Risk to life, including suicide?

clairefontaine

I don't think a mans right to abdicate parenthood has anything to do with abortion and the comparisons make the argument look stupid and juvenile.

If a man wants to be able to give up his child then it should be like an adoption and he should go through the same protocols to secure an alternative father for the child.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again address what I wrote rather than repeat yourself.

I did, though I suspect you aren't really sure what you wrote given how muddled your posts are.

Again address what I wrote rather than repeat yourself.

See above

No, but it'll imprison them for failure to pay child support.

No they won't

You're joking right?

Again you know what bodily autonomy is. It isn't being forced to work. You know this, so when you say otherwise you are lying.

Again you know that abortion is granted under the principle of bodily autonomy, not the principle of abandoning your child. You know this, so when you say other wise you are lying.

Again you know that the father has the same right to bodily autonomy as the mother. You know this, so when you say otherwise you are lying.

Again you know that the only reason the mother has no parental responsibility after the abortion is when the child is killed by the abortion. You know this, so when you say otherwise you are lying.

etc etc

You have now apparently run out of arguments so you are just going to pretend I haven't already demolished the ones you already made. How fun :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

If a man wants to be able to give up his child then it should be like an adoption and he should go through the same protocols to secure an alternative father for the child.

No one has actually suggested how such a system would work here - there's nothing to say that it would be a formalized system with limits, checks and balances.

Why are some people raising so many straw men, presuming how it might, and then thinking it is a valid argument? That, frankly, looks more stupid and juvenile.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have not at any point suggested this. Evidence please.

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.

At this stage I wish I could say it was unbecoming of you.

Yes you have, you suggested it in numerous posts not least this one where you said

"Is there a reason that men cannot be afforded a permanent solution too?"

Stop lying.

clairefontaine

@The Corinthian

I'm sorry but I'm not going to answer you because I have found your recent posts nigh impossible to follow due to their convolutions so I can't process them and respond, including the last one.

But the strategy of because women can, there fore we should be able to, is ridiculous. It's very nanny nanny poo poo.

It would be more honest to say, we want to be able to do this, and this is why.

Comparing with abortion just loses a lot of credibility in the argument.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

I did, though I suspect you aren't really sure what you wrote given how muddled your posts are.

Where's your response to this rebuttal then?

No they won't

Sorry, but you appear ignorant of the law. If a homeless man is picked up by the Gardai and they find a bench warrant issued for non-payment of child maintenance, he goes to jail. There's no leeway in the matter, I'm afraid.

Again you know what bodily autonomy is. It isn't being forced to work. You know this, so when you say otherwise you are lying.

Threat of incarceration is being forced. Judges rule this way all the time, setting high maintenance levels to force fathers to get a job if they feel they're intentionally unemployed. Again, you appear ignorant of the actual reality.

Again you know that abortion is granted under the principle of bodily autonomy, not the principle of abandoning your child. You know this, so when you say other wise you are lying.

Again, see above. Respond to my rebuttal.

You have now apparently run out of arguments so you are just going to pretend I haven't already demolished the ones you already made. How fun :rolleyes:

You've not demolished, just deflected and ignored.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

But the strategy of because women can, there fore we should be able to, is ridiculous. It's very nanny nanny poo poo.

I don't entirely disagree, however...

There is a serious gap in gender equality where it comes to reproductive rights, and something seriously does need to be done about it, even if it has nothing to do with the notion of vacating paternity.

Hiding behind biology - women can have babies, men can't - is not an acceptable argument where it comes to gender equality. If it were, we would not have laws protecting women where biology disadvantages them.

The bodily integrity argument used by Zomb is also shaky in this area; the social and financial obligations of parenthood have a direct impact on the well-being and welfare of a person, not to mention that half of the genetic material belongs to the man, which is another, related can of worms.

Additionally he's ignoring responses and forever firing straw men, how a man may vacate paternity long after birth, despite it not actually having been suggested by anyone other than him, from what I can see. Certainly I didn't, although Zomb's now accused me of this.

My objection to Zomb's arguments are largely that he keeps on first coming out with false factual statements (such as the recent one about the homeless man, but there are numerous others) and bizarrely claims that there's a level playing field between men and women.

