Her Body, Her Choice....Her Responsibility?

Woodward

The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

iptba

A pretty radical idea.

An idea that should be less radical but hasn't happened so far and doesn't look close to happening any time soon would be automatic paternity testing at birth (or at least that is the default with couples having the option to opt out).

That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.

This could also be beneficial to the child as they would have a better idea of their family medical history. Having the wrong information about who your biological father is not the ideal situation medically. Also you could end up inadvertently getting into a relationship with a biological relative.

Also sometimes paternity is challenged later when it becomes clearer that the child is not like the posited father. This can get very messy (I know of one case where this happened, the child was somewhere between 6 and 8). Also at that stage it could be much harder to look for the biological father.

Also if there is certainty about paternity, the man (and his family) may commit more to the child. I recall reading a study where how much resources grandparents put into their grandchildren was based on whether they were maternal or paternal grandparents, with maternal grandparents giving more (and grandmothers giving more than grandfathers), the theory being they were more sure the child was a blood relative. I can't remember much more about the study.

If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask.

Edited to add: if there is any possibility that there was a mixup in children in hospital, a great effort will be put in to ensure the mother can be sure of maternity but there isn't the same effort about paternity.

One eyed Jack

Woodward wrote: »

Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

I take it you understand the difference between pregnancy, and parenthood?

iptba wrote: »

An idea that should be less radical but hasn't happened so far and doesn't look close to happening any time soon would be automatic paternity testing at birth (or at least that is the default with couples having the option to opt out).

That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.

There's only a need for paternity testing in cases where paternity is in question.

This could also be beneficial to the child as they would have a better idea of their family medical history. Having the wrong information about who your biological father is not the ideal situation medically. Also you could end up inadvertently getting into a relationship with a biological relative.

Also sometimes paternity is challenged later when it becomes clearer that the child is not like the posited father. This can get very messy (I know of one case where this happened, the child was somewhere between 6 and 8). Also at that stage it could be much harder to look for the biological father.

Also if there is certainty about paternity, the man (and his family) may commit more to the child. I recall reading a study where how much resources grandparents put into their grandchildren was based on whether they were maternal or paternal grandparents, with maternal grandparents giving more (and grandmothers giving more than grandfathers), the theory being they were more sure the child was a blood relative. I can't remember much more about the study.

If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask.

Edited to add: if there is any possibility that there was a mixup in children in hospital, a great effort will be put in to ensure the mother can be sure of maternity but there isn't the same effort about paternity.

Working on the default assumption that the potential father could be anyone? I can see why any woman would find that insinuation... problematic :pac:

As for the medical justifications - genetic history isn't as accurate a predictor at all of a persons potential health outlook so much as their family history. Modern medicine has enabled the diagnosis of many conditions without prior knowledge of either the patients genetic or family history. Put simply - it's not as necessary to determine family or genetic history as it once was.

The other justifications are just reaching tbh.

the_syco

Woodward wrote: »

where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy

Get a vasectomy. Otherwise, pay up if you knock her up.

HandsomeBob

Doesn't sound so radical in this day and age. Though I wouldn't be impressed by any bloke who exercised any such right.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

Woodward wrote:

The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

Your statement assumes that all women would want or should want an abortion. The referendum was to give people the choice, not to force them to have an abortion. A third of the population don't want abortion & around half of these are women.

It is totally against some women's religious and moral beliefs to have an abortion. How could you possibly try to use this to escape your moral & legal responsibility.

The time to think about these things is bef you decide to have sex. Contraception is BOTH of your responsibility as is the child you create if you don't get the contraception right.

I hope to be able to vote on the right to die sometime in my lifetime. If that is past will you argue that your elderly mother or fa is no longer a your responsibility because they have a right to die?

Not a very well thought out childish argument. You need to think these things through

Sleeper12

iptba wrote:

That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.

Anyone can have these tests done. I had a test with Ancestry.com DNA tests aren't a big deal. Why should it be the governments job to DNA test you & the child.

Here's the thing younger people seem to be missing. Why would you have a child with someone you don't trust to tell you the truth if it's your child or not? As George says is there no responsibility here?

A few tips :You can make sure contraception is used correctly by using it yourself.

Don't sleep with a woman that you don't trust to tell you the truth. She could have HIV for gods sake. A pregnancy might be the least of your worries

What is it with the younger generation? They want all the fun but none of the responsibilities.

Reati

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What is it with younger generations? They want all the fun but none of the responsibilities.

