The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

Witch doctors?

Sofiztikated

Stupify wrote: »

They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

There's more of an issue if a father ISN'T listed on the birth cert, and he wants access to his children.

But neither that, nor your issue has anything to do with the 8th.

Pherekydes

volchitsa wrote: »

Married women can't walk away though...

Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.

Stupify

bubblypop wrote: »

Since when can they be put on the birth cert without their consent?
Can be chased all over the eu for maintenance? Have you ever ever even heard of this being done?
Its hard enough to get a European arrest warrant & a person arrested for serious offence, do you really think anyone cares about some maintenance!

So if a man refuses to sign a birth-cert he's off the hook for child support? I don't think so. They will only leave a birth-Cert blank in extraordinary cases, according to Treoirs website: The mother will be asked for contact details of the father and the Registrar will then make ‘all reasonable efforts’ to contact the father and invite him to attend the Registrar’s Office within 28 days in order to complete the registration. Only in exceptional cases, where ‘compelling reasons’ are provided, will the father’s name be omitted.

Here's a link to prove my point about maintenance from abroad Stateshttp://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html
Anyway, the point is a man shouldn't have to leave the country to avoid paying for a child he doesn't want, doesn't matter how difficult it is to retrieve the maintenance, someone shouldn't have to uproot their life in this case.

Sofiztikated

applehunter wrote: »

I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

Which is fine. And even if things don't go their way, they'll not be asked to perform, or endure, an abortion.

And I genuinely hope they are never in that position. However, lots of people are.

Stupify

Sofiztikated wrote: »

There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.

I believe it should be discussed alongside it, women and men should be equal with regards to their choice to have a child.

There are obvious reasons that they aren't equal, a woman can choose to give birth to a child where a man can't do the same thing, so there should be legislation to allow a man not be regarded as the childs father.

B0jangles

What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.

Stupify

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.

I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

volchitsa

Stupify wrote: »

I believe it should be discussed alongside it, women and men should be equal with regards to their choice to have a child.

There are obvious reasons that they aren't equal, a woman can choose to give birth to a child where a man can't do the same thing, so there should be legislation to allow a man not be regarded as the childs father.

LOL. I think your comparison just blew up in your face there.

Pherekydes

Stupify wrote: »

I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.

Parklife1988

Stupify wrote: »

I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.

Stupify

B0jangles wrote: »

What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.

Not at all, how is a man not wishing to pay for a child he doesn't want comparable to child abandonment? I am not advocating for men who wanted a kid and 1 year down the line after the kid is born decide to up and leave, these men should be sought after for significant maintenance orders. I'm advocating for the men who dont want kids but are forced to have them.

Stupify

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.

Jesus dude, seriously? gone to playground tactics now? Are people here unable to have a cool tempered conversation?

B0jangles

Stupify wrote: »

Not at all, how is a man not wishing to pay for a child he doesn't want comparable to child abandonment? I am not advocating for men who wanted a kid and 1 year down the line after the kid is born decide to up and leave, these men should be sought after for significant maintenance orders. I'm advocating for the men who dont want kids but are forced to have them.

I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult person but...ok.

After an abortion there is no baby, there is no child that is the point of having an abortion.

After your legal abortion a baby is born - you can tell the baby that it is illegally continuing to exist in defiance of a court order but I doubt it'll listen.

Stupify

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.

I really am not attempting to derail the thread, I believe it is linked to the 8th, but if a mod would like to chime in and tell me off I suppose I could set up a different thread for this offshoot of the discussion.

Sofiztikated

Stupify wrote: »

I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

I'd say it's more relevant to adoption legislation. You are giving up legal rights to the child.

Not the 8th. And so, has no bearing on this conversation.

(For the record, I do think it's a conversation that could be had, but I'd also wager that it wouldn't be well received.)

Stupify

B0jangles wrote: »

I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult person but...ok.

After an abortion there is no baby, there is no child that is the point of having an abortion.

After your legal abortion a baby is born - you can tell the baby that it is illegally continuing to exist in defiance of a court order but I doubt it'll listen.

You are the one who isn't getting it tbh, a woman has a choice and a man doesn't.

A man should have a choice too, that is what I am advocating. If a man could have an abortion when he doesn't want a child, he would, but he can't, so this should be legislated for.

Parklife1988

Stupify wrote: »

Jesus dude, seriously? gone to playground tactics now? Are people here unable to have a cool tempered conversation?