Dishonest, deluded or something else, but I hardly think anyone would think that a 12-year old boy, raped by his teacher then obliged to support the product of that rape could ever be claimed to be based upon a evel playing field.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't entirely disagree, however...

There is a serious gap in gender equality where it comes to reproductive rights, and something seriously does need to be done about it, even if it has nothing to do with the notion of vacating paternity.

Hiding behind biology - women can have babies, men can't - is not an acceptable argument where it comes to gender equality. If it were, we would not have laws protecting women where biology disadvantages them.

The bodily integrity argument used by Zomb is also shaky in this area; the social and financial obligations of parenthood have a direct impact on the well-being and welfare of a person, not to mention that half of the genetic material belongs to the man, which is another, related can of worms.

Additionally he's ignoring responses and forever firing straw men, how a man may vacate paternity long after birth, despite it not actually having been suggested by anyone other than him, from what I can see. Certainly I didn't, although Zomb's now accused me of this.

My objection to Zomb's arguments are largely that he keeps on first coming out with false factual statements (such as the recent one about the homeless man, but there are numerous others) and bizarrely claims that there's a level playing field between men and women.

Dishonest, deluded or something else, but I hardly think anyone would think that a 12-year old boy, raped by his teacher then obliged to support the product of that rape could ever be claimed to be based upon a evel playing field.

Ok I don't want to get in the middle of what you are arguing with Zombex because I am very confused by it and I won't offer anything in the way of clarity.

However, it would make sense to me to leave the comparisons to abortion out of it because for so many reasons they don't make any sense. To make the comparison of bodily integrity demonstrates a lack of understanding of the risks and pitfalls of pregnancy, and that is a big gaping hole where it loses credibility; because it appears foolhardy.

Your point about the 12 year old being raped is a good one and I could complain about extreme examples, but then this zoolanderish legislation based on the X case is along the same lines so. However, I am not aware of what the state of play is on minors having to pay child support. Have their been any cases of child sex assault victims paying maintenance?

Sometime these threads depress me. It's like digging to the bottom of humanity.:(

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

Or are you saying this should be a method to force women to have abortions?

I think we've addressed this particular point numerous times.

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

What does the time restriction have to do with anything?

It provides the women the option to have an abortion if she wishes.

If she doesn't then she should be treated as dealing with an anonymous sperm donor.

Zombrex wrote: »

The child loses all financial support from his parent for the rest of his childhood.

Yes, just as occurs with a sperm bank.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

To make the comparison of bodily integrity demonstrates a lack of understanding of the risks and pitfalls of pregnancy, and that is a big gaping hole where it loses credibility; because it appears foolhardy.

Similarly, failing to make such a comparison demonstrates a lack of understanding of social, financial and ultimately health implications of parental responsibility. Single fathers apparently have less healthy and shorter old age, because of the financial cost and often repeated legal stresses of these situations.

However, I am not aware of what the state of play is on minors having to pay child support. Have their been any cases of child sex assault victims paying maintenance?

There's certainly been cases in the US of this - how I believe it's handled is the paternal grandparents are liable until he turns 18.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think we've addressed this particular point numerous times.

I think he's more interested in preaching without taking note of any criticisms levied at him.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Similarly, failing to make such a comparison demonstrates a lack of understanding of social, financial and ultimately health implications of parental responsibility. Single fathers apparently have less healthy and shorter old age, because of the financial cost and often repeated legal stresses of these situations.

There's certainly been cases in the US of this - how I believe it's handled is the paternal grandparents are liable until he turns 18.

I think he's more interested in preaching without taking note of any criticisms levied at him.

Why do you keep this issue focused on single parents? Don't forget the married ones. They count too ya know.

It's Father's Day today. What a sad day to be talking about this. Time for pancakes.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It provides the women the option to have an abortion if she wishes.

What if she doesn't wish or couldn't have an abortion?

You seem to be suggesting that the father should declare he doesn't want children and leave the mother with the horrible choice of either taken on the entire burden of raising the child herself, or have an abortion.

Which is basically just blackmailing women into having an abortion. Which is repugnant. This isn't China.

Secondly it is also irrelevant. The father's responsibility is to the child. The mother cannot over rule that. Even if she said yes I'm keeping the baby and not having an abortion that action cannot declare that the father has no responsibility to the child because frankly the mother cannot make that decision for the child. The child has rights that the mother cannot declare null.