Fyp. All younger generations wanted fun and none of the responsibilities. It's not a new thing.

boombang

Takes two to tango.

Cyrus

Woodward wrote: »

The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

I have said this elsewhere it's the logical extension of most of the pro choice rhetoric , although as they were thinking only of women I don't think they followed it all the way through . Won't happen however .

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote:

A few tips :You can make sure contraception is used correctly by using it yourself.

Even when used correctly, it's not a 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy

Sleeper12 wrote:

Don't sleep with a woman that you don't trust to tell you the truth. She could have HIV for gods sake. A pregnancy might be the least of your worries

You realise that many many people (male and female) only find out they can't trust someone when something has gone wrong. They could be together years, be married, have children and so on.

One eyed Jack

Cyrus wrote: »

I have said this elsewhere it's the logical extension of most of the pro choice rhetoric, although as they were thinking only of women I don't think they followed it all the way through . Won't happen however .

It's really not, because it's not an argument for giving men choices over their own bodies. That's just one of the key differences.

Secondly, and this should be obvious, but men can't get pregnant. If they could, then you might be able to construct a logical argument that men too should have the right to choose whether or not they want to terminate a pregnancy. The chances are they would be afforded that right the same as women, but because they can't get pregnant in the first place, it's a non-starter.

Thirdly, the fundamental difference between pregnancy and parenthood is that nobody becomes a parent until a child is actually born, and then the rights of all people involved are taken into consideration, and determinations are made in what is in the best interests of the child, not their parents.

Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men.

Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children.

In short - abortion has nothing to do with parental rights, and as the law currently stands, both genders already have equal parental rights, and neither gender has this perceived right "not to be a parent". You can legislate for biology with regard to gender equality only to a certain extent, and only in circumstances where all biological factors are equal, and that's why you can't legislate to give men control over women's pregnancies, and you can't legislate for circumstances which would not be in the childs best interests.

judeboy101

the_syco wrote: »

Woodward wrote: »

where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy

Get a vasectomy. Otherwise, pay up if you knock her up.

And if she rapes you? Can you demand she abort it?

VonZan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's really not, because it's not an argument for giving men choices over their own bodies. That's just one of the key differences.

Secondly, and this should be obvious, but men can't get pregnant. If they could, then you might be able to construct a logical argument that men too should have the right to choose whether or not they want to terminate a pregnancy. The chances are they would be afforded that right the same as women, but because they can't get pregnant in the first place, it's a non-starter.

Thirdly, the fundamental difference between pregnancy and parenthood is that nobody becomes a parent until a child is actually born, and then the rights of all people involved are taken into consideration, and determinations are made in what is in the best interests of the child, not their parents.

Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men.

Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children.

In short - abortion has nothing to do with parental rights, and as the law currently stands, both genders already have equal parental rights, and neither gender has this perceived right "not to be a parent". You can legislate for biology with regard to gender equality only to a certain extent, and only in circumstances where all biological factors are equal, and that's why you can't legislate to give men control over women's pregnancies, and you can't legislate for circumstances which would not be in the childs best interests.

It is a very simple concept. If a woman sleeps with a man and she becomes pregnant she will have a choice whether to carry the baby to full term or not, even against the wishes of the man. It takes two to tango but only one person ultimately has the right to a decision.

Also, both parents don't have equal rights under the law. You obviously have never heard of the family court in this country.

Is aborting a child in the best interests of the child? I'm not arguing against abortion but you make a very hypocritical argument.

One eyed Jack

judeboy101 wrote: »

And if she rapes you? Can you demand she abort it?

No you can't, any more than a woman can deny the father of the child their parental rights, regardless of how the child was conceived -

Child custody rights for rapists? Most states have them

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

VonZan wrote: »

It is a very simple concept. If a woman sleeps with a man and she becomes pregnant she will have a choice whether to carry the baby to full term or not, even against the wishes of the man. It takes two to tango but only one person ultimately has the right to a decision.

You're conflating two very different circumstances to try and argue gender inequality. They're two fundamentally different concepts. Men don't need the right to an abortion, because they cannot become pregnant. That has nothing to do with gender equality in law. The law cannot do anything to address that.

Also, both parents don't have equal rights under the law. You obviously have never heard of the family court in this country.

