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.

awec

This post has been deleted.

GarIT

awec wrote: »

If the mother doesn't want the child and the father does, and the mother dies whilst giving birth, should the father be charged with anything for forcing her to go through with it (extrapolating your logic here) ?

You cannot practically legislate for fathers rights in abortion. If the mother doesn't want it then ultimately it's her body and it's her who will be taking the risks.

Fathers shouldn't be able to have a "legal abortion" either. IMO that's total nonsense. Possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this subject. Get a girl pregnant and then run off? No chance should there be laws put in place to facilitate that. Should a mother be able to do the same after giving birth?

I already said that the father shouldn't have any say if there is a medical need for an abortion.

Yes the mother should equally be able to give up her rights to the child, its like adoption with only only one side giving up the child then the other side can keep it.

GarIT

awec wrote: »

Why?

If abortion is legal then it's not murder. These people can see it however they want, in the eyes of the law it won't be murder and the eyes of the law is what matters.

That if abortion is legal. What I'm saying is abortion should only be legal in a case where both parents want it, abortion shouldn't be legal where one parent wants the child.

LeeHoffmann

I don´t think awec was talking about ´medical need´ as you see it. Doctors can´t foresee all circumstances. It´s can happen that an apparently healthy mother can die or be seriously physically injured during childbirth. Many women suffer post partum depression. This can lead to suicide (I know somebody who committed suicide after suffering for years with post partum depression).

You really see no moral problem with a father having the power to force a mother to take on all the risks and disadvantages of pregnancy and childbirth?
I´m glad that your opinion here is in the tiny minority and so will never be enforced in law.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Piliger

GarIT wrote: »

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.

While what you say, and the thinking behind it, may be logical and fair .. what you miss is the difference between what may be right and wrong, and what the law can actually deal with.

Clearly there is something unfair about a woman having an abortion when the father wants the child, and vice versa. However the Law cannot always be expected to be able to deal with every aspect of life. And in this case it cannot be expected to deal with the simple biological fact that it is the woman's body, not the mans.

It is unacceptable that a woman could be forced to carry a baby she does not want, for 9 months. and deliver it, whatever we as fathers may want.

It is also unacceptable that a woman be forced to abort a child because the father does not want it.

We as men do need to fight unfairness and injustice wherever we possibly can - but there are some situations where we just have to accept the physical world.

Stereomaniac

I agree with you on that. I got a girl pregnant 3 years ago (we were in a relationship). She decided not to keep it. That was heartbreaking for me, as I would have chosen to have the child. However, far be it from me to insert my opinion forcefully into things when she knew what she had to do for herself. I supported her all the way through it, and I did not agonise over it too much initially. In these situations, the rights of the mother are bigger than anything else. Far be it from me to say, "Well, I think that's not what you should do, so don't do it" Unfortunately however, not all cases are like my situation and you have people trying to contact each other after one night stands and men trying their best to evade women. That problem with men has been, and will go on years.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

Fathers shouldn't be able to have a "legal abortion" either. IMO that's total nonsense. Possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this subject. Get a girl pregnant and then run off? No chance should there be laws put in place to facilitate that. Should a mother be able to do the same after giving birth?

Well actually a mother can. If a woman learns she is pregnant she has no legal obligation to inform the father. Then after giving birth she can give the child up for adoption without informing the father as she does not need to get his consent as he is not awarded guardianship unless she wants to tell him.

So yes legally a mother is able to.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Piliger

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I agree with you on that. I got a girl pregnant 3 years ago (we were in a relationship). She decided not to keep it. That was heartbreaking for me, as I would have chosen to have the child. However, far be it from me to insert my opinion forcefully into things when she knew what she had to do for herself. I supported her all the way through it, and I did not agonise over it too much initially. In these situations, the rights of the mother are bigger than anything else. Far be it from me to say, "Well, I think that's not what you should do, so don't do it" Unfortunately however, not all cases are like my situation and you have people trying to contact each other after one night stands and men trying their best to evade women. That problem with men has been, and will go on years.

I sympathise enormously. Your feelings about this are grossly under estimated by society, sadly.

I believe you were entitled to your input, and it seems that you did so in a caring and responsible way. I commend you.

Gauss

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I don´t think awec was talking about ´medical need´ as you see it. Doctors can´t foresee all circumstances. It´s can happen that an apparently healthy mother can die or be seriously physically injured during childbirth. Many women suffer post partum depression. This can lead to suicide (I know somebody who committed suicide after suffering for years with post partum depression).

You really see no moral problem with a father having the power to force a mother to take on all the risks and disadvantages of pregnancy and childbirth?
I´m glad that your opinion here is in the tiny minority and so will never be enforced in law.