Yes, just as occurs with a sperm bank.

But he isn't a sperm donor. He hasn't gone through any of the processes of sperm donation and neither has the mother. Lumping the term "sperm donor" onto the process after the fact is ridiculous, there are a large number of checks and safe guards in place with sperm donation precisely to avoid a such a situation.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think we've addressed this particular point numerous times.

Well you haven't (see above post)

clairefontaine

Zombrex wrote: »

What if she doesn't wish or couldn't have an abortion?

You seem to be suggesting that the father should declare he doesn't want children and leave the mother with the horrible choice of either taken on the entire burden of raising the child herself, or have an abortion.

Which is basically just blackmailing women into having an abortion. Which is repugnant. This isn't China.

Secondly it is also irrelevant. The father's responsibility is to the child. The mother cannot over rule that. Even if she said yes I'm keeping the baby and not having an abortion that action cannot declare that the father has no responsibility to the child because frankly the mother cannot make that decision for the child. The child has rights that the mother cannot declare null.



But he isn't a sperm donor. He hasn't gone through any of the processes of sperm donation and neither has the mother. Lumping the term "sperm donor" onto the process after the fact is ridiculous, there are a large number of checks and safe guards in place with sperm donation precisely to avoid a such a situation.

Also men change their minds sometimes, with both planned and unplanned children. A woman may decide to keep her child because the father has expressed his wanting to be a father. And then what happens is further into the pregnancy or after the birth he changes his mind.

Sperm donation and adoption both have serious protocols attached with them.

They are not consequence free. Neither are a case of spray and run.

No one has detailed any convincing protocols in such cases. For either single men or married men who already have kids.

If financial stress were a get out clause for anything, no one would have to pay taxes but the IRS isn't going to accept that, neither will obamacare for health insurance. I think thread this is basically about paying for kids you don't want.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where's your response to this rebuttal then?

Er, where is your rebuttal to all the points I've made about bodily autonomy being nothing to do with working.

I'm happy to respond to all your posts, but you keep changing the goal posts so fast it is hard to keep up.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but you appear ignorant of the law. If a homeless man is picked up by the Gardai and they find a bench warrant issued for non-payment of child maintenance, he goes to jail. There's no leeway in the matter, I'm afraid.

More dishonesty. If there is a warrant issued for non-payment of child support it is based on money the father had but refused to hand over. If he is genuinely not working and has no money he will not be forced to take a job to make money, nor will he be arrested for not handing over money he never had in the first place.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Threat of incarceration is being forced. Judges rule this way all the time, setting high maintenance levels to force fathers to get a job if they feel they're intentionally unemployed. Again, you appear ignorant of the actual reality.

Well if you are just going to make s**t up TC. Let me guess, it happened to a guy you know down the pub.

Maintenance levels are based on income and assets.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You've not demolished, just deflected and ignored.

Yeah, explain to me again how bodily autonomy is the same as having to work :rolleyes:

Explain to me again how women have more right to bodily autonomy than men :rolleyes:

You just ignore these rebuttals and move on to some other goal post shifting.

But since you asked nicely

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not, because it ties into the question of gender equality, whereby one's biology should not be an impediment to equal rights.

As has been explained to you both men and women have the same right to bodily autonomy. The State cannot force a father to surrender bodily autonomy for his child.

Your "rebuttal" to this is that working is a break of bodily autonomy. Which is so stupid I'll take it as an acceptance of the point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Women, through abortion and thus biology, have the right to vacate parental rights and responsibility permanently.

No they don't, as demonstrated every time a foetus survives the abortion procedure.

A woman's parental rights only "vacate" if the foetus dies. If the foetus does not die the responsibility remains. Guess what, if the foetus dies the father's responsibilities don't apply either because the child doesn't exist

You. Already. Know. This.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Well leaving aside that when it comes to bodily autonomy men and women have the same rights where abortion is available and men have more rights where it isn't, I am whole heartily in favour of paternal leave for fathers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

I appreciate that you didn't think this through and are not rather embarrassed when it is pointed out that no in fact abortion is not the right to give up parenthood, but continuing to go on about why women have abortions is just silly.

