Risk to life, including suicide?

MaxWig

If the Govt do pass this proposed legislation (X Case), does anyone see a scenario whereby a prospective father might be allowed to abdicate all rights and responsibilities, physical, emotional and financial to the new child, where that father is deemed to be suicidal as a result of the prospect of fatherhood. If not, why not?

I'm not looking for an argument, or any abusive posts.

I'm just curious about the idea.

im invisible

no

/thread

MaxWig

Thread closed due to....?

GarIT

I don't think it will happen, but I definately think it should. Abortion is just another scenario where fathers are descriminated against.

Morag

X Case has nothing to do with abortion on demand it is to do with the risk to the life of the woman if the pregnancy continues.

So you are not comparing like to like.

Galvasean

Sharrow wrote: »

X Case has nothing to do with abortion on demand it is to do with the risk to the life of the woman if the pregnancy continues.

So you are not comparing like to like.

I think it is you who is not comparing like with like. Nowhere in the OP does it suggest 'abortion on demand'. The OP does ask whether a father should be allowed abdicate rights/responsibilities should his life be under threat by virtue of suicide, which is quite a bit like the X case.

blue note

Galvasean wrote: »

I think it is you who is not comparing like with like. Nowhere in the OP does it suggest 'abortion on demand'. The OP does ask whether a father should be allowed abdicate rights/responsibilities should his life be under threat by virtue of suicide, which is quite a bit like the X case.

If he doesn't kill himself, then he'll be liable for maintenance etc. If he does than obviously he won't.

It just won't come into it in any way, shape or form. I can understand an argument though where if the husbands life was at risk at the thought of having a child, then a case should be made that he should have the right to demand an abortion.

awec

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Its a tough one.

Men can and do walk away so I suppose the main issue is the one of money.

I agree its unfair where a man has made his intentions that he doesn't want kids, who is maybe tricked into impregnating his partner to be held financially accountable but then on the flip side if a man just decides on a whim he isn't into being a father should be able to leave a woman in the lurch and expect us the taxpayers to pick up the tab?

I'd also hate to see women feel pressured into having abortions or giving babies up for adoption that they might later regret, people talk about abortion as an "out" for women but its not as easy as that, its a hard thing to do for a lot of women.

I suppose in certain circumstances it should be an option but I wouldn't have much respect for any man who used it.

LeeHoffmann

I´ll post the same here as in the other thread...

I also don´t think it´s going to happen any time soon. As to the question of should there be such a scenario...on the one hand, yes for the sake of equality (women can have abortion, men have no choice). If men could abdicate all responsibility and association in such a manner, that would have to be forever IMO - i.e. they couldn´t change their minds months/years later. Even if they wanted to play a part in the child´s life after that, they would have no rights whatsoever. I would also think this abdication should only take place after the baby is born and after the biological father has seen the baby - so that the man fully understands the reality of the situation before he makes such an important and permanent decision.

Now what about the child? Obviously he/she is likely to lose out in such a scenario (emotionally and financially). Who is going to pay for the child? The mother. If she can´t, then the state. This is probably the biggest reason why such a law will not be passed any time soon. The state can´t afford to pay for all these abdicated children.

Maguined

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´ll post the same here as in the other thread...

Surely the exact same reasons also apply to the situation where a child is given up for adoption and yet this is legalised and accepted?

LeeHoffmann

Maguined, can you clarify your question? The state would have to pay for a child until he/she was adopted. I didn´t say it should be illegal or that it´s unacceptable

Maguined

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Maguined, can you clarify your question? The state would have to pay for a child until he/she was adopted. I didn´t say it should be illegal or that it´s unacceptable

You suggested that a law allowing a man to abdicate his responsibility to the child would not pass as it would result in either the mother or the state paying for these abdicated children. However is this not the current case with adoption? if the parents of a child do not wish to care for it they can willingly hand the child over to the state for adoption thereby abdicating all responsibility including financial to the state until the state approves of new parents to adopt the child?

I just want to know why you view one situation as not likely when a precedence is already in effect and use.