The only difference in law between men and women with regard to the law and their children is in respect of guardianship rights where unmarried women are automatically granted guardianship of their children, whereas unmarried men aren't, and have to apply for guardianship rights, but for men who don't want to do that, and provided the mother doesn't want them to have guardianship rights either, there are no consequences for men who choose to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

The most common reason why cases end up in the family courts is precisely because of disagreement between the parents of the child where all too often the mother of the child is fighting to have the father take responsibility for his children, and the Courts tend to agree that it is in the best interests of the child that the father take responsibility for their children and support their children and that the children have access to their fathers.

It's not in the best interests of children that either parent be permitted to abandon their responsibilities towards their children.

Is aborting a child in the best interests of the child? I'm not arguing against abortion but you make a very hypocritical argument.

No it's not, clearly! But then you're the one making the hypocritical argument if you're suggesting that because a woman is permitted to end her pregnancy (and therefore there is no child born), then men should be permitted to abdicate their responsibility towards a child when the child is born. Neither men nor women have that right, they are both equally responsible for the welfare of any children that are born, and that's what you seem to be glossing over.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men.

Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children.

.

The whole women treated harsher just isn't true anymore. At all. Single and unmarried mothers are the norm in Irish society for a long time now. No stigma at all.

Edit: Sorry above point was not the one you were making. Your point is correct.

Also on equal parenting rights and responsibilities : Can a man can have his child adopted against the wishes of the woman he isn't married to? The reverse is true for sure.

professore

whereas unmarried men aren't, and have to apply for guardianship rights, but for men who don't want to do that, and provided the mother doesn't want them to have guardianship rights either, there are no consequences for men who choose to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

She had the choice to have the child. He didn't. It's that simple. If they were in a LTR or married and chose to have a child together that's very very different, as they made an agreement. But a drunken ONS? Or where he is adamant he doesn't want children?

She chooses to have that child she takes care of it. He should also have that choice. He shouldn't be forced to. End of story. Anything else is discrimination.

Where is the consent here? I don't see it. It's not OK to force someone to have sex against their will but it is OK to force them to pay support for 18 years for a child they didn't consent to?

VonZan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're conflating two very different circumstances to try and argue gender inequality. They're two fundamentally different concepts. Men don't need the right to an abortion, because they cannot become pregnant. That has nothing to do with gender equality in law. The law cannot do anything to address that.





The only difference in law between men and women with regard to the law and their children is in respect of guardianship rights where unmarried women are automatically granted guardianship of their children, whereas unmarried men aren't, and have to apply for guardianship rights, but for men who don't want to do that, and provided the mother doesn't want them to have guardianship rights either, there are no consequences for men who choose to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

The most common reason why cases end up in the family courts is precisely because of disagreement between the parents of the child where all too often the mother of the child is fighting to have the father take responsibility for his children, and the Courts tend to agree that it is in the best interests of the child that the father take responsibility for their children and support their children and that the children have access to their fathers.

It's not in the best interests of children that either parent be permitted to abandon their responsibilities towards their children.





No it's not, clearly! But then you're the one making the hypocritical argument if you're suggesting that because a woman is permitted to end her pregnancy (and therefore there is no child born), then men should be permitted to abdicate their responsibility towards a child when the child is born. Neither men nor women have that right, they are both equally responsible for the welfare of any children that are born, and that's what you seem to be glossing over.

You can't make an argument out of untruths. I don't think women should have the right to end their pregnancy if the baby is healthy or there isn't a mental issue at hand (including rape as carrying the baby of rape to full term can have a devastating impact on the mothers mental health). The problem now is that women can decide whether or not they want to carry the baby to full term and bare the responsibility of having a child but the father has absolutely no choice once the child has been conceived.

For practical purposes the legislation will have to allow for 12 weeks unresistrcted access but that doesn't mean you can say there is equality on this issue because it's simply untrue.

I agree that there is little penalty for fathers who don't care for their children. The state should do more to penalise those who abdicate their responsibility to their children but that applies to mothers and fathers alike. They should also support those who choose to have a child more and single mothers as having children in the state will become simply unaffordable for the majority of people growing up who also want to educate themselves and get a job.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Also on equal parenting rights and responsibilities : Can a man can have his child adopted against the wishes of the woman he isn't married to? The reverse is true for sure.

No, and a woman can't do that either without the consent of the father. The laws regarding adoption and guardianship have changed massively in the last couple of years -

Minister Zappone welcomes the signing of the Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2016 by the President in to law

Law ensures children’s best interest are ‘always at the heart of decisions involving them’

Statement by Minister Katherine Zappone

professore wrote: »

She had the choice to have the child. He didn't. It's that simple. If they were in a LTR or married and chose to have a child together that's very very different, as they made an agreement. But a drunken ONS? Or where he is adamant he doesn't want children?