A woman has the right to remove a foetus from using her body. So does a man, if for some reason that ever come up (I can only think of blood transfusions)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then all laws that compensate for nature, to the benefit of women's rights, should also be repealed.

Find me where the law says a man does not have right to bodily autonomy.

Actually bodily autonomy, not TC's I-just-invented-this-definition bodily autonomy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indentured servitude is not a violate of bodily autonomy?

No.

You. Already. Know. This

The Corinthian wrote: »

So a trafficked prostitute forced to use her body to pay her 'debt' is victim to no violation of bodily autonomy too?

Rape is a violation of bodily autonomy. When the state starts claiming men should be raped for their children get back to me.

(as an aside German recently ruled that while the state can expect people to look for work while claiming job benefit neither men nor women can be expected to take jobs as sex workers in order to qualify. Why? That's right BODILY AUTONOMY)

You. Already. Know. This

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

No he won't, we have already been over this.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

So its a great time to be alive. Both men and women are afforded methods to avoid producing a child. I suggest they use them if they don't want a child.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Technically and legally yes. In practice the number of non-custodial mothers who pay any maintenance is embarrassingly low.

Er, not technically nor legally yes.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another straw man. No one has suggested infanticide; the only thing that's been suggested is legal vacation of paternity.

The only reason a woman does not have parental responsibility after an abortion is if the child is dead.

TO BE EQUAL the only way a man should not have parental responsiblity is if the child is dead.

After all we are all about equality, aren't we TC?

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

So an unmarried mother can't. You appreciate saying that someone can do something and then listing how they can't do it just makes you look silly.

An unmarried mother must make all attempts to inform the father, who can then apply for guardianship and only after that does the court decide that the father is either unreachable or not qualified for guardianship can she give the child up for adoption.

Or to put it another way, there is no unilateral adoption

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

So there is a legal obligation he be told. You are doing that contradicting yourself thing again. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think thread this is basically about paying for kids you don't want.

This thread is just about men trying to find nonsense ideas for why they shouldn't have to support their children, coupled with a good old fashioned "women have more right than us!" nonsense.

This thread is also really depressing, to know that some people still think like this.

Rev Hellfire

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think thread this is basically about paying for kids you don't want.

And I think this is a thread about men having the right to decide if and when they become parents.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And I think this is a thread about men having the right to decide if and when they become parents.

The way a man decides he doesn't want to become a parent is by not producing a child.

This isn't about deciding not to become a parent. This is about deciding not to honor any parental responsibility to your child after you have become a parent.

clairefontaine

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And I think this is a thread about men having the right to decide if and when they become parents.

No it isn't.

You have failed to provide any protocols to not be a parent.

Like securing an adoptive father, you know like mothers have to do.

So it appears to be an argument for a consequence free abdication.

I'm open to hearing about what protocols you would put in place.

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

This is about deciding not to honor any parental responsibility to your child after you have become a parent.

As I've stated time and time again this is about relinquishing your associations before you become a parent.

Since we seem unable to bridge this fundamental point, I suggest we agree to disagree.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As I've stated time and time again this is about relinquishing your associations before you become a parent.

Which has nothing to do with whether the child will exist or whether you will be a parent or not.

Say I decided before he was born I didn't want to be a parent therefore I'm not a parent won't make your child vanish into smoke The child still exists, you are still a parent.

All that is saying is When the child is born and I'm a parent I plan to not have anything to do with it.

So this is not deciding to not be a parent, this is decided to not honor your parental responsibilities once you are a parent.

Again the only reason a woman does not have parental responsibility after an abortion is because the child is most likely dead. If it wasn't she still would have parental responsibility. Abortion is not the right to give up parental responsibility for a living child, no matter how much nonsense TC brings out about motivation for abortions to try and claim it is.

So unless someone can figure out a way for the father to morally and legally kill their child the father will be a parent and will have responsibility.

This is a very very simple point, but I'm guessing none of you actually considered it properly. I suggest you do so now.

clairefontaine

Zombrex wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with whether the child will exist or whether you will be a parent or not.

Say I decided before he was born I didn't want to be a parent therefore I'm not a parent won't make your child vanish into smoke The child still exists, you are still a parent.

All that is saying is When the child is born and I'm a parent I plan to not have anything to do with it.

So this is not deciding to not be a parent, this is decided to not honor your parental responsibilities once you are a parent.

