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

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.

These are comments today on people not knowing they were adopted:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/adoption-controversy-zappone-reveals-at-least-126-babies-incorrectly-registered-36957826.html

The minister told a press conference in Dublin: “This is a very serious and sensitive issue. People have the right to know of their true origins and, where we have clear evidence, I believe we have an obligation to tell the people affected. Some may know already, but for others it will be entirely new and very difficult information indeed.”

It was also just mentioned on the Tonight Show on TV3 with regard to adoption that not knowing your correct medical history is an important issue.

TheDoc

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m a men’s rights supporter and I’ve never even heard of this question of men abdicating their paternal responsibility before the last few weeks. I would believe you that there has been some lobbying going on, but it needs a lot more. And it needs a lot greater volume to reach the country as a whole, and it needs greater discussion to even begin to change minds and gather widespread support.

I've never heard of the concept either until this thread. Can't say it sounds something I'd immediately be in favour of either.

My reference about lobbying it is relation to fathers rights and single fathers, and groups looking for amendments to legislation and how the state views fathers in certain arrangements.

TheDoc

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

What? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not arguing because I don't know, I'm just surprised if that's the case. I'm not Irish and in the country I'm coming from the father has to give his permission for his name to be put on the kid's birth certificate, which makes him legally the child's father. I think that in my country the kid's parents are also named in the kids passport, or maybe the other way round - the kid is named in the parent's passport. Either way, unless you join the family later on or unless there was some legal dispute, I don't see a reason why you should be running around courts, completing any documents. That's just ridiculous. Ireland keeps surprising me every day...

Oh I am legally m daughters father, and I'm on the birthcert.

But for things like inheritance and some other bits, that are a default applied in the scenario of a married couple, it is not in the situation of an unmarried couple. So I need to go through a court with paperwork where I'm then deemed under the states eyes as a proper guardian in the event something happens to my partner, but also provides some avenues for my daughters in the event anything happens to me relating to things like inheritance, asset transfer and other things

Gwen Cooper

TheDoc wrote: »

Oh I am legally m daughters father, and I'm on the birthcert.

But for things like inheritance and some other bits, that are a default applied in the scenario of a married couple, it is not in the situation of an unmarried couple. So I need to go through a court with paperwork where I'm then deemed under the states eyes as a proper guardian in the event something happens to my partner, but also provides some avenues for my daughters in the event anything happens to me relating to things like inheritance, asset transfer and other things

Thanks for clarifying

Still seems like a lot of unnecessary hassle :rolleyes:

Potatoeman

If it’s morally wrong to force a woman to have a baby and up to six weeks it’s just a fetus then is it not equally immoral to force a man to become a parent against his wishes?

Personally I wouldn’t push for this myself, I’m more interested in how people answer these questions given how clean cut people’s ideas around abortion are but at the same time I think many people support it in theory but wouldn’t necessarily do it themselves.

Potatoeman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suppose it’s up to those people to make their case. If the heavy lifting has been done for then by the repeal activists, then it should be less difficult for them to make their case.

Clean your Room is a reference to Jordan Peterson who is in vogue with right wing types and anti feminist types and anti PC types. They bang on about him as if he’s the answer to something. His big idea is that you shouldn’t look outside for solutions. You should work on self improvement and start by cleaning and beautifying your room. but when there’s an actual problem, his supporters forget all that guff because it’s, well, guff. Grand in theory but useless as a marzipan dildo in real life. Not even worth a mention in this discussion so far, apparently.

He’s a clinical psychologist, his point about cleaning your room is the first step in having your life in order before you take on bigger tasks. “If you can’t keep your room clean, how are you going to fix the world?”. He describes himself as a classical conservative but has very liberal views on freedom I.e. compelled speech is a very dangerous road to go down as it will turn on you eventually, it is the opposite of liberal and you can’t call yourself liberal when following totalitarian ideas. I agree with his liberal views but not all of his conservative views.