She chooses to have that child she takes care of it. He should also have that choice. He shouldn't be forced to. End of story. Anything else is discrimination.

Where is the consent here? I don't see it. It's not OK to force someone to have sex against their will but it is OK to force them to pay support for 18 years for a child they didn't consent to?

He isn't forced to, he can walk away sans consequences, fcuk off and go find himself in Nepal or wherever. However, that doesn't relate in any way whatsoever to whether or not a woman has a right to avail of an abortion. In cases where a woman chooses not to avail of an abortion, both parents are legally responsible for the child, and it is in the best interests of the child that they have a good relationship with both their parents, even when the parents can't agree between themselves what is in the best interests of the child.

That's why parents are generally supported and encouraged to form good relationships with their children even if their parents couldn't care less for each other. It's not about the parents in those circumstances, it's entirely about the best interests of the child, and rather than having the State have to supplant the position of the parents, it's generally in children's best interests that the State isn't involved, and the State generally doesn't want to be involved, because it doesn't support the common good of society to permit parents to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

It's not just ok to force people to take responsibility for their children, it's an absolute necessity for the common good of society. That some people don't consent to taking responsibility for their children means the responsibility for those children falls to the State, and the children suffer because of that. That's why I would never support any legislation which permits parents to abdicate their responsibility towards their children. It's not about forcing anyone to become a parent who doesn't want to be a parent, it's entirely about recognising and acknowledging what is in children's best interests in those circumstances.

Cyrus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's really not, because it's not an argument for giving men choices over their own bodies. That's just one of the key differences.

Secondly, and this should be obvious, but men can't get pregnant. If they could, then you might be able to construct a logical argument that men too should have the right to choose whether or not they want to terminate a pregnancy. The chances are they would be afforded that right the same as women, but because they can't get pregnant in the first place, it's a non-starter.

Thirdly, the fundamental difference between pregnancy and parenthood is that nobody becomes a parent until a child is actually born, and then the rights of all people involved are taken into consideration, and determinations are made in what is in the best interests of the child, not their parents.

Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men.

Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children.

In short - abortion has nothing to do with parental rights, and as the law currently stands, both genders already have equal parental rights, and neither gender has this perceived right "not to be a parent". You can legislate for biology with regard to gender equality only to a certain extent, and only in circumstances where all biological factors are equal, and that's why you can't legislate to give men control over women's pregnancies, and you can't legislate for circumstances which would not be in the childs best interests.

Are you seriously trying to separate pregnancy and parenthood ?

One eyed Jack

Cyrus wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to separate pregnancy and parenthood ?

I don't have to try and separate them, they're already two completely different circumstances. In the first instance - a child isn't born yet, and therefore there is no obligation on men, women nor society to provide for a childs welfare that isn't born. When children are born, then they become the responsibility of the parents, and indeed it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that children are provided for. Permitting parents a legal right to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children flies in the face of the idea of supporting the common good of society, and that's why for children's sake, both mothers and fathers are encouraged to be responsible for their children - equally responsible, with nobody of either gender held more responsible than the other.

Cyrus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't have to try and separate them, they're already two completely different circumstances.

Yeah completely different

One eyed Jack

Cyrus wrote: »

Yeah completly different

How do you imagine they're the same circumstances? If a woman terminates her pregnancy, then there is no child born that either of them are responsible for. Men are not expected to be responsible for a woman's pregnancy, women are entirely responsible for the welfare of the unborn child in those circumstances. The responsibility for her pregnancy ends when the child is born, and then both parents are responsible for that child's welfare.

If it is permitted that men should have no legal responsibility for their children, then the same right must be granted to women, but we don't grant either men or women the right not to become parents. We can introduce legislation to try and prevent circumstances where an unwanted child is born, but legislating for circumstances when an unwanted child is born are an entirely different matter. Then the rights and welfare of the child in question generally take precedence over the perceived rights of their parents.

titan18

A woman has the right to be a mother now. A man doesn't have the right to be a father, it's the mothers choice if he is or not.

If people want equality, then men should have the choice to be a father or not.

Of course, people don't want equality, they want more female rights, feck the men though

Cyrus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you imagine they're the same circumstances? If a woman terminates her pregnancy, then there is no child born that either of them are responsible for. Men are not expected to be responsible for a woman's pregnancy, women are entirely responsible for the welfare of the unborn child in those circumstances. The responsibility for her pregnancy ends when the child is born, and then both parents are responsible for that child's welfare.