Again the only reason a woman does not have parental responsibility after an abortion is because the child is most likely dead. If it wasn't she still would have parental responsibility. Abortion is not the right to give up parental responsibility for a living child, no matter how much nonsense TC brings out about motivation for abortions to try and claim it is.

So unless someone can figure out a way for the father to morally and legally kill their child the father will be a parent and will have responsibility.

This is a very very simple point, but I'm guessing none of you actually considered it properly. I suggest you do so now.

The only way I could see it is to find an adoptive father, with usual adoption protocols.

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

This is a very very simple point, but I'm guessing none of you actually considered it properly. I suggest you do so now.

We've (I) considered it and simply don't agree with your assessment.
As I said agree to disagree, its all academic since none of this will change any time soon.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

We've (I) considered it and simply don't agree with your assessment.

I don't see how you can not agree that if a person has a child that child exists and they are its parent, and that in and abortion where the child dies there is no child and thus no parents and no parental responsibility.

But frankly if you don't agree with such a basic point there probably isn't much point continuing.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, where is your rebuttal to all the points I've made about bodily autonomy being nothing to do with working.

If I missed something, feel free to point out what. Otherwise stop deflecting.

More dishonesty. If there is a warrant issued for non-payment of child support it is based on money the father had but refused to hand over.

Again, incorrect. How much a father has and what the maintenance is set at are often completely disassociated and I already gave you an example of this.

If he is genuinely not working and has no money he will not be forced to take a job to make money, nor will he be arrested for not handing over money he never had in the first place.

Actually he will be forced. Maintenance will be set high to underline this. Happens all the time. If you don't know how the system works please stop pretending you do.

Well if you are just going to make s**t up TC. Let me guess, it happened to a guy you know down the pub.

No, it does happen and it's not uncommon. There's no 'schedule' regulating maintenance in Ireland, so it's really left to how the judge feels on the day and this does often lead to such scenarios. Again, I suggest you do some research.

Maintenance levels are based on income and assets.

In theory, but perhaps you might want to do a bit more research on how it really works in Ireland.

Yeah, explain to me again how bodily autonomy is the same as having to work :rolleyes:

I have, address my rebuttal and stop wasting my time.

As has been explained to you both men and women have the same right to bodily autonomy. The State cannot force a father to surrender bodily autonomy for his child.

And incarceration for you is not surrendering bodily autonomy apparently. Unfortunately this is where we must disagree, as you seem to only wish to see bodily autonomy within a narrow scope that actually ignores most effects upon it. I reject your convenient definition.

No they don't, as demonstrated every time a foetus survives the abortion procedure.

LOL. Lots of those, are there? Seriously?

Well leaving aside that when it comes to bodily autonomy men and women have the same rights where abortion is available and men have more rights where it isn't, I am whole heartily in favour of paternal leave for fathers.

Not the point I made. Stop deflecting.

I appreciate that you didn't think this through and are not rather embarrassed when it is pointed out that no in fact abortion is not the right to give up parenthood, but continuing to go on about why women have abortions is just silly.

Have you devolved to such a level that childish insults is all you have left?

Find me where the law says a man does not have right to bodily autonomy.

I already did, but of course, you don't like my definition of bodily autonomy, so prefer to ignore it. And it is bodily autonomy, whether it fits your agenda or not.

No.

Grand so, slavery - for example - doesn't affect bodily autonomy then.

Rape is a violation of bodily autonomy. When the state starts claiming men should be raped for their children get back to me.

Why do you differentiate? Is it because one of them involves sex? Both involve the coercion of another.

(as an aside German recently ruled that while the state can expect people to look for work while claiming job benefit neither men nor women can be expected to take jobs as sex workers in order to qualify. Why? That's right BODILY AUTONOMY)

Show is where this was shown to be the reason, otherwise you're simply spinning your own BS on it.

No he won't, we have already been over this.

He will. Fact. Deductions from social welfare are a standard means of recovering maintenance. I know you're ignorant of these things, but I didn't think you were this bad.

So its a great time to be alive. Both men and women are afforded methods to avoid producing a child. I suggest they use them if they don't want a child.

More deflection. I'm not interested in your quips, respond to the point or keep it to yourself.

