Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Risk to life, including suicide?
Options
Comments
-
The problem though is that in this country as has been pointed out a woman does not have the right to remove the foetus from her body. That at present is an aspirational right.
Hence the suicide clause to provide grounds for a termination, the rest is just smoke.0 -
I'm not sure what the ability to work has to do with it, you are either suicidal or not.I would imagine if a father is genuinely suicidal and unable to work he would not be expected to pay maintenance for the period of his depression.
Actually you've just stated above what is being suggested (minus the walking cashpoint caveat). If the male (potential)parent is suicidal due to the imposed parenthood they should be allowed relinquish their responsibilities to safeguard their well-being.So again what are you actually asking for here?0 -
I really dislike this kind of intellectual slight-of-hand. No one has an abortion because they wish to refuse to consent to another person using their body. No one.Abortion is not the right to refuse to become a parent. It is the right to refuse to consent to another person using your body.
In reality there are numerous reasons for terminations, however the single most common one is that they don't want to become a parent (either again, ever or at that time). Trying to place focus on the legal principle that facilitates this de facto arrangement is a very dishonest argumentitve tactic.
Incorrect. Due to the financial (social are another can of worms again) implications of fatherhood the father is legally bound to effectively labour for another, a system known as indentured servitude. He no longer has the right to consent how his body is employed; it must be employed to earn money for a third party and if this is refused, subject to incarceration.And the man already has the same right.
You can attempt to dismiss this, but it would be disingenuous to do so as it meets the criteria of contravening the bodily rights of another. Hence, the man does not have the same right.
Ultimately it is though - facilitated abandonment, whereby care of the child to taken over by a third party once abandoned by the original parent(s). At it's most basic level, a parent may leave their child in a baby hatch, where others will receive it and take over it's care, but ultimately it's abandonment; abdication of parental responsibility, we simply accept it as socially more acceptable because we've created a system that facilitates this, but from the perspective of the abandoning parent, the net result for them is identical as it would be if they simply walked away from it on a street corner.clairefontaine wrote: »Adoption is not considered abandonment.
It might be a form of abandonment that we don't feel as bad about, but in the end, the result is the same.
You might imagine that, but that's not how the law works; depressed or not he'll still have to pay.I would imagine if a father is genuinely suicidal and unable to work he would not be expected to pay maintenance for the period of his depression.
Actually, she'll never have to as she'll have been afforded the means to avoid giving birth in the first place. Rather than counselling her through the duration of her depression, she's given a permanent solution.And I would guess the same rules apply for the mother, if she is suicidal she doesn't have to pay a maintenance order.
Is there a reason that men cannot be afforded a permanent solution too?
Incorrect. The only person who can unilaterally put a child up for adoption is an unmarried mother who is automatically sole guardian of that child from birth. An unmarried father, has absolutely no such automatic rights.As can men.
You should be relieved that actually men have all the same rights as women. But I suspect you won't be. :rolleyes:0 -
-
I am talking about the power to decide whether you are to be a parent or not.
Of course a woman should have that choice.
So just to clarify.
You believe that either parent should be able to decide at any point after the child is born that they do not wish to be a parent any more and walk away, leaving the other parent with all the responsibility for raising the child?
So a mother for example could simply hand the child over to the father and say "I'm off" and she would have no more responsibility to that child, including no responsibility to provide financial support to the father and child?0 -
Advertisement
-
So just to clarify.
You believe that either parent should be able to decide at any point after the child is born that they do not wish to be a parent any more and walk away, leaving the other parent with all the responsibility for raising the child?
So a mother for example could simply hand the child over to the father and say "I'm off" and she would have no more responsibility to that child, including no responsibility to provide financial support to the father and child?
Its clear we''re talking about before birth.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I really dislike this kind of intellectual slight-of-hand. No one has an abortion because they wish to refuse to consent to another person using their body. No one.
You complain about "intellectual slight-of-hand" and then next sentence engage it.
Why someone has an abortion is irrelevant to the legal justification of it.
The legal justification is that a woman has the right of bodily autonomy. Why she decides to excercise that right is irrelevant to that.
She could decide to have an abortion because a cult leader Bobo told her that the great Zeus in the sky ordered her to have an abortion. That does not mean that the State recognises the Great Zeus when making abortion law :rolleyes:The Corinthian wrote: »In reality there are numerous reasons for terminations, however the single most common one is that they don't want to become a parent (either again, ever or at that time). Trying to place focus on the legal principle that facilitates this de facto arrangement is a very dishonest argumentitve tactic.