Well at the moment the government forces women to take on the risks of pregnancy even if she doesn't want the baby.

Maguined

awec wrote: »

That's different.

If a mother and father have a child, can the mother one day decide to legally dissolve her responsibilities to the child and leave it all on the father? I say no.

How is it different? The mother has the choice of pursuing that option while the father does not.

strobe

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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

May as well do the same:

'Without any need to mention abortion or risks to life etc.. as it stands a woman can place her child up for adoption when it is born, relieving her of her rights over and responsibilities to that child. I struggle to see a reasonable justification for why women should be able to do this legally but men shouldn't.'

LeeHoffmann

Well at the moment the government forces women to take on the risks of pregnancy even if she doesn't want the baby.

Yes and no. I think a significant part of the reason Ireland/Irish politicians can afford to dodge the issue of abortion is because there´s a very conveniently placed country nearby in which abortion is legal. The government doesn´t stop women from obtaining abortions (elsewhere) - it just doesn´t provide that option here.

Also, the government doesn´t have a personal interest in an individual pregnancy. The laws at least aim at the common good and are objective and universally binding. That´s very different from placing total control in the hands of one person - a person who would risk absolutely nothing himself, but could force another person against her will into risking her physical and mental health for his own gain. It doesn´t seem right Ted

awec

This post has been deleted.

Piliger

strobe wrote: »

May as well do the same:

'Without any need to mention abortion or risks to life etc.. as it stands a woman can place her child up for adoption when it is born, relieving her of her rights over and responsibilities to that child. I struggle to see a reasonable justification for why women should be able to do this legally but men shouldn't.'

The whole truth is not as you portray it though, is it. If the mother acts to put the child up for adoption, the father, if known and if he knows of the action, can block the adoption and apply for custody. even if the adoption goes through, the father can apply to have it reversed if he can show he was never informed of the adoption.

jaffacakesyum

Piliger wrote: »

The whole truth is not as you portray it though, is it. If the mother acts to put the child up for adoption, the father, if known and if he knows of the action, can block the adoption and apply for custody. even if the adoption goes through, the father can apply to have it reversed if he can show he was never informed of the adoption.

Good point.

There really should be a legal obligation for the mother to inform the father of her pregnancy and that it is his.

Secondly, there really should be a legal obligation for both parties to agree to adoption. However, in practice, I assume that if a mother doesn't want the child and wants to give the baby up for adoption, but the father doesn't, than why wouldn't she give custody over to the father instead of going through the process of adoption? Unless, in cases of rape, or in cases where the father is abusive and the baby would be better off being put up for adoption. In which case this would need to be brought to court.

The issue with both parties having to sign agreement to put the baby up for adoption is in the case of estranged fathers where the man has left and is no longer around. It would be unfair to refuse a mother the adoption process just because the father has done a runner.

MaxWig

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Good point.

There really should be a legal obligation for the mother to inform the father of her pregnancy and that it is his.

Secondly, there really should be a legal obligation for both parties to agree to adoption. However, in practice, I assume that if a mother doesn't want the child and wants to give the baby up for adoption, but the father doesn't, than why wouldn't she give custody over to the father instead of going through the process of adoption? Unless, in cases of rape, or in cases where the father is abusive and the baby would be better off being put up for adoption. In which case this would need to be brought to court.

The issue with both parties having to sign agreement to put the baby up for adoption is in the case of estranged fathers where the man has left and is no longer around. It would be unfair to refuse a mother the adoption process just because the father has done a runner.

That is to assume that estranged fathers have done 'runners'. That is to badly misunderstand the truth of family courts today

jaffacakesyum

MaxWig wrote: »

That is to assume that estranged fathers have done 'runners'. That is to badly misunderstand the truth of family courts today

Exactly. How would it be proven? In the majority of cases, the mother would have no reason to lie and it is probably true that the father ran off and wanted nothing to do with the pregnancy. In which case, how is it fair to refuse the mother to give up the child for adoption over a signature she simply can't get. In the, presumably, less common cases of a mother wanting to give birth, put the baby up for adoption and not have the child in custody of the father, how would it be proven that the father is indeed estranged. Give a name/address for the agency to track down? Mother could be lying.

In the worst case scenario where that happens though, I'd imagine it's easy enough for the father to track down the baby through details of the mother? That is, if the father is told. Which leads me back to my original point that the mother should have legal obligation to inform the father.

Honey-ec

I'd love to know the figures on how many children are actually being given up for adoption at birth in Ireland in recent years. I would imagine it's fairly negligible, making calls for a change in legislation in this area a bit of a pointless exercise, imo.

I'm talking specifically about the last few posts there, btw.