mother choosing to keep a child. Yet, as I earlier pointed out, responsibility for this choice suddenly is washed away and the child is essentially used as a moral justification for the mother not to accept 100% of the responsibility for her 100% of this post-natal choice that has absolutely nothing to do with the father (more correctly the father has absolutely no legal say in it).

So the question is not whether the child deserves financial support - naturally it does. The question is who is responsible for this, and until men have a choice in this post-natal decision too, what you are effectively suggesting is that they should be paying for the rights of another who is hiding behind an appeal to emotion (the child) to justify it.

In short, if you want 100% of the choice you have to accept 100% of the responsibility. If not, you have to cede some of the choice. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

That is not to say that it is not distasteful, or unfair, when a mother says 'my body, my baby'; it is. But the suggestion that a father who is legally cut out of the abortion decision should be legally cut out of any responsibilities to the child misses the point.

It misses your point. It is the point that others are making (or an approximation).

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, that's not true. Maintenance is awarded as a result of a mother choosing to keep a child.

It arises because the child is born (regardless of the circumstances that led to that). And it is the right of the child, not of the mother.

The mother may have created the stuation whereby the child is in a position to have that right enforced, but it remains the right of the child. That is entirely clear.

That is not to say that I dont believe that a judge, when seeking to determine how maintenance should be paid, should not take account of circumstances. However to extinguish paternal obligations to a child because of prior maternal decisions will have one primary victim.

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

It arises because the child is born (regardless of the circumstances that led to that).

The bit in brackets is you dodging a whole area of debate. It is so only because that is the legal position today. I thought this thread was about changing the legal position?

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

It arises because the child is born (regardless of the circumstances that led to that).

That is false. It arises because the child is born and the mother has chosen to keep it. If she chooses adoption, open adoption, fostering or a number of other such options it will never arise.

And it is the right of the child, not of the mother.

No argument there - where I have disagreed is who is responsible for that; the mother who made the post-natal choice to place the child in that situation or the father who has no post-conceptual, let alone natal, choice.

The question is one of liability and what you are suggesting is that someone who is not responsible for the choice is liable, while the person who is solely responsible need not face the full liability.

Again, you can't have you cake and eat it.

However to extinguish paternal obligations to a child because of prior maternal decisions will have one primary victim.

Yet the right to extinguish maternal obligations to a child because of any reason will have one primary victim too, but no one seems to have a problem with that. Again, you can't have you cake and eat it.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question is one of liability and what you are suggesting is that someone who is not responsible for the choice is liable, while the person who is solely responsible need not face the full liability..

What I am actually suggesting is that paternal obligations should not be extinguished because of maternal decisions. To do so would be to potentially punish a third party was not a party to the disagreements between its parents.

I am not suggesting that the relative paternal and maternal actions pre-birth are not relevant to any judicial decisions on maintenance; far from it. But I am against the automatic abrogation of paternal responsibility merely because they have no say in post-conception decisions is an entirely disproportionate response.

Is the alternative that you favour, a situation whereby a father has no obligations to its child unless he has a paternal veto over all maternal decisions vis-a-vis post conception continuance of the pregnancy?

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

What I am actually suggesting is that paternal obligations should not be extinguished because of maternal decisions. To do so would be to potentially punish a third party was not a party to the disagreements between its parents.

All we can do is try to balance things out as best as we can, because the situation now is completely crazy, as only the mother's rights are actually considered - even post-natally, as the mother is the person who ends up 'speaking for the child'. Even maintenance, while theoretically for the child, is administered by the mother, as custodian; there is no legal enforcement or legislation protecting the 'child's money' from misuse or embezzlement.

It's simply an inequity that cannot continue.

Is the alternative that you favour, a situation whereby a father has no obligations to its child unless he has a paternal veto over all maternal decisions vis-a-vis post conception continuance of the pregnancy?

Naturally some form of practical solution would have to be found, such as one where either party has a window in which they can abdicate responsibility after which they need the consent of the other and that attempts to circumvent this would be criminal offenses. Or neither has such an option (without the agreement of the other). Or both have with the same freedom that women now enjoy.