If it is permitted that men should have no legal responsibility for their children, then the same right must be granted to women, but we don't grant either men or women the right not to become parents. We can introduce legislation to try and prevent circumstances where an unwanted child is born, but legislating for circumstances when an unwanted child is born are an entirely different matter. Then the rights and welfare of the child in question generally take precedence over the perceived rights of their parents.

Why do you think the majority of people have a termination, do you think it's to avoid being pregnant or avoid having a child ?

Women can decide not to become a parent by terminating the pregnancy a man cannot choose , that's not equality

One eyed Jack

Cyrus wrote: »

Why do you think the majority of people have a termination, do you think it's to avoid being pregnant or avoid having a child ?

You'll have to be a bit more specific there - only women terminate their pregnancies prematurely, for any number of different reasons. Men don't terminate their pregnancies, because they can't get pregnant, and therefore there isn't a pregnancy for them to have the choice to terminate prematurely. The main reason why women terminate their pregnancies is because the man who impregnated them is unwilling to support them and the child she would have given birth to.

That's men who impregnate women already forcing women into having abortions because they're restricting the choices those women can make for themselves. In those circumstances, women are taking responsibility for themselves and their welfare by choosing whether or not to avail of abortion. If they choose not to avail of abortion and they give birth to a child, then they are as responsible for that childs welfare as the father. If she chooses to avail of abortion, then the man does not become a father, and if a man has an objection to becoming a father, then what is he complaining about?

Is he complaining because he has no control over whether or not the woman he impregnates chooses either to have an abortion or to give birth? That's not something that can easily be addressed by legislation without giving men the right to force a woman one way or the other against her will either to remain pregnant, or force her to terminate her pregnancy against her will.

Women can decide not to become a parent by terminating the pregnancy a man cannot choose , that's not equality

No, it's not equality, it's biology, and until such a time as men can become pregnant, it will still be a biological fact of life that the biological differences between men and women mean that the law will only ever strive to be fair to all parties in circumstances where they can never be equal -

iptba

iptba wrote: »

A pretty radical idea.

An idea that should be less radical but hasn't happened so far and doesn't look close to happening any time soon would be automatic paternity testing at birth (or at least that is the default with couples having the option to opt out).

That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.

This could also be beneficial to the child as they would have a better idea of their family medical history. Having the wrong information about who your biological father is not the ideal situation medically. Also you could end up inadvertently getting into a relationship with a biological relative.

Also sometimes paternity is challenged later when it becomes clearer that the child is not like the posited father. This can get very messy (I know of one case where this happened, the child was somewhere between 6 and 8). Also at that stage it could be much harder to look for the biological father.

Also if there is certainty about paternity, the man (and his family) may commit more to the child. I recall reading a study where how much resources grandparents put into their grandchildren was based on whether they were maternal or paternal grandparents, with maternal grandparents giving more (and grandmothers giving more than grandfathers), the theory being they were more sure the child was a blood relative. I can't remember much more about the study.

If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask.

Edited to add: if there is any possibility that there was a mixup in children in hospital, a great effort will be put in to ensure the mother can be sure of maternity but there isn't the same effort about paternity.

In case people aren't aware, there are all sorts of laws about getting paternity testing without the mother's consent in different countries:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_paternity_testing

France

DNA paternity testing is solely performed on decision of a judge in case of a judiciary procedure in order either to establish or contest paternity or to obtain or deny child support[18]. Private DNA paternity testing is forbidden and punished by law[19].

Germany

Under the Gene Diagnostics Act of 2009, secret paternity testing is illegal. Any paternity testing must be conducted by a licensed physician or by an expert with a university degree in science and special education in parentage testing, and the laboratory carrying out genetic testing must be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025. Full informed consent of both parents is required, and prenatal paternity testing is prohibited, with the exception of sexual abuse and rape cases. Any genetic testing done without the other parent's consent is punishable with a €5,000 fine.[20] Due to an amendment of the civil law section 1598a in 2005, any man who contests paternity no longer automatically severs legal rights and obligations to the child.[21][

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask.

Working on the default assumption that the potential father could be anyone? I can see why any woman would find that insinuation... problematic :pac:

Working on the assumption that the posited father may not be the biological father.

titan18

One eyed Jack wrote:

No, it's not equality, it's biology, and until such a time as men can become pregnant, it will still be a biological fact of life that the biological differences between men and women mean that the law will only ever strive to be fair to all parties in circumstances where they can never be equal -

With that logic, can we rule then that women shouldn't be allowed in any job that requires physical strength due to biologic differences. No women in army, firefighters, police etc or do the biological differences not count there cos it's disadvantaging women.