Trying to ignore the legal principle when arguing about what rights we should give men in return is utterly dishonest.
The issue of bodily autonomy is being utterly ignored because of the reality that men already have this right, and thus it does nothing to support the notion that men should be able to have a not-abortion abortion.
The dishonesty on show in this thread is spectacular. Men and women have the same right to bodily autonomy (or more specifically men have more right since abortion is illegal in this country).
The fact that due to a fluke of nature women are able to use that right to do something men cannot do is not a justification for saying men should now be able to abandon their children.The Corinthian wrote: »Incorrect. Due to the financial (social are another can of worms again) implications of fatherhood the father is legally bound to effectively labour for another, a system known as indentured servitude. He no longer has the right to consent how his body is employed; it must be employed to earn money for a third party and if this is refused, subject to incarceration.
You can attempt to dismiss this, but it would be disingenuous to do so as it meets the criteria of contravening the bodily rights of another. Hence, the man does not have the same right.
A man cannot be forced to give up his right to bodily autonomy for his children.
And no TC working is not a violate of bodily autonomy. Tell me again about being dishonest :rolleyes:The Corinthian wrote: »You might imagine that, but that's not how the law works; depressed or not he'll still have to pay.
So you are telling me that a man who is unable to work because he is clinically depressed and sucidal and is on illness benefit still has to pay all of his illness benefit to his child?
Tell me again about being dishonest :rolleyes:The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, she'll never have to as she'll have been afforded the means to avoid giving birth in the first place.
A man is afforded the means of not getting a girl pregnant. We are talking about after the child is born.
If a mother is depressed and suicidal and cannot work is she still required to pay maintenance to the father who is looking after the child?The Corinthian wrote: »Is there a reason that men cannot be afforded a permanent solution too?
Yes it is called "murder" and it is generally considered a bad thing.The Corinthian wrote: »Incorrect. The only person who can unilaterally put a child up for adoption is an unmarried mother who is automatically sole guardian of that child from birth. An unmarried father, has absolutely no such automatic rights.
A woman cannot unilaterally put her child up for adoption.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »Its clear we''re talking about before birth.
In what way are you talking about "before birth"
The argument here is a man should have the right to decide he doesn't want to be a parent and he should be able to walk away from all responsibility to his child forever. A child that exists, is born, will grow up, will eventually become an adult
I'm asking should a woman also have the same right? She can just decide "nope" not for me and walk away leaving the child in the care of the father who now has the sole social and financial responsibility for the child.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »I'm not sure what the ability to work has to do with it, you are either suicidal or not.
Actually you've just stated above what is being suggested (minus the walking cashpoint caveat). If the male (potential)parent is suicidal due to the imposed parenthood they should be allowed relinquish their responsibilities to safeguard their well-being.
Unless he wants more responsibility his own responsibility is financial. If he is suicidal and unable to work due to that he isn't going to be expected to financially support his child.
So what more is required? The only pressure he has is to provide money for his child which he wouldn't be expected to do anyway if such pressure is making him suicidal.0 -
Everyone here knows that if a father decides to walk away from his child the child doesn't just disappear, right?
Because reading some of the responses I really do wonder. The reason after an abortion the mother has no responsibility to her child is because the child is probably dead.
So unless people are arguing that fathers should be able to kill their children so as to no longer have parental responsibility, there is no link between abortion and maintenance.
Women do not have the right to give up parental responsibility to existing children. They do have the right to remove the foetus from their body, which will probably result in its death, which will probably mean there is no child to care for in the first place.
Men exercise this same right every time they put a condom on and cause millions of the potential children to crash into a latex barrier.
If anyone wants to argue that because men can wear condoms women should be able to abandon their 6 month year olds, go ahead ... :rolleyes:
By Zeus' beard, this thread is so stupid and dishonest.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's it exactly, the woman can if she feels unable to raise the child alone elect to have an abortion.In what way are you talking about "before birth"
The argument here is a man should have the right to decide he doesn't want to be a parent and he should be able to walk away from all responsibility to his child forever. A child that exists, is born, will grow up, will eventually become an adult
I woman already has that 'right' she can get an abortion (not in this country, a different matter). I don't see why males should not be offered the same consideration.I'm asking should a woman also have the same right? She can just decide "nope" not for me and walk away leaving the child in the care of the father who now has the sole social and financial responsibility for the child.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »That's it exactly, the woman can if she feels unable to raise the child alone elect to have an abortion.