Because otherwise, you're really just looking for women to have rights that men have to pay towards, and I don't expect the present inequity to continue indefinitely, so it's up to women what rights they want to sacrifice, before men get fed up and force the issue.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

All we can do is try to balance things out as best as we can, because the situation now is completely crazy, as only the mother's rights are actually considered - even post-natally, as the mother is the person who ends up 'speaking for the child'. Even maintenance, while theoretically for the child, is administered by the mother, as custodian; there is no legal enforcement or legislation protecting the 'child's money' from misuse or embezzlement.

It's simply an inequity that cannot continue..

I agree that there is an unfair inequity post-natally. And a serious re-balancing is needed.

My difficulty is that to allow a father some kind of veto over pre-natal decision-making misses the point that the very basis for abortion rights is on the basis of a (supposed) conflict betweeen mother and foetus - allowing the father a veto over such decisions is inappropriate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally some form of practical solution would have to be found, such as one where either party has a window in which they can abdicate responsibility after which they need the consent of the other and that attempts to circumvent this would be criminal offenses. Or neither has such an option (without the agreement of the other). Or both have with the same freedom that women now enjoy.

The difficulty I see with those options is that it still results in the child's rights being abandoned. Whether that is by agreement or otherwise is not the point. Agreements between A & B to extinguish the rights of C are not usually enforceable; nor should they be.

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

My difficulty is that to allow a father some kind of veto over pre-natal decision-making misses the point that the very basis for abortion rights is on the basis of a (supposed) conflict betweeen mother and foetus - allowing the father a veto over such decisions is inappropriate.

Actually it doesn't miss it, it simply points out that it is de jure and de facto irrelevant.

De jure, it is irrelevant because even without abortion women have the option to avoid maternal responsibility through adoption. De facto, it is irrelevant because the reality is that this is the reason the vast majority of abortions take place - it's not about her body, but about the responsibility that would come after, and like it or not abortion has become the 'cleaner' choice when avoiding this.

Also, I did not suggest that a father should be allowed to veto it - I suggested a number of options - but if he can not, neither can you turn around and expect him to pay for your choice to keep a child. As I repeatedly have said, you can't have your cake and eat it - you can't have both.

The difficulty I see with those options is that it still results in the child's rights being abandoned. Whether that is by agreement or otherwise is not the point. Agreements between A & B to extinguish the rights of C are not usually enforceable; nor should they be.

The rights of the child are not being abandoned though. They're still there, but who is responsible for them has changed, that's all.

And let's face it, as things stand a child has no rights unless granted by the mother; the right to be born, the right to grow up with the biological mother or be adopted into a family that may well be more in their interests and in practical terms the right to a relationship with the father (where he wants one). These are rights exercised by the mother - the child has no rights and it this is where using the child as a device to justify the present inequality frankly collapses into a pool of hypocrisy.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it doesn't miss it, it simply points out that it is de jure and de facto irrelevant.

De jure, it is irrelevant because even without abortion women have the option to avoid maternal responsibility through adoption. De facto, it is irrelevant because the reality is that this is the reason the vast majority of abortions take place - it's not about her body, but about the responsibility that would come after, and like it or not abortion has become the 'cleaner' choice when avoiding this..

That may be true, but that is not the basis upon which abortion is legal (where it is legal). The basis upon which it is legal is the conflict of rights between mother and foetus. Paternal rights dont come into that equation.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Also, I did not suggest that a father should be allowed to veto it - I suggested a number of options - but if he can not, neither can you turn around and expect him to pay for your choice to keep a child. As I repeatedly have said, you can't have your cake and eat it - you can't have both.

Again, you speak in the language of party B paying for the decisions of party A without appearing to appreciate that the right to paternal maintenace is a right of person C.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The rights of the child are not being abandoned though. They're still there, but who is responsible for them has changed, that's all.

However, very often, making the mother solely responsible results in the child actually being disadvantaged. So we are back to person C's losing its rights due to an agreement between A & B. Where, for instance the mother is financially independent, I would have little difficulty, in certain circumstances, imposing the bulk/all of the financial responsibility on her. It all depends on circumstances. But legislating for a blanket abrogation of paternal rights with no heed being paid to the effect on the individual child is disproportionate.

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

That may be true, but that is not the basis upon which abortion is legal (where it is legal). The basis upon which it is legal is the conflict of rights between mother and foetus. Paternal rights dont come into that equation.