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

Working on the assumption that the posited father may not be the biological father.

The implications are the same, no matter what way you choose to present the argument, and still it would only be relevant in cases where paternity is disputed. In cases where a woman has to take a father to court to support whom she claims are his children, then a DNA test becomes useful, or in a case where a man is applying for guardianship over children he claims are his, then a DNA test is useful.

In cases where a man isn't claiming to be the father, and the mother isn't claiming he's the father, what purpose does forcing a woman to do a DNA test serve? It would only be relevant in cases of surrogacy, and that's a whole other legal minefield -

Surrogacy: 'Infertile couples will still have to go abroad to make their dream a reality'

One eyed Jack

titan18 wrote: »

With that logic, can we rule then that women shouldn't be allowed in any job that requires physical strength due to biologic differences. No women in army, firefighters, police etc or do the biological differences not count there cos it's disadvantaging women.

No we can't, and you have a very poor understanding of logic if you can't see how such measures would exclude anyone from serving in the defence forces or the fire service if they don't meet the criteria which are required to fulfil the role in question.

We'd be some shìt army if it was solely made up of jarheads who met the physical requirements. A far more important requirement is intelligence, which to the best of my knowledge isn't determined by gender, clearly.

titan18

One eyed Jack wrote:

No we can't, and you have a very poor understanding of logic if you can't see how such measures would exclude anyone from serving in the defence forces or the fire service if they don't meet the criteria which are required to fulfil the role in question.

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you were saying there should only be equality where there isn't biological differences, and if there is, like pregnancy, you can't argue for equality.

One eyed Jack

titan18 wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you were saying there should only be equality where there isn't biological differences, and if there is, like pregnancy, you can't argue for equality.

Ok you did pick me up wrong and perhaps I should have been clearer - I personally couldn't give two fcuks about equality of any sort, but if someone is going to make an argument for gender equality based on completely different circumstances between men and women that are based upon fundamental biological differences between men and women, I'm going to regard their arguments as fundamentally lacking in any sort of acknowledgement of reality.

That also applies btw if anyone were to be disingenuous enough to try and point out that men can become pregnant - people who are transgender, I'm just going to point out to them that they're mixing contexts between human biology, sociology and politics to suit their own version of reality.

Kumejima

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's really not, because it's not an argument for giving men choices over their own bodies. That's just one of the key differences.

Secondly, and this should be obvious, but men can't get pregnant. If they could, then you might be able to construct a logical argument that men too should have the right to choose whether or not they want to terminate a pregnancy. The chances are they would be afforded that right the same as women, but because they can't get pregnant in the first place, it's a non-starter.

That may be true but if we want to be strictly logical and have true equality according to the rhetoric used to justify giving women abortion rights, then we're looking in the wrong place.

Basically we need to look at the roles of both genders in reproduction. Women's role is to carry a baby for 9 month's during a pregnancy. Up until now, laws have been put in place to protect the child and control the women's choices so they don't hurt said baby.
In the name of taking the law out of women's reproductive organs, we've basically said - its ok, you don't need to take the child's rights into account or ask for consent from the father to end the pregnancy, as this is your area, your job, your responsibility and you should be the masters of your own fate as regards this part of reproduction.

Okay fine. Thats their job, no one should judge them or shame them or criticise them for their choices, according to all the rhetoric

But by that logic, if we were to extend men full bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, to take away stigma and shame and grant them the same rights we've now extended to our ladyfolk, then we only have one option:

Repeal all rape laws.

Mens job in reproduction isn't pregnancy, its impregnantion. So, logically speaking, we should be able to perform that job with absolutely no interference from the government and no need for consent from our partners.
Women should have no say in what men choose to do with their bodies. Stop making us take the plane to Thailand. Its our sperm etc etc. Get your hands off our testicles. Or the best one "Trust Men"In fact we could take inspiration from this last campaign. The name?

Rapeal

It sounds facetious but this is exactly the line of stupid, inane and self-serving rhetoric used by the Repeal side.

They complained womens bodies and reproductive organs were being controlled? Yes they were, for the benefit of the baby, just like men's are for the benefit of women. Who can argue that this was about "equality"? Its about women gaining special powers that we wouldn't dream of giving to men. And rightly so, because doing so would be so destructive to society.