A man, if he feels unable to raise the child alone elect to use a condom.
No child = no parental responsibility
Child = Parental Responsibility
In the case of abortion the reason there is no parental responsibility is because the child doesn't exist.
What people here are arguing is that a man should be able to have a child but still not have parental responsibility because he doesn't feel like it, not because the child doesn't exist. I'm asking should a woman have the same right.Rev Hellfire wrote: »I woman already has that 'right' she can get an abortion (not in this country, a different matter).
An abortion will probably produce no child. You can't have parental responsibility for a child that doesn't exist.
We are talking about when the child does exist. I'm asking should the woman have the same right as what is proposed that men should have?0 -
It's not, because it ties into the question of gender equality, whereby one's biology should not be an impediment to equal rights.Why someone has an abortion is irrelevant to the legal justification of it.
The legal justification is that a woman has the right of bodily autonomy. Why she decides to exercise that right is irrelevant to that.
Women, through abortion and thus biology, have the right to vacate parental rights and responsibility permanently. What you are instead attempting to argue that men need not be afforded the same right because our biology differs.
If so, women should not receive any protection to their jobs when pregnant. After all, if we're not willing to afford rights to one gender to compensate for biology, why should we for the other.
Attempting to ignore why women have abortions is only a device to avoid that they get this right and the uncomfortable question of whether this same right should thus be afforded to men.
Except, as I pointed out, men do not. So you're the one being totally dishonest here by repeatedly ignoring this fact.Trying to ignore the legal principle when arguing about what rights we should give men in return is utterly dishonest.
The issue of bodily autonomy is being utterly ignored because of the reality that men already have this right, and thus it does nothing to support the notion that men should be able to have a not-abortion abortion.
Then all laws that compensate for nature, to the benefit of women's rights, should also be repealed.The fact that due to a fluke of nature women are able to use that right to do something men cannot do is not a justification for saying men should now be able to abandon their children.
Indentured servitude is not a violate of bodily autonomy? So a trafficked prostitute forced to use her body to pay her 'debt' is victim to no violation of bodily autonomy too?A man cannot be forced to give up his right to bodily autonomy for his children.
And no TC working is not a violate of bodily autonomy. Tell me again about being dishonest :rolleyes:
Anything that forces a person against their will to employ their body in a manner against their will is a violation of their bodily autonomy. Stop cherry picking.
No, a man who is unable to work because he is clinically depressed and suicidal will still have to pay maintenance, most likely deducted from his illness benefit, even if that payment is minimal.So you are telling me that a man who is unable to work because he is clinically depressed and sucidal and is on illness benefit still has to pay all of his illness benefit to his child?
Claiming that he "still has to pay all of his illness benefit" is an incredibly dishonest strawman, but as with your suggestion to Rev Hellfire that he may vacate paternity long after birth, you're coming out with a lot of those here.
So what - a woman is afforded the means of not getting pregnant to. And then she's afforded numerous options, both pre and post birth to further avoid parental responsibility.A man is afforded the means of not getting a girl pregnant. We are talking about after the child is born.
Technically and legally yes. In practice the number of non-custodial mothers who pay any maintenance is embarrassingly low.If a mother is depressed and suicidal and cannot work is she still required to pay maintenance to the father who is looking after the child?
Another straw man. No one has suggested infanticide; the only thing that's been suggested is legal vacation of paternity.Yes it is called "murder" and it is generally considered a bad thing.
An unmarried mother can. Of course in theory the father could apply for guardianship in an attempt to block her, but if he doesn't get it, he cannot.A woman cannot unilaterally put her child up for adoption.
All assuming he even knows he's a father. There's no legal obligation that he be told, only that a "reasonable attempt" is made. If not, then she can unilaterally do whatever she likes.
Get your facts straight.0 -
-
Then, by the same logic, a woman, if she feels unable to raise the child alone elect to use a condom. Or keep her legs closed.A man, if he feels unable to raise the child alone elect to use a condom.
Otherwise, if you afford her other options, then you should also afford them to men as biology should not be a barrier to equality. If it is, there's quite a few laws out there that seek to overcome biology as a barrier to women's equality that probably need review.
Which will it be then?0 -
Ok lets take a contrived example. What if a condom breaks, now the male clearly never intended to have a child. What happens in this case, the female can easily prevent pregnancy if they wish but the male at present it left out on a limb.A man, if he feels unable to raise the child alone elect to use a condom.