LeeHoffmann

I guess I think that more fathers would abdicate parental rights & responsibilities than both parents would give up their children for adoption. In the former, only one parent needs to abdicate. In the latter both parents would have to abdicate. I think it more likely that one parent would do so than both parents. Also, the state only has to pay for children until they are adopted. There is already a significant number of single mothers who are permanently receiving state support. I think given the current economic climate, the government would be afraid of increasing those numbers. Do you think the gov wouldn´t worry about this possibility?

Maguined

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I guess I think that more fathers would abdicate parental rights & responsibilities than both parents would give up their children for adoption. In the former, only one parent needs to abdicate. In the latter both parents would have to abdicate. I think it more likely that one parent would do so than both parents. Also, the state only has to pay for children until they are adopted. There is already a significant number of single mothers who are permanently receiving state support. I think given the current economic climate, the government would be afraid of increasing those numbers. Do you think the gov wouldn´t worry about this possibility?

Well in the later the fathers consent is only needed if he is a guardian ie if they are married or unmarried and the mother agrees to award the father guardianship or if the father goes through the courts.

As for the cost I could be wrong but I was under the impression that there is more demand than supply for adoption in Ireland? So if there are more families out there wanting to adopt children then it wouldn't really have much of an economic impact on the government.

LeeHoffmann

Well in the later the fathers consent is only needed if he is a guardian ie if they are married or unmarried and the mother agrees to award the father guardianship or if the father goes through the courts.

what? I´m not being smart. I really don´t understand what you´re saying here. Are you saying that only the father´s consent would be needed to give the child up for adoption in the case where the father is the sole guardian? Or are you saying that mothers can give their children up for adoption without the father´s consent?

As for the cost I could be wrong but I was under the impression that there is more demand than supply for adoption in Ireland? So if there are more families out there wanting to adopt children then it wouldn't really have much of an economic impact on the government.

I agree that there´s more demand than supply. I think you may have misunderstood my point? I said it would cost the government more to pay for children who are in the mother´s care but who have been disowned by the fathers, than it would to pay for children given up for adoption - simply because of the numbers.
Let´s call this situation "A": a man abdicates his parental rights, leaving the child with only one legal parent (the mother)
Let´s call this situation "B": both parents abdicate their parental rights i.e. they give the child up for adoption.
I think A would happen more often than B.

GarIT

awec wrote: »

What sort of right do you think they should be given in law?

If a fathers mental health could be affected he should be able to have his responsibilities as a father removed.

If abortion on demand comes in the father should be able to have a 'legal abortion' where the father can abort his responsibilities towards to the child. And if the mother wants an abortion (without medical reasons) she should need written permission from the father (except in cases of rape). If the mother claims she doesn't know the father and aborts the child but the father later objects to the abortion the mother should be liable to be charged with murder if she is found to have knowingly not told the father.

Maguined

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

what? I´m not being smart. I really don´t understand what you´re saying here. Are you saying that only the father´s consent would be needed to give the child up for adoption in the case where the father is the sole guardian? Or are you saying that mothers can give their children up for adoption without the father´s consent?


I agree that there´s more demand than supply. I think you may have misunderstood my point? I said it would cost the government more to pay for children who are in the mother´s care but who have been disowned by the fathers, than it would to pay for children given up for adoption - simply because of the numbers.
Let´s call this situation "A": a man abdicates his parental rights, leaving the child with only one legal parent (the mother)
Let´s call this situation "B": both parents abdicate their parental rights i.e. they give the child up for adoption.
I think A would happen more often than B.

Yes a mother can give her child up for adoption without the fathers consent if the father is not a guardian as far as I am aware.

Sorry you are right, I read your second point wrong. The government probably would end up paying more in single parents allowances if they did allow fathers to abdicate their financial responsibilities unless of course the government overhauled child benefits properly but they are never going to do that any time soon.

Maguined

GarIT wrote: »

If a fathers mental health could be affected he should be able to have his responsibilities as a father removed.

If abortion on demand comes in the father should be able to have a 'legal abortion' where the father can abort his responsibilities towards to the child. And if the mother wants an abortion (without medical reasons) she should need written permission from the father (except in cases of rape). If the mother claims she doesn't know the father and aborts the child but the father later objects to the abortion the mother should be liable to be charged with murder if she is found to have knowingly not told the father.

You can't have abortion on demand and try someone for the murder, the two are mutually exclusive on principle.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

I suppose in certain circumstances it should be an option but I wouldn't have much respect for any man who used it.