Blacktie.

Kumejima wrote:

Mens job in reproduction isn't pregnancy, its impregnantion. So, logically speaking, we should be able to perform that job with absolutely no interference from the government and no need for consent from our partners. Women should have no say in what men choose to do with their bodies. Stop making us take the plane to Thailand. Its our sperm etc etc. Get your hands off our testicles. Or the best one "Trust Men"In fact we could take inspiration from this last campaign. The name?

Wow. Making some leaps here.

One eyed Jack

Kumejima wrote: »

That may be true but if we want to be strictly logical and have true equality according to the rhetoric used to justify giving women abortion rights, then we're looking in the wrong place.

Basically we need to look at the roles of both genders in reproduction. Women's role is to carry a baby for 9 month's during a pregnancy. Up until now, laws have been put in place to protect the child and control the women's choices so they don't hurt said baby.
In the name of taking the law out of women's reproductive organs, we've basically said - its ok, you don't need to take the child's rights into account or ask for consent from the father to end the pregnancy, as this is your area, your job, your responsibility and you should be the masters of your own fate as regards this part of reproduction.

Okay fine. Thats their job, no one should judge them or shame them or criticise them for their choices, according to all the rhetoric

But by that logic, if we were to extend men full bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, to take away stigma and shame and grant them the same rights we've now extended to our ladyfolk, then we only have one option:

Repeal all rape laws.

Mens job in reproduction isn't pregnancy, its impregnantion. So, logically speaking, we should be able to perform that job with absolutely no interference from the government and no need for consent from our partners.
Women should have no say in what men choose to do with their bodies. Stop making us take the plane to Thailand. Its our sperm etc etc. Get your hands off our testicles. Or the best one "Trust Men"In fact we could take inspiration from this last campaign. The name?

Rapeal

It sounds facetious but this is exactly the line of stupid, inane and self-serving rhetoric used by the Repeal side.

They complained womens bodies and reproductive organs were being controlled? Yes they were, for the benefit of the baby, just like men's are for the benefit of women. Who can argue that this was about "equality"? Its about women gaining special powers that we wouldn't dream of giving to men. And rightly so, because doing so would be so destructive to society.

Your argument in support of men having control over their own bodies is that there should be no punishment for them violating the bodies of other people? Men rape men and children too, still want to repeal all rape laws?

I'm not even sure how that sounded in any way logical in your head. It's nothing at all like the bodily autonomy argument that was presented, which I fundamentally disagreed with btw, because nobody, regardless of their sex or gender, has unlimited rights to autonomy over their own bodies. It's still not as bad an argument as the one you've presented though.

Kumejima

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your argument in support of men having control over their own bodies is that there should be no punishment for them violating the bodies of other people? Men rape men and children too, still want to repeal all rape laws?

I'm not even sure how that sounded in any way logical in your head. It's nothing at all like the bodily autonomy argument that was presented, which I fundamentally disagreed with btw, because nobody, regardless of their sex or gender, has unlimited rights to autonomy over their own bodies. It's still not as bad an argument as the one you've presented though.

"WTF? This guys wants to legalise rape?"
Dude that is precisely what I'm NOT advocating for.
Thats why I voted no. The whole of civilisation is built on the premise that everyone doesn't gets full bodily autonomy as anarchy would otherwise prevail. We place limits on what people can do with their bodies and reproductive organs for a damn good reason.
These are restrictions that ALL of us are subject to and most of us accept as being necessary for the good of society even though they may be personally disadvantageous on occasion.

My question is, if we all agree that it is absolutely beyond the pale for a man to impregnate a woman without her consent, how can it be fair for a woman to abort his child without his consent?

NinetyTwoTeam

this support you see online for this cockamamie idea, is from a handful of extreme 'men's rights' morons. twitter is full of them but the real world isn't.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Kumejima

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

this support you see online for this cockamamie idea, is from a handful of extreme 'men's rights' morons. twitter is full of them but the real world isn't.

Christ on a bike, did you read my post? This is precisely what I'm NOT, N O T in favour of.

People shouldn't be free to do whatever they want with their reproductive organs if its going to harm other people. Full stop. Its not "oppression", its not "discrimination", its not "infringing bodily autonomy". Its the foundation of civilisation.

We've decided that for one gender, that rule no longer applies. Why can I ask, do 2/3 of this country think that's a brilliant idea? I can see that it will suit certain individuals in certain situations. As a priniciple though, it seems totally bonkers to me? Does anyone feel this is totally unequal? To reiterate, I am NOT in favour of doing the same for men.