No child = no parental responsibility
Child = Parental Responsibility
In the case of abortion the reason there is no parental responsibility is because the child doesn't exist.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Then, by the same logic, a woman, if she feels unable to raise the child alone elect to use a condom. Or keep her legs closed
Yes she can, and all those things will result in no child and thus no parental responsibility.Otherwise, if you afford her other options, then you should also afford them to men as biology should not be a barrier to equality.
Men have all options women do, including right over his bodily privacy. if for some reason the foetus requires the fathers body to survive, perhaps blood transfusion, he can refuse and allow it to die. just like a woman should be able to do.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »Ok lets take a contrived example. What if a condom breaks, now the male clearly never intended to have a child. What happens in this case, the female can easily prevent pregnancy if they wish but the male at present it left out on a limb.
This is what I am asking you. If for some reason the woman cannot have an abortion or the abortion does not result in the death of the foetus, should the woman be able to leave the child with the father and walk away from all responsibility?
I don't think either parent should be allowed abandon responsibility for a child to the other parent. you think men should be able to if the don't want a child. I'm asking do you also think women should be able do this.0 -
Once they are unmarried, yes, though the father also would have the right to refuse making the child a ward of the state.I don't think either parent should be allowed abandon responsibility for a child to the other parent. you think men should be able to if the don't want a child. I'm asking do you also think women should be able do this.
I'm not suggesting married fathers or mothers should have such a right in case it is unclear.0 -
No men do not, including any right over his bodily privacy (let alone genetic rights). This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and you appear to just be sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.Men have all options women do, including right over his bodily privacy.
It's been pointed out that in the event where paternity is not desired women have various post-conceptual and even post-natal options (of the latter it's been demonstrated you got your facts wrong on whether women may unilaterally put a child up for adoption). Men have not.
This places men in a position where their bodily integrity is compromised; their bodies are effectively coerced into debt servitude, for a potentially indeterminate period.
It's also been pointed out that in terms of how society deals with equality legislation biology is not considered a valid barrier to achieving this goal.
At this stage you're simply ignoring all these points and simply repeating your discredited arguments. This forum is not meant as a soapbox for your use, it's for dialogue and discussion. If you do not wish to engage in that dialogue, I suggest you bow out of the discussion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I decided to read up a bit on this as haven't thought about it too much before this thread.
This was in the first article I came across:Of course, men’s lack of reproductive rights has another side: being forced to assume the burden of unwanted parenthood, at least financially. In the eyes of the law, it seems that virtually no circumstances, however bizarre or outrageous, can mitigate the biological father’s liability for child support, as an overview of cases published in Divorce Litigation journal in 1999 shows.
Did the woman ask him to impregnate her and sign an agreement relieving him of any financial obligations? He’s still liable if she changes her mind. Was he underage and legally a victim of statutory rape? Makes no difference. (One such case, in Kansas in 1993, involved a 12-year-old boy molested by a baby sitter.) Did the woman have her way with him when he had passed out from drinking and brag to friends that she had saved herself a trip to the sperm bank? Tough luck, said Alabama courts. Did she retrieve his semen from the condom she had asked him to wear during oral sex and inseminate herself with a syringe? Yes, it’s a true story, and in 1997 the Louisiana Court of Appeals told the man to pay up, saying that a male who has any sexual contact with a woman — even oral sex with a condom — should assume that a pregnancy may ensue.
from: http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »Once they are unmarried, yes, though the father also would have the right to refuse making the child a ward of the state.
I'm not suggesting married fathers or mothers should have such a right in case it is unclear.
Surely the mother just divorces the father, hands him the child and then walks away.
Do you really believe that this should be allowed to happen, that a parent can at any point simply put their hands up and say "nope, not doing this any more" and the complete burden of supporting the child falls on the other parent?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No men do not, including any right over his bodily privacy (let alone genetic rights). This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and you appear to just be sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
It's been pointed out that in the event where paternity is not desired women have various post-conceptual and even post-natal options (of the latter it's been demonstrated you got your facts wrong on whether women may unilaterally put a child up for adoption). Men have not.
This places men in a position where their bodily integrity is compromised; their bodies are effectively coerced into debt servitude, for a potentially indeterminate period.
It's also been pointed out that in terms of how society deals with equality legislation biology is not considered a valid barrier to achieving this goal.
At this stage you're simply ignoring all these points and simply repeating your discredited arguments. This forum is not meant as a soapbox for your use, it's for dialogue and discussion. If you do not wish to engage in that dialogue, I suggest you bow out of the discussion.