Why is there a difference between a man and woman who don't want children? Or would you have no respect for a woman who has an abortion?

LeeHoffmann

And if the mother wants an abortion (without medical reasons) she should need written permission from the father

And if the father doesn´t permit it, then she should be forced to continue with the pregnancy and give birth?

Yes a mother can give her child up for adoption without the fathers consent if the father is not a guardian as far as I am aware.

In such a case, I think the man should be able to take on custody of the child. That seems a no-brainer to me as it benefits everyone involved more than putting the child into state custody. However, I know very little about abortion law and this seems like a topic for another thread.

GarIT

Maguined wrote: »

You can't have abortion on demand and try someone for the murder, the two are mutually exclusive on principle.

You can if one parent objects to the abortion. If a woman wants an abortion but the man thinks abortion is murder, the mother should have to give the child to the father and have no rights when it is born but if the mother aborts the child while the child's father wants it the mother should be a murderer.

Morgase

GarIT wrote: »

And if the mother wants an abortion (without medical reasons) she should need written permission from the father (except in cases of rape). If the mother claims she doesn't know the father and aborts the child but the father later objects to the abortion the mother should be liable to be charged with murder if she is found to have knowingly not told the father.

This is probably one of the craziest things I've read on boards. You would seriously want to force a woman to be an incubator in that way?

GarIT

Morgase wrote: »

This is probably one of the craziest things I've read on boards. You would seriously want to force a woman to be an incubator in that way?

Why should the father loose his child because the mother chooses not to keep it? I think if a father wants to have his child he should be able to.

Morgase

GarIT wrote: »

Why should the father loose his child because the mother chooses not to keep it? I think if a father wants to have his child he should be able to.

If he has some way of being able to remove the foetus (it's not a child yet) and allow it to grow in an incubator or somesuch, fine.

But as that's not medically possible, you cannot take the choice away from the mother to not be forced into carrying a foetus that she does not want; that's barbaric.

GarIT

Morgase wrote: »

If he has some way of being able to remove the foetus (it's not a child yet) and allow it to grow in an incubator or somesuch, fine.

But as that's not medically possible, you cannot take the choice away from the mother to not be forced into carrying a foetus that she does not want; that's barbaric.

Its no worse that not allowing abortion at all. I think its more barbaric to stop someone having a child that has already been concieved.

Allowing a woman to have an abortion without the fathers consent is as bad as a father forcing a mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want the child.

LeeHoffmann

Allowing a woman to have an abortion without the fathers consent is as bad as a father forcing a mother to have an abortion because he doesn't want the child.

The child is inside the mother´s body. The father has no right to decide what happens to the mother´s body. That´s the problem. Sure we all want the father to be able to keep his child, but most people aren´t comfortable with the idea of one person having control over another person´s body in this manner.

You can if one parent objects to the abortion. If a woman wants an abortion but the man thinks abortion is murder, the mother should have to give the child to the father and have no rights when it is born but if the mother aborts the child while the child's father wants it the mother should be a murderer.

That´s ridiculous. You can´t say abortion isn´t murder in one instance and then say it is in another. I understand you think it´s unfair for a mother to abort a child that a father wants to keep...but if you want vengeance/justice, I think you need to pin another crime on the mother here. Murder doesn´t fit the bill.

GarIT

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

That´s ridiculous. You can´t say abortion isn´t murder in one instance and then say it is in another. I understand you think it´s unfair for a mother to abort a child that a father wants to keep...but if you want vengeance/justice, I think you need to pin another crime on the mother here. Murder doesn´t fit the bill.

From the fathers point of view it would be murder, it would probably be best to call it something else for clarity but should hold the same sentence.

LeeHoffmann

From the fathers point of view it would be murder, it would probably be best to call it something else for clarity but should hold the same sentence.

This isn´t a question of opinions. If abortion is legal, then the law doesn´t consider it murder.

awec

This post has been deleted.

GarIT

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

This isn´t a question of opinions. If abortion is legal, then the law doesn´t consider it murder.

Many people still see abortion as murder and for that reason I think abortion should only ever be ok if both parents agree to it.

I also think if abortion is made legal either parent should also be able to give up their responsibility to the child.