One eyed Jack

Kumejima wrote: »

"WTF? This guys wants to legalise rape?"
Dude that is precisely what I'm NOT advocating for.
Thats why I voted no. The whole of civilisation is built on the premise that everyone doesn't gets full bodily autonomy as anarchy would otherwise prevail. We place limits on what people can do with their bodies and reproductive organs for a damn good reason.
These are restrictions that ALL of us are subject to and most of us accept as being necessary for the good of society even though they may be personally disadvantageous on occasion.

My question is, if we all agree that it is absolutely beyond the pale for a man to impregnate a woman without her consent, how can it be fair for a woman to abort his child without his consent?

I know you weren't advocating for repeal of laws prohibiting rape, you said yourself it was a facetious argument, and I agree with you - it is. It's a terrible argument that doesn't in any way address the issue of inequality in bodily autonomy between men and women. There was no logic to your argument whatsoever even from the point of view of the viewing the purpose of humanity's existence to propagate the species, and believe me I looked at your argument from a couple of different angles, and still I could find no logical reason as to how you could argue that men's bodily autonomy is under threat by somehow, someone, wants to extract their sperm, and then to use that bizarre notion to argue that no man should be convicted of rape for impregnating a woman against her will?

One in no way relates to the other. It takes some really disjointed thinking to come up with the idea that the solution to introducing legislation you disagree with which applies only to women, should mean using the same terrible arguments you disagree with which would only apply to men, and call that fair? That's your idea of equality, to compound the first injustice with an even greater injustice? And that seems logical to you?

As for your question - they're two completely different circumstances, and that's why most people generally don't equate them as being the same thing.

Eric Cartman

I think we very much need a mechanism where a man can choose to not become financially responsible for a child that he has no contact with or access to. Just as we have now rightfully given women the right to end a pregnancy and not have children, a man should also now have the right to opt out of having a child .

El_Duderino 09

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Abortion took decades of hard work to achieve. The last referendum was 30 odd years ago. If you want to bring about the situation where men can opt out of fatherhood, then be prepared for decades of hardworking campaigning, raising awareness, lobbying government, starting discussions, pushing the issue to the fore.

Or just complain that it can’t happen because it’s a woman’s world and do none of the hard work. Your choice.

One eyed Jack

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think we very much need a mechanism where a man can choose to not become financially responsible for a child that he has no contact with or access to. Just as we have now rightfully given women the right to end a pregnancy and not have children, a man should also now have the right to opt out of having a child .

We didn't give women the right to opt out of having anything to do with their children, so why would we give men that right? Consideration is also given to the rights of the child or children in that scenario and any decisions are made in the children's best interests, even if that includes restricting access to the child or children in terms of one or other of the parents, because it is in the best interests of the child. The child or children still need to be provided for, maintenance isn't a tit-for-tat situation predicated upon whether or not the parent or parents are granted access to the child.

irishrebe

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not a 'women's world'. But there is no possible way to be equally fair to both parties in this situation. There just isn't. Hence the law now siding with the woman, on the grounds that she is the one who has to physically carry and give birth to the child, and statistically speaking, the one who is far more likely to be left bringing up the child in the event of a relationship breakdown. Up until now, women have been forced to carry and give birth to children whether they wanted to or not, even in cases or rape, incest, or the baby having severe abnormalities, but yeah, keep playing the victim card.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

irishrebe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Patww79 wrote: »

Should definitely be the case but it's a woman's world now and would never happen.

It's fair enough though. Takes two to tango and both parties need an equal choice to opt out.

Abortion took decades of hard work to achieve. The last referendum was 30 odd years ago. If you want to bring about the situation where men can opt out of fatherhood, then be prepared for decades of hardworking campaigning, raising awareness, lobbying government, starting discussions, pushing the issue to the fore.

Or just complain that it can’t happen because it’s a woman’s world and do none of the hard work. Your choice.

My thoughts EXACTLY. I love how this result took years on end of campaigning for, with thousands of women suffering during that time, and now men are demanding a change in the law RIGHT NOW so they can force a woman to have an abortion or relinquish any financial responsibility. Yeah, doesn't work like that.

irishrebe

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a better situation for women now and that's much better, but it still doesn't mean men shouldn't be afforded the choice of their own. They won't be telling the woman what to do, they'll just decide their own involvement themselves, the same as a woman can for themselves.[/quote]
So spend 30 years campaigning for it, like women had to do.