Er, not technically nor legally yes.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance.

The only reason a woman does not have parental responsibility after an abortion is if the child is dead.

Either this is another straw man or you really are having difficulty understanding what Rev Hellfire and I have repeatedly explained.

So an unmarried mother can't. You appreciate saying that someone can do something and then listing how they can't do it just makes you look silly.

Actually, legally she can. Please look it up as you clearly don't seem to have a clue.

An unmarried mother must make all attempts to inform the father, who can then apply for guardianship and only after that does the court decide that the father is either unreachable or not qualified for guardianship can she give the child up for adoption.

No she doesn't have to. There's no oversight, no pressure to do so and no check that she has. The legislation doesn't even say 'must', only 'should'. She can just ignore this clause - and many do.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance.

So there is a legal obligation he be told. You are doing that contradicting yourself thing again. :rolleyes:

I think the only thing that's been demonstrated is you don't really have much knowledge of how family law works in relation to these things, especially with unmarried fathers.

For your own sake, I genuinely recommend you read a few sites on the subject. Here's a few to get you started:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples.html
http://www.mlb.ie/info_unmarried_fathers_rights.htm
http://www.treoir.ie/target-fathers.php

Come back when you actually know the facts.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why do you keep this issue focused on single parents? Don't forget the married ones. They count too ya know.

Single would pertain to both unmarried and divorced parents.

It's Father's Day today. What a sad day to be talking about this. Time for pancakes.

Because the flip side of this argument is that many fathers who do want a relationship with their children are denied this by the mothers who hold all the rights to those children.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Single would pertain to both unmarried and divorced parents.

Because the flip side of this argument is that many fathers who do want a relationship with their children are denied this by the mothers who hold all the rights to those children.

Yes I know what single means. You keep referencing single mothers and single fathers but this is about all fathers, including married ones. Because no one has put forward a protocol for how men can give their kid to an adoptive father and relinquish responsibility, and that would include married men who already have children and a family. I doubt very much you are proposing a discriminatory law just for single men. Are you?

There is no flip side to this argument. That is a different discussion and changing the subject.

As for incarceration and bodily autonomy, it appears as if you are adopting a lot of Foucaults ideas there, but the solution then is to change the law around debtors prison or tax evasion imprisonment. You go to jail for those things too in Ireland, in the US you can for not paying either child support or the IRS but not for debt. Abortion is covered under right to privacy. It not legal in Ireland at all, so your comparisons are all over the place. Next you'll be arguing that having to go school violated bodily integrity because the state forces your body to be there.

Stop comparing it to abortion. Impossible to take seriously. Just come out and say men should be able to do this instead of hiding behind roe v. Wade, which is not even in this jurisdiction.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I know what single means. You keep referencing single mothers and single fathers but this is about all fathers, including married ones.

Single, be they unmarried or divorced, fathers will tend to be the most affected, but you're correct in that even married ones can be by the lack of reproductive rights - the classic example being the wife who has three boys and wants a baby girl, despite the father being against a forth child - it's not unheard of that an 'accident' will follow.

I doubt very much you are proposing a discriminatory law just for single men. Are you?

No one has actually proposed any law though. All that's been discussed is whether something like this is desirable, necessary or whatever in principle. How it would be codified; what limits, process, who it would apply to or anything else hasn't been touched on, so I really don't see why such presumptions keep on being made about it.

There is no flip side to this argument. That is a different discussion and changing the subject.

It is the flip side though; just as lack of reproductive rights means a man has no right to any options if he does not want a child, they also bar him from any options if he does; he cannot bar a mother from an abortion, he can be easily circumvented if unmarried and she does not bother to inform him that he is a father, where it comes to adoption, and even if she decides to keep it, the cards are all in her hands.

Next you'll be arguing that having to go school violated bodily integrity because the state forces your body to be there.

The only reason why we don't see this as a violation is because parents are able to give consent on behalf of their children. For example, a parent can consent to a medical procedure on their child too, which would also be seen as a violation were it not for this.

Stop comparing it to abortion. Impossible to take seriously. Just come out and say men should be able to do this instead of hiding behind roe v. Wade, which is not even in this jurisdiction.