Absolutely but you’re in entirely the wrong thread for the conversation you want to have.

Stupify

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL. I think your comparison just blew up in your face there.

I don't see how? The comparison was to show the man has no choice.

Stupify

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Absolutely but you’re in entirely the wrong thread for the conversation you want to have.

If you believe that then you can say it calmly, no need for the name calling.

B0jangles

Stupify wrote: »

You are the one who isn't getting it tbh, a woman has a choice and a man doesn't.

A man should have a choice too, that is what I am advocating. If a man could have an abortion when he doesn't want a child, he would, but he can't, so this should be legislated for.

No she doesn't, not in this country - that's what this whole campaign is about.

ForestFire

Sofiztikated wrote: »

There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.

If a woman can choose not to continue to be a mother before 12 weeks, then should a father have the same option before 12 weeks? Remember there is no Baby, no Life, no issue if the referendum passes?

If she decides to continue she still has the choice without the Father, who chooses not to.

I think in these cases it would be clear it would be an unplanned pregnancy?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

There's more of an issue if a father ISN'T listed on the birth cert, and he wants access to his children.

But neither that, nor your issue has anything to do with the 8th.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.

B0jangles wrote: »

What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.

Before 12 weeks, is it no classified as just a fetus, or clump of cells as some describe, with no rights? The mother could still continue if she wanted too alone.

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.

Why is there such a reluctance to discuss Fathers issues, call the poster names, and try to shut down the debate. If this was the other way around, it would be you not answering the question and partaking in the debate.

Also claiming it was discussed at length before is nonsense, so has everything else at this stage???

Stupify

B0jangles wrote: »

No she doesn't, not in this country - that's what this whole campaign is about.

Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.

If we are advocating for choice, we should be advocating for a mans choice too.

B0jangles

Stupify wrote: »

Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.

Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.

Parklife1988

Stupify wrote: »

Exactly, and when it's passed, because I believe it will pass, then this needs to happen at the same time.

Start that movement. You’re effectively looking for legislation to be introduced where any men who impregnated a woman can have a legal right to force her to give birth against her will.
It is pretty much what we have on the current legislation but its the state forcing them to give birth but In what universe are you going to find enough support to make this happen? Because it isn’t this one.

You cannot force a woman to give birth even if you are the father. This is what you’re suggestIng.

Stupify

B0jangles wrote: »

Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.

Sure it is enough, but there's no reason this can't be discussed alongside it.

I'm sure there are men in those countries that feel hard done by that they don't have a choice in their forced fatherhood.

Why should a man who never wanted those kids be forced to help feed and clothe them? If a mother wants the child and the man doesn't she should be prepared to take care of them herself.

ForestFire

B0jangles wrote: »

Is it not enough to give women control over their own bodies or does there always have to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile?

Also, I don't think any of the many other contries with legal abortion found it necessary to make it legal for men to pretend-abort their children so they don't have to help feed and clothe them.

This is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think highlights an important point and not directed at you really.

Why do you call it "Children"? You are just making it over emotive to win you argument. (Like the pro-life side say unborn baby)

We are talking about a fetus only with no rights and no sentience remember.

B0jangles

ForestFire wrote: »

This is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think highlights an important point and not directed at you really.

Why do you call it "Children"? You are just making it over emotive to win you argument. (Like the pro-life side say unborn baby)

We are talking about a fetus only with no rights and no sentience remember.

Because in the situation Stupify is describing the pregnancy is completed and the child is born; he wants to create a legal fiction that pretends that the child does not exist.

Stupify

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Start that movement. You’re effectively looking for legislation to be introduced where any men who impregnated a woman can have a legal right to force her to give birth against her will.
It is pretty much what we have on the current legislation but its the state forcing them to give birth but In what universe are you going to find enough support to make this happen? Because it isn’t this one.

You cannot force a woman to give birth even if you are the father. This is what you’re suggestIng.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Nowhere did I advocate that at all, or anywhere near that, I advocated where the father does not want a child he should be allowed step out with no responsibility to that child, not that he can force a woman to give birth to his child.

You're mad if you think I was advocating for men to be allowed force women to give birth against their will, please show me what I was saying that led you to believe this.

Stupify

B0jangles wrote: »

Because in the situation Stupify is describing the pregnancy is completed and the child is born; he wants to create a legal fiction that pretends that the child does not exist.

Not at all, I'm talking about before the child is born. Same as when a woman will be able to decide if she wants the child or not.