Risk to life, including suicide?

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

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

More to the point, unless you wish to deny that breach of a court order can result in a bench warrant, and thus incarceration - you show me the law that exempts such men from a bench warrant.

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

So it never happens? Why don't you have a chat with a solicitor? I have.

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

When you actually supply some yourself for your claims, you earn the right to demand it without being laughed at.

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.

Who mentioned prisoners? The only comparison I made was to indentured servitude, one step up from slavery, where a medical procedure certainly could be forced.

Incarceration may be an effect of this, just as an indentured servant may be incarcerated, but it's not the same thing.

But we've come to expect straw men from you at this stage.

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

As does my definiton for you argument. And unfortunately my definition isn't simply my own invention, as I linked to above, so you can forget your claim to holding 'the' definition.

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.

In reality women have more, even in pregnancy. They may not be allowed to have an abortion in Ireland, but bizarrely have a constitutional right to travel for one - if a woman wants an abortion, she'll get it. They also possess other options to avoid being legally obliged to care for the child produced by such a pregnancy.

There is effectively no way to force a woman to be responsible for her child, unless she chooses to do so. No way that she will be held responsible forced to labour towards this and and incarcerated if she does not.

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

Why? Even if such a right had nothing to do with bodily integrity, do you not accept that this is a gross inequity in reproductive and social rights, and that abortion is overwhelmingly employed in this manner?

You appear to be attempting a 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' ploy. Unless you're completely deluded you can see that a gross inequity exist, but are insistent that we should ignore it on a shaky technicality.

Edit: All of this is ultimately OT. The OP hypothesized that if allowing a suicidal woman to eliminate the cause for such tendencies is a valid form of treatment, then doing so legally, rather than medically, for a suicidal man is just as valid. There bodily integrity is irrelevant.

I never took you for a bigot Zomb, but there you go. I don't think there's much point continuing this discussion with you, TBH.

clairefontaine

So, is what being proposed here, is that men can abdicate parenthood and unless they are confirmed suicidal by a panel of psychiatrists face a 14 year prison sentence?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

So, is what being proposed here, is that men can abdicate parenthood and unless they are confirmed suicidal by a panel of psychiatrists face a 14 year prison sentence?

No.