Groan .. what is the point TC when you are prepared to be so dishonest.
You know that abortion is granted under the principle of bodily autonomy, that a woman (and man) has the right to refuse consent to anyone, including their children, to use their body.
You also know that this right of bodily autonomy has nothing to do with working and paying dues, whether it is taxes to the State or child support.
You also know that if someone actually chooses not to work or have money, and live under a bridge, the State will not force them to get a job.
So what is the point in discussing this when you are willing to be so blatantly dishonest in discussing this. I just spend all my time correcting your falsehoods.0 -
I decided to read up a bit on this as haven't thought about it too much before this thread.
This was in the first article I came across:
You never answered the question.
Should a woman be able to hand the child to the father and walk away from all responsibility to the child if she doesn't want to be a parent?
Same question to you TC.
Abortion is actually utterly irrevant to this question since abortion more often than not means no child (as with condomn use), where as what you guys are arguing is that a parent at any time should be able to hand over their existing child to the other parent and walk away from all responsibilities to this child, leaving the other parent and the State the burden of supporting it.
Which again has nothing to do with abortion. I'm curious why you only seem to think men should have this right, and why only men having this right means "equality"0 -
Again address what I wrote rather than repeat yourself.You know that abortion is granted under the principle of bodily autonomy, that a woman (and man) has the right to refuse consent to anyone, including their children, to use their body.
Again address what I wrote rather than repeat yourself.You also know that this right of bodily autonomy has nothing to do with working and paying dues, whether it is taxes to the State or child support.
No, but it'll imprison them for failure to pay child support.You also know that if someone actually chooses not to work or have money, and live under a bridge, the State will not force them to get a job.
You're joking right? You completely ignore all the points made against your argument, continue repeating discredited points and then call others dishonest?So what is the point in discussing this when you are willing to be so blatantly dishonest in discussing this. I just spend all my time correcting your falsehoods.
I'll have to hand it to you for having the balls to try that.0 -
Why do you keep on bringing up this? No one other than you seems to have argued post-partum vacation of parental status, let alone an open-ended one.Do you really believe that this should be allowed to happen, that a parent can at any point simply put their hands up and say "nope, not doing this any more" and the complete burden of supporting the child falls on the other parent?
Is it that it's easier to win an argument if you're arguing a straw man?0 -
Perhaps, assuming he also hasn't relinquished his rights.Surely the mother just divorces the father, hands him the child and then walks away.
We're talking about similar time restrictions to abortions, within that time frame we're not dealing with a child its not sufficiently developed.Do you really believe that this should be allowed to happen, that a parent can at any point simply put their hands up and say "nope, not doing this any more" and the complete burden of supporting the child falls on the other parent?
If the mother decides that proceeding without a fathers financial (or physical) support is acceptable then they are free to do so. If not then they have previously discussed options.
The only 'right' lost is the ability of the mother to demand financial support with menace.
Personally I suspect that really is what the objection most people have is, the loss of a cash-cow.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Why do you keep on bringing up this? No one other than you seems to have argued post-partum vacation of parental status, let alone an open-ended one.
All of you have suggested that. You have all claimed that the man should be able to say he doesn't want to be a parent and then not have to support his very much existant child.
More dishonesty TC, really unbecoming of you.0 -
Rev Hellfire wrote: »We're talking about similar time restrictions to abortions, within that time frame we're not dealing with a child its not sufficiently developed.
What does the time restriction have to do with anything?
What is the difference between having the right to say you are never going to look after your child when the child is a foetus or when it is 6 months old?Rev Hellfire wrote: »If the mother decides that proceeding without a fathers financial (or physical) support is acceptable then they are free to do so. If not then they have previously discussed options.
The only 'right' lost is the ability of the mother to demand financial support with menace.
The child loses all financial support from his parent for the rest of his childhood.
Again why is it relevant when this happens. Is the child better off if the father decides to do this when it is a foetus?
Or are you saying this should be a method to force women to have abortions?0 -
Advertisement
-
I have not at any point suggested this. Evidence please.All of you have suggested that. You have all claimed that the man should be able to say he doesn't want to be a parent and then not have to support his very much existant child.
You've just accused me of saying something I did not. I'm afraid the only person being dishonest is you. Your continued refusal to do anything other than soapbox underlines this.More dishonesty TC, really unbecoming of you.
At this stage I wish I could say it was unbecoming of you.0
Advertisement