That's why I said de facto - I also pointed out why it is irrelevant de jure - legally.

Again, you speak in the language of party B paying for the decisions of party A without appearing to appreciate that the right to paternal maintenace is a right of person C.

Person C has a right to be maintained. I dispute whom is responsible for this, given the lack of responsibility a man has in the decision that leads to this need for maintenance.

However, very often, making the mother solely responsible results in the child actually being disadvantaged.

Not if she chooses adoption. If not, is she not responsible for her choice to put her child in such a situation?

So we are back to person C's losing its rights due to an agreement between A & B. Where, for instance the mother is financially independent, I would have little difficulty, in certain circumstances, imposing the bulk/all of the financial responsibility on her. It all depends on circumstances. But legislating for a blanket abrogation of paternal rights with no heed being paid to the effect on the individual child is disproportionate.

Then don't, but if you don't you need to revoke many of the blanket abrogation of maternal rights that presently exist, and which I cited in my last post.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's why I said de facto - I also pointed out why it is irrelevant de jure - legally..

And like I said, I think at the point when the child is born, the father's rights vis-a-vis adoption etc is in need of serious reform.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Person C has a right to be maintained. I dispute whom is responsible for this, given the lack of responsibility a man has in the decision that leads to this need for maintenance..

And I agree that the degree of responsibility should be dependent on the circumstances. What I disagree on is that a father should be entitled to complete abrogate all responsibility, with or without agreement of the mother. The fact that a mother may have certain choices pre birth that a father doesnt, does not and should not mean that a father should be entitled to abrogate all responsibility to his child. That is not to say that parenting decisions, after birth, should not be altered in favour of the father, though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not if she chooses adoption. If not, is she not responsible for her choice to put her child in such a situation?.

I do not think that anyone should be effectively coerced into adoption on the basis of economic need, where the father of the child has the capacity to assist economicaly. I do not belive that that is necssarily in the best interests of the child.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then don't, but if you don't you need to revoke many of the blanket abrogation of maternal rights that presently exist, and which I cited in my last post.

As i have said, i do wish to revoke (or at least amend) the blanket abrogation of maternal rights that presently exist. I just dont favour revoking those maternal rights that depend on the conflict of rgihts between mother and foetus

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

And like I said, I think at the point when the child is born, the father's rights vis-a-vis adoption etc is in need of serious reform.

Indeed, but you're ignoring the de facto reality (that abortion is used as a means of avoiding maternal responsibility) that exists even prior to birth. In essence you're telling us to ignore the man behind the curtain and that just does not wash anymore.

What I disagree on is that a father should be entitled to complete abrogate all responsibility, with or without agreement of the mother.

Fine, then you need to apply the same to mothers, without ignoring the de facto choice I cited above. Otherwise you have to afford men the same rights to abrogate all responsibility that women enjoy.

The fact that a mother may have certain choices pre birth that a father doesnt, does not and should not mean that a father should be entitled to abrogate all responsibility to his child.

Other than hiding behind the semantic fig-leaf of "it's about the woman's body", when de facto it really isn't, you've not given any reason why a father could not enjoy pre-birth choices too.

I do not think that anyone should be effectively coerced into adoption on the basis of economic need, where the father of the child has the capacity to assist economicaly.

Why not? Are you suggesting that people have a right to breed and keep their children, regardless of the consequences to others? I'm sorry, but I do not accept that people should have such a right. The World does not owe you a living.

I do not belive that that is necssarily in the best interests of the child.

Problem is whether it is or not, it is the rights of the mother that are paramount currently, not the child, and this was my point - she decides regardless of the best interests of the child.

As i have said, i do wish to revoke (or at least amend) the blanket abrogation of maternal rights that presently exist. I just dont favour revoking those maternal rights that depend on the conflict of rgihts between mother and foetus

And as I've said, I'm not really advocating 'male abortion', or whatever you want to call it. If anything, I am simply holding up a reflection of the rights held by women and if it horrifies you then you should be questioning those.

However, when the balance of rights will be changed, women are ultimately either going to have to lose some of theirs or men will have to be afforded similar, unilateral, rights. Your choice.

py2006

I could read you two battling to and fro all day! Both make good points and articulate them very well. But I have to say, I tend to lean more towards Corinthian.