Gwen Cooper

Potatoeman wrote: »

If it’s morally wrong to force a woman to have a baby and up to six weeks it’s just a fetus then is it not equally immoral to force a man to become a parent against his wishes?

Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy is something entirely different. The woman is the only one who can be pregnant, there is no male equivalent or pregnancy, so this whole "can't force a woman to be pregnant so why force a man to have a child" is ridiculous.

Cyrus

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy is something entirely different. The woman is the only one who can be pregnant, there is no male equivalent or pregnancy, so this whole "can't force a woman to be pregnant so why force a man to have a child" is ridiculous.

ridiculous is a bit strong, surely you would concede having a child is a much bigger deal than the 9 months of actual pregnancy?

Gwen Cooper

Cyrus wrote: »

ridiculous is a bit strong, surely you would concede having a child is a much bigger deal than the 9 months of actual pregnancy?

It’s more long term and more costly than a pregnancy. However once the child is born, both mother and father have equal responsibilities, so it’s not like she walks away and he has to look after the kid (in most cases anyway).

What I was trying to point out there was that saying that if women can terminate a pregnancy now, men have to have a way out as well is nuts.

Pregnancy and becoming a parent are two different things.

Potatoeman

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy is something entirely different. The woman is the only one who can be pregnant, there is no male equivalent or pregnancy, so this whole "can't force a woman to be pregnant so why force a man to have a child" is ridiculous.

The choice has huge implications on the mans life and will come with expectations too. The point I was making is that given the consequences and that at the early stage of pregnancy that the fetus is not a child yet does the woman have a moral obligation to heavily weigh the fathers wishes if she is prochoice more so than a woman that does not agree with abortion on principle.

Gwen Cooper

Potatoeman wrote: »

The choice has huge implications on the mans life and will come with expectations too. The point I was making is that given the consequences and that at the early stage of pregnancy that the fetus is not a child yet does the woman have a moral obligation to heavily weigh the fathers wishes if she is prochoice more so than a woman that does not agree with abortion on principle.

I know what you mean and I agree to some point that man should be able to make a choice, however I just can't imagine it working in real life.

We have to think of the child's best interests here. How would the poor kid be affected by knowing that daddy doesn't want to have anything to do with him/her?

worded

boombang wrote: »

Takes two to tango.

Idiom

It’s possible to have a solo Tango if you choose

But it usually takes three to tangle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takes_two_to_tango_(idiom)

Potatoeman

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I know what you mean and I agree to some point that man should be able to make a choice, however I just can't imagine it working in real life.

We have to think of the child's best interests here. How would the poor kid be affected by knowing that daddy doesn't want to have anything to do with him/her?

I’m not talking about after the child is born I’m talking about when making the decision to keep the child or not. Reread the post.

Gwen Cooper

Potatoeman wrote: »

I’m not talking about after the child is born I’m talking about when making the decision to keep the child or not. Reread the post.

I know, but logically, if there is an abortion, the child is never born. If the man chooses to have this financial abortion thing, the child will be born and eventually will be asking questions about their father and will get the answers sooner or later.

That's the thing that bugs me about this. If the woman has an abortion, the pregnancy is terminated and that's the end of it for all parties involved.

If the woman doesn't have an abortion, there is a new person coming into this world. This person would be affected by the father walking out.

yourdeadwright

Paper abortion will be a thing in Sweden and Denmark within the next 10 years,
Basically women have a right to opt out and men don't ,A women can abort a child a man wants to keep and even put a child up for adoption even if the father wants to keep it, So its seen a way to get more equality where the man also has a choice ,
They plan is to make it the a choice for men to opt out in the first 12 weeks pregnancy pretty much the same as a women can decide to have abortion .If the choice is made before the 12 week mark the Father is abandoning a foetus not a child ,Well that is the argument
, That way a women will know where they stand and have the right of choice to continue or abort,
Must arguments put forward for not going ahead with it are already dealt with in adoption and abortion so the polls seem to favour it being voted in if it goes to polls in Denmark and Sweden
Time will tell if it works or not ,