This discussion came out of the OP's postulation that if threat of suicide is sufficient to warrant the suicidal woman being given what they demand, the elimination of unwanted parenthood, rather than attempting to treat them, then this should be considered a valid approach to dealing with suicidal men in simelar circumstances.

As a literal abortion in the latter case is undesirable, indeed insane, then a 'legal' abortion was cited - you could also call it putting the child up for partial 'adoption' too, if you prefer. As I said earlier, they both amount to the same thing in the end - both terminate the legal bond between parent and child.

For me, I don't feel strongly either way on this legal abortion stuff, my main reason for posting on this thread was originally that I feel the proposed law is ill thought out to begin with. However, when Zombrex started coming out with horseshìt about how men and women have the same options, followed up with a criminally poor knowledge of how the law even operates in Ireland, I'll have to admit that I saw red.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

If I missed something, feel free to point out what. Otherwise stop deflecting.

You have ignored all the times I've pointed out that bodily autonomy has nothing to do with working. Find me a definition (a serious one) where bodily autonomy includes working.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, incorrect. How much a father has and what the maintenance is set at are often completely disassociated and I already gave you an example of this.

Show me the law that says fathers will be incarcerated if they are unemployed, have no assets or means to pay maintenance.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Happens all the time.

Oh well if TC says it happens "all the time" really why would I bother asking any more... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have, address my rebuttal and stop wasting my time.

You understand I hope that a "rebuttal" normally contains evidence, not just you saying I'm wrong?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And incarceration for you is not surrendering bodily autonomy apparently.

Correct. Because that isn't what bodily autonomy means!! :rolleyes:

A prisoner cannot be forced to have a medical procedure without consent, which would be odd if we had already invalidated the prisoners bodily autonomy by locking him/her up.

Heck you cannot even cut a prisoners hair without consent.

"The rights of prisoners specifically recognised by the courts to date are summarised in the case of Mulligan. MacMenamin J held that prisoners have the right to bodily integrity, which necessitates that the Executive should protect the right to health of persons held in custody as well as is reasonably possible in the circumstances.The court held: “as a citizen, a prisoner is entitled to protection of his right to bodily integrity … He or she is entitled not to have their health placed at risk. As a matter of general principle he or she must be protected against inhuman or degrading treatment”. The court held further that
prisoners have a right not to be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment, a right to protect life from serious endangerment, and a right to privacy. The court went on to affirm that the conditions of detention must not be such as to seriously endanger a prisoner’s life or health."

I await your indepth rebuttal to this where you simply say "I'm wrong" :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately this is where we must disagree, as you seem to only wish to see bodily autonomy within a narrow scope that actually ignores most effects upon it. I reject your convenient definition.

Of course you do, my definition (or as it is also know, the definition) sucks for you argument :rolleyes:

The reality is men and women have the same right to bodily autonomy, except in the cases of pregnancy where women actually have fewer rights.

So this idea that we must give men the right to refuse to support their children in the name of equality is just stupid.

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Lots of those, are there? Seriously?

Ah I see your rebuttal skills are just as sharp. :rolleyes:

Are you saying it isn't true? That if the foetus survives the procedure she can still just walk way without any responsibility to it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I already did, but of course, you don't like my definition of bodily autonomy, so prefer to ignore it. And it is bodily autonomy, whether it fits your agenda or not.

So your argument is that prisoners have already given up bodily autonomy. Which makes it odd that the courts would then recognize their right to bodily autonomy.

Maybe TC's bulls**t definition is at fault ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so, slavery - for example - doesn't affect bodily autonomy then.

It does if they carry out a medical procedure on the slave.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why do you differentiate? Is it because one of them involves sex? Both involve the coercion of another.

I differentiate because I understand what bodily autonomy means ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, legally she can. Please look it up as you clearly don't seem to have a clue.

Actually legally she can't

"Under the adoption legislation , however, birth fathers are now being consulted (if possible) about the adoption of their children. In situations where the parents are not married and the father does not have guardianship rights, his consent is not necessary for adoption. However, the consent of the father is required if he marries the mother after the birth of the child or he is appointed guardian or is granted custody of the child by court order."

The father must be given the opportunity, with in reason, to apply for guardianship. The mother cannot unilaterally give up the child.

I await another "in theory" response before you tell me how it really is on the streets (ie what a taxi driver told you one at 2am)... :rolleyes: