nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

gozunda

ForestFire wrote: »

I presume the whole point of this thread is that if the referendum is passed to give the Choices to women for abortion, will men have any active say in this?

As highlighted by a number of other posters- many other countries face these issues and where necessary offer a legal route for such situations if and where required. Why again are we attempting to shoehorn a totalitarian Irish solution to a universal issue I wonder?

The referendum as it stands allows for both the rights for both women and couples who seek abortion services to make the right decision based on the circumstances and the reality of the woman having to endure the consequences of a pregnancy etc.

I don't think anyone is going to vote against the referendum, if they believe in choice for both men and women, but only women will get choice. They are not going to block choice for women just because they don't get it.??

I dont agree that the referendum is about only giving 'choice' to women and from some of the posts on Boards- I'm not sure you are correct in the summation as to why people will or will not vote in the referendum.

The rights for men is a further step on from the referendum and women rights??

Where did it say that? Did the ending of slavery negate the needs of rights of women for universal suffrage?

SusieBlue

Owlette wrote: »

I'm glad u asked this question, I was always wondering if the man wanted to keep the baby what would happen. I would b 100% in favour of the male having as much equal rights as a woman. After all women are fighting for equality on everything. I think abortion is totally wrong in the 1st place. Imagine to b able abort a baby up.to 12 weeks old just doesn't bear thinking about. I'm a mother now of a baby a week old and everytime I look at my baby I say how could someone even think about getting rid. There is other options rather than abortion it's so wrong. Our lady said and I quote "as long as there is the killing of the child in the womb there will never be peace in the world". Next they will start getting rid of the older generation. And now pubs opening Good Friday. We have gone v liberal altogether..so yes the man father /boyfriend/partner etc should have as much right as the woman to keep the child.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be in a position to welcome an unplanned baby into their lives.
Good for you that you are enjoying and embracing motherhood, but once again, circumstances aren't the same for everyone.

And for what its worth, I would never ever get an abortion myself. But I wholly support other womens right to choice and don't believe that my beliefs should be forced on the whole of society.

I have no idea what relevance pubs being open on Good Friday has to the referendum. But its a bit like abortion - if you don't want to go to the pub that day, don't go. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
But other people should be able to get one/go to the pub even if you don't want to, because not everyone shares your beliefs.

gozunda

Owlette wrote: »

I'm glad u asked this question, I was always wondering if the man wanted to keep the baby what would happen. I would b 100% in favour of the male having as much equal rights as a woman. After all women are fighting for equality on everything. I think abortion is totally wrong in the 1st place. Imagine to b able abort a baby up.to 12 weeks old just doesn't bear thinking about. I'm a mother now of a baby a week old and everytime I look at my baby I say how could someone even think about getting rid. There is other options rather than abortion it's so wrong. Our lady said and I quote "as long as there is the killing of the child in the womb there will never be peace in the world". Next they will start getting rid of the older generation. And now pubs opening Good Friday. We have gone v liberal altogether..so yes the man father /boyfriend/partner etc should have as much right as the woman to keep the child.

So you're ok with abortion where both the woman and man agree to that decision 50/50?

I think we can leave out the RC dogma as a rational argument tbh at this stage

njs030

Owlette wrote: »

. Our lady said and I quote "as long as there is the killing of the child in the womb there will never be peace in the world"

You're not quoting at all though. You're quoting a story that was written many years after she died and has been translated multiple times so could be completely different.

There's no point quoting unless it's a direct quote from the person themselves and is unreasonable as an argument tbh.

meeeeh

littlevillage wrote: »

I would support a mandatory consultation with the father in all cases where the father would be the automatic gaurdian of the unborn child...eg. married or in a long term relationship....and 'where possible' in more casual arrangements.

this is currently the law with regard to children seeking Social Welfare support, so it seems sensible to me.

I would support a full psychological wellness assessment of the mother where she requested an abortion against the wishes of the father (or indeed other members of her family). I am thinking here primarily of a mother who might suffer mood swings, depression, bipolar etc. and might be prone to making a rash out of character decision.

This is a well thought out position. Of course you are also saying that if husband or partner rapes the woman, he should have automatic say in what to do with the pregnancy. But sure it's minor inconvenience, the wife or gf will get over it.

You are also assuming that woman is mentally ill if she wants an abortion against the wishes of her family. And you are also claiming that a grown woman has to ask permission other members of the family.

Yesterday I was trolling the thread because of some nonsense contributions but this is actually getting sinister.

up for anything

littlevillage wrote: »

This thread has sadly (but inevitably) gone a good bit off topic.

The question originally posed was do/should fathers have any rights when it comes to abortion?

My own opinion is that if the Abortion referendum is carried fathers will have absolutely zero input and will actually be required to pony up the cash should the woman request an Abortion, whether they agree with it or not or whether they are in a relationship with the mother or not....should the mother even deem them worthy of informing. This is Ireland, the land of the Matriarchs.

I don't aggree with this and would like some kind of input from the father, supported in law.... maybe not an outright veto in a case where there is a disagreement....but certainly something more than a casual observer.

In 99.9% cases things will be aggreed amoung the couple themselves, and worked out to everyones satisfaction, but you just know there will be "hard cases" where the law will be required.

I would support a mandatory consultation with the father in all cases where the father would be the automatic gaurdian of the unborn child...eg. married or in a long term relationship....and 'where possible' in more casual arrangements.

this is currently the law with regard to children seeking Social Welfare support, so it seems sensible to me.

I would support a full psychological wellness assessment of the mother where she requested an abortion against the wishes of the father (or indeed other members of her family). I am thinking here primarily of a mother who might suffer mood swings, depression, bipolar etc. and might be prone to making a rash out of character decision.

You're pretty strange.

"This is Ireland, the land of the Matriarchs." How long has it been the land of the Matriarchs? Since marital rape was made illegal in 1990? Or perhaps since only two cases have been successfully prosecuted in Ireland in the 28 years since 1990? Would it have been since 1970 when women no longer had to give up their jobs in the civil service or banks when they got married? Or perhaps since the last Magadalene Laundry closed in 1996? Or 1974 when women were allowed collect the Childrens Allowance? Or when women won the right to sit on a jury in 1976? Or when the Family Home Protection Act of 1976 came into being so a husband couldn't sell the family home out from under his family even when his wife was the only person paying the mortgage? Or since the Kerry Babies case apology a couple of weeks ago? Or perhaps when you bring to bear that "any woman who requests an abortion against the wishes of her father or INDEED OTHER MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY" (whatever the fuck they have to do with it) who might suffer from mood swings (ooooh if you have your period you're fucked legally except then you wouldn't be pregnant) or depression or suffers from a mental illness which can be treated or "makes a rash out of character decision can be forced to have a full pyschological wellness assessment" (is that by the panel of six psychiatrists?) and then what... let's reopen the Magdalene Laundries only this time to force women to bear babies they don't want.

Land of the Matriarchs, my hole! :mad:

My daughter kept her baby and the child's father got to opt out at 13 weeks into the pregnancy when she turned down Ed Sheeran tickets in return for an abortion. He's stayed well clear since as have his parents (except for a couple of tourist visits). However, if I as his grandmother and his second main carer want to apply for guardianship of him she would have to seek his 'father's' permission or failing to find him his parents' permission! Also if the father decides at any time that he wants back in then all he has to do is apply to the courts for visitation to start with. Very fucking matriarchal.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet I suspect what is in discussion here is really allowing a father to abdicate FINANCIAL responsibility over a child. Because any father, at any time, can simply walk out on pretty much every other responsibility to their child. And many have and do.

Choosing to walk out on their children does not absolve anyone of any legal responsibility towards their child. You can go to the other end of the earth if you like and you would still have legal responsibilities towards your child. The fact that a parent doesn't want to acknowledge their legal parental responsibilities does not absolve them of those legal responsibilities,

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So while I feel research that suggests biological parents are actually a benefit is thin on the ground and not even remotely as conclusive as you appear to suggest...... in fact there is no research conclusively showing that a child really benefits from having a mother and father specifically at all..... let alone that they have the original biological ones............. I still question it's relevance here. We ALREADY live in a society where a father or mother can abdicate pretty much all responsibility at any time.

You question the relevance of your own strawman argument? I do too, because I said that a child benefits from a relationship with both their biological parents, I didn't say anything about other parental configurations.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fact despite you claiming earlier in the thread that "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children." they do it all the time. I could walk out of my house tomorrow and go and live alone, and despite an obligation to pay certain financial contributions I would never have to see or hear anything from my children again. And in fact, to mention a second example, adoption does exactly that too. If someone adopts my child, I now have abdicated all parental responsibility to that child going forward.

Therefore....

Your poor understanding of the law in relation to adoption isn't helping your lack of an argument. A child cannot be placed for an adoption without the consent of both parents for starters, and adoption is not the same as child abandonment, which is what you're actually suggesting you should legally be able to do. Nobody has that right.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

....I am not sure the child has that "right" in the first place so the below is not a rebuttal so much as a thinking out loud that I feel is representative of many a lay-person to this discussion. But as a starting point could you point me to the relevant text asserting that right, as I admit ignorance of it here. For example if a woman gets pregnant and has the child as a single parent.... and she knows who the father is..... but refuses to tell anyone at all even the child........ can she be legally compelled to do so? If she can not, then does the "right" you speak of exist anywhere except in your head?

Articles 9 and 10 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -

Article 9 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

4.Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

Article 10 1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under Article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under Article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the ights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

Your example btw is just silly. It has nothing to do with whether or not a man should be granted the legal right to abdicate his legal responsibilities towards his child.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Why not we are all for equality aren't we? If your going to treat men as sperm donor then you may as well legislate for the option.

Frankly, no. Personally speaking, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in gender equality, but aspirations towards gender equality can only be pursued in circumstances where men and women are treated unequally in law. There is no gender inequality inherent in the fact that because of biological differences between the sexes in relation to reproduction, giving men the equal right to abortion would be a futile exercise as there is no risk of them ever becoming pregnant in the first place.

The law isn't treating men as sperm donors, and you're not asking that the law doesn't treat men merely as sperm donors. Suggesting that men should be allowed to absolve themselves of their parental responsibilities, is reducing men to the role of a sperm donor.

We only recently had a post in one of our threads where a woman had unprotected sex with a guy so she could produce a baby without his knowledge, in the case the woman didnt want any help from the guy but what if she did?

I don't know, how can anyone possibly know the outcome of something that never happened?

It would be like suggesting that if a man were able to compel a woman to continue her pregnancy and she had a miscarriage, he should then be compensated for his loss. I do hope you understand the point of that analogy - we do not treat people like property, and therefore a man will never be granted the right to compel a woman either to have an abortion, or to continue her pregnancy against her will.

Bur, if a woman continues her pregnancy against his will, then he is obliged to maintain the child when it is established that he is the child's father. I guess that answers your hypothetical question too. The existence of a child means that neither parent has the right to simply abandon their child. There's your equal rights too as far as gender equality is concerned.

ForestFire

gozunda wrote: »

As highlighted by a number of other posters- many other countries face these issues and where necessary offer a legal route for such situations if and where required. Why again are we attempting to shoehorn a totalitarian Irish solution to a universal issue I wonder?

Where did it say that? Did the ending of slavery negate the needs of rights of women for universal suffrage?

I never said you said it, it was a further question from me.

If I fundamentally agree with abortion to 12 weeks, I have no problem enable the rights of women now and ensuring there is choice for them to do this as an immediate concern.

I would just like there to be an awareness and understanding of how we further address men's rights.

And again I have no problem if this is address later in some other form.

Its important to get over the first major hurdle first and then the further issues can be addressed after this. (Lets just not forget about them)

What I do have a problem with is the people that say "Feck Men", they have no say, but they will support the child regardless etc etc.

Add again to stress, I am only talking about the man's right to not be involved in a pregnancy/birth/child (I am not suggest men have a right to ask women to continue with pregnancy)

drunkmonkey

gozunda wrote: »

So you're ok with abortion where both the woman and man agree to that decision 50/50?

Some % weight should be given to the one fighting for survival, hence dad and junior should have some say in the outcome. Given a full 50% to the woman isn't fair on the other two.
Again I'll say that's within an existing relationship when the risks are known.

I've seen what abortion can do to a man. He can grieve a lot more than the woman and has no say whatsoever.

If someone has lost a child, parent, best friend they'll understand grief and it's long lasting effect. One who's also seen a 12 week scan will also understand the huge ramifications of what's about to happen to everyone involved.

Yes the 8th needs to be replaced, full 12 weeks for any reason will be a lot tougher sell.
I find it kind of contemptuous the pro side are all about getting out the younger vote as the key to winning. A lot won't fully grasp what there about to do, if you look at the first row of the protestors I'd say the average age is 20.

I'm not sure how I voted the last time I think on the yes side as I was fully individual rights, tbh I can't even remember what the deal we were actually voting for was but looking back i'm glad it didn't happen as there's people in my life now I suspect wouldn't have made it past 12 weeks.

I honestly don't know what way to vote, will wait until we have the full details.

I don't think it'll stop trips to the UK or further afield depending on how far along the woman is gone, it's a little island and some women will want the privacy going gives.

Mutant z

Well women can't fall pregnant without a man so of course they should get a look in the final decision should rest with the mother however.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

Mutant z wrote: »

Well women can't fall pregnant without a man so of course they should get a look in the final decision should rest with the mother however.

How they get that lookin is the question when the auld come on Mary I'll buy you some chips doesn't work.

nozzferrahhtoo

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I said I believe it's the case, I also said I don't know enough about it. I'm not fabricating truths.

I was not referring to you at all. Sorry if you thought I was. It was a reference to the person who claimed "a childs right to a relationship with one of their biological parent". I see no reason to think they have any such right. Not just to a relationship, but I am doubtful they even have a right sometimes to know who that parent even is in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Choosing to walk out on their children does not absolve anyone of any legal responsibility towards their child.

I did not say LEGAL responsibility though, and neither did you in the exact sentence I was referring to in that post which was "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children.". LEGAL responsibility would be a subset of "Parental Responsibilities" as would FINANCIAL responsibilities which I did in fact say.

But it might help if you could give some examples of it, to be clearer what you are talking about. Rather than arbitrary terms we might be talking past each other with different meanings of.

If I was in Ireland and I left my partner and children and went to live alone...... then aside from the financial contributions I am legally required to make..... what other legal responsibilities are you speaking of specifically?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You question the relevance of your own strawman argument? I do too, because I said that a child benefits from a relationship with both their biological parents, I didn't say anything about other parental configurations.

Nor did I say you did, so the straw is yours and yours alone. The "Other parental configurations" was related to a comment from me on just how poor the actual research..... which you refereed to but have not cited at all........ is on the topic of the benefit of a relationship with specifically ones biological parents.

YOU are claiming that "research suggests that it's actually better for children to develop a relationship with their biological parents" and I am pointing out that not only is there not much research claiming that at all....... there is in fact research showing the exact opposite in terms of the success of parental configurations of all sorts that do NOT involve the biological parents. There is no data that a child even needs specifically a mother or a father, let alone THEIR mother and father. And research showing, for example, that some children even do BETTER with homosexual parents. So what research you are referring to specifically is anyone's guess. I am happy to cite mine on request, perhaps you would too.

So not only am I not convinced the "right" you have spoken of exists..... I am questioning it's relevance and utility even if it did. I am not seeing a right OR a benefit around children having a relationship with specifically their biological parent.

But SPECIFICALLY what I was questioning the relevance of was the relevance of the child's relationships with a parents in a conversation where people are talking about a method by which the father can abdicate FINANCIAL responsibility to a child he does not want. What has his relationship with a such a child got to do with THAT point?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your poor understanding of the law in relation to adoption isn't helping your lack of an argument. A child cannot be placed for an adoption without the consent of both parents for starters, and adoption is not the same as child abandonment, which is what you're actually suggesting you should legally be able to do. Nobody has that right.

You are fabricating my lack of understanding however as nothing I said was related to, for example, "the consent of both parents". You are basically referring to things that have nothing to do with my point, and I never said or referred to, and somehow acting like the evidence my lack of understanding rather than yours.

AGAIN you said that "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children." and I am pointing out that if we successfully put our children up for adoption, and the children are adopted, then I no longer have any parental responsibilities towards those children. So I have in fact in that situation done EXACTLY what you just claimed I could not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your example btw is just silly. It has nothing to do with whether or not a man should be granted the legal right to abdicate his legal responsibilities towards his child.

So my question suddenly becomes "silly" when you do not want to answer it. Well how convenient for you but alas I know of more than one situation where exactly that is in play. People who never knew their father, want to, but the mother refuses to inform them who he is/was. If they in fact have a way to legally compel her to reveal it I would be quite grateful of the possibility of informing them of this. So it is win-win for me to enter the conversation at this point regardless of which direction it goes.

So the question still stands. While countries signed up to UN Conventions are MEANT to comply by it, they do not always do they? That is why they have to show up and "periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention".

YOU claim that child has some right to a relationship with it's parents. And I am not rebutting you but simply saying I have no idea if your claim is true or not. And the text you cited does not address that query at all.

So if this right actually exists in our law then point me to our law. And to test it, answer my example rather than use words like "silly" to dismiss it out of convienience. A woman is living alone and the father is long gone. The child reaches whatever age and demands to know who it's father is. The mother decides not to tell the child who the father is.

But since according to you the child has a right to a relationship with said parent, what would the child's next step IN LAW IN IRELAND be to assert that right? What are the steps and specific laws that would come into play at that point?

If there is such a law great. If not then should there be? And if not then how real is this "right" you speak of? Or is the "right" very contextual and specific to things like adoption only as Seamus seems to have suggested above?

Plus I think the parts you bolded do not read to me in the same was as I suspect they read to you. For example "A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents."

That reads to me as a right to MAINTAIN such a relationship. Not a right TO such a relationship. Which are two very different things. It would be like the difference between me saying "I have a right to maintain my friendship with Joe Bloggs" and "I have a right TO a friendship with Joe Bloggs". I am reading your bolded text like the former, your claims about a child's right to a relationship with a parent makes me suspect you are reading it like the latter.

In other words it reads to me like the child who wishes to seek such a relationship has a right to unencumbered by the state. It is NOT saying the child has a right TO that relationship in and of itself though. Very very different things. And if a parent refuses such a relationship, I do not see that the child has a right to it. Certainly not in the text you have cited.

Calhoun

up for anything wrote: »

My daughter kept her baby and the child's father got to opt out at 13 weeks into the pregnancy when she turned down Ed Sheeran tickets in return for an abortion. He's stayed well clear since as have his parents (except for a couple of tourist visits). However, if I as his grandmother and his second main carer want to apply for guardianship of him she would have to seek his 'father's' permission or failing to find him his parents' permission! Also if the father decides at any time that he wants back in then all he has to do is apply to the courts for visitation to start with. Very fucking matriarchal.

Horrible as this is its the other side of a coin in Ireland, in ways it might be the better thing for men of Ireland to do. Just vanish and make no contact even if it means that your let a mortgage collapse and a family home go into repocession.

Going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean that you will pay for a house you dont live in, pay for maintenance for a child you get to see on the weekends if your lucky. You can have protection orders or be dragged to court ect on very little evidence and be cut out completely.

Until we drag our court system out of the past and place equal responsibility and trust in parents things wont get any better as current system does not drive people to go by the book.

_Dara_

Yes, men should have a say. The couple (or whatever they are, if it's a casual scenario) should absolutely be able to sit down and discuss it.

Here's where it gets tricky in my mind though. Say a man and a woman finding themselves in this situation have talked it through. They thrashed it out, considered both viewpoints. Say at that point that she is still convinced she wants to abort, he wants her to have the baby. These are their final positions. What is the solution here? By its nature, this scenario can't be equal. One person has to get their way, for want of a better phrase. What is the solution here? In this situation, I'd tend to lean towards the woman having a greater say if only because she is the one who is at a physical risk, however slight it might be. Medical complications of pregnancy might be more rare now, dying in childbirth even rarer. However, they still do happen. She could be one of them.

Then, there's the idea of legal abortion, which I think has legs. It's too soon for it to happen. It would not go down well currently. But early in a pregnancy, if a man wants to decide to "legally abort", I think that seems fair enough. There should be a strict time limit on that too though. So that if a man decided he wanted to have nothing to do with the baby, the mother has time to decide whether she wants to proceed with the pregnancy from there.

EDIT: But absolutely no way should a woman be forced to go through with a pregnancy. I've never heard anything so chilling in my life. Think of how you would go about achieving that. It would take STASI-style monitoring of the woman's movements, for starters.

drunkmonkey

Ed has a lot to answer for.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor did I say you did, so the straw is yours and yours alone. The "Other parental configurations" was related to a comment from me on just how poor the actual research..... which you refereed to but have not cited at all........ is on the topic of the benefit of a relationship with specifically ones biological parents.

YOU are claiming that "research suggests that it's actually better for children to develop a relationship with their biological parents" and I am pointing out that not only is there not much research claiming that at all....... there is in fact research showing the exact opposite in terms of the success of parental configurations of all sorts that do NOT involve the biological parents. There is no data that a child even needs specifically a mother or a father, let alone THEIR mother and father. And research showing, for example, that some children even do BETTER with homosexual parents. So what research you are referring to specifically is anyone's guess. I am happy to cite mine on request, perhaps you would too.

So not only am I not convinced the "right" you have spoken of exists..... I am questioning it's relevance and utility even if it did. I am not seeing a right OR a benefit around children having a relationship with specifically their biological parent.

You're doing it again. You're building a strawman because the context in which we're talking about here is the child's relationship with their biological parents, and the lack of a relationship with one of their biological parents is the comparative factor. There was never any comparison made between any parental configurations apart from whether it is more beneficial to a child to have a relationship with both their biological parents, as opposed to the absence of a relationship with one or indeed both their biological parents.

You are fabricating my lack of understanding however as nothing I said was related to, for example, "the consent of both parents". You are basically referring to things that have nothing to do with my point, and I never said or referred to, and somehow acting like the evidence my lack of understanding rather than yours.

AGAIN you said that "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children." and I am pointing out that if we successfully put our children up for adoption, and the children are adopted, then I no longer have any parental responsibilities towards those children. So I have in fact in that situation done EXACTLY what you just claimed I could not.

I don't have to fabricate ignorance for you at all when you don't appear to be able to understand the difference between child abandonment and adoption.

So my question suddenly becomes "silly" when you do not want to answer it. Well how convenient for you but alas I know of more than one situation where exactly that is in play. People who never knew their father, want to, but the mother refuses to inform them who he is/was. If they in fact have a way to legally compel her to reveal it I would be quite grateful of the possibility of informing them of this. So it is win-win for me to enter the conversation at this point regardless of which direction it goes.

Your question didn't become silly. It was silly to begin with, and you would be compounding such silliness were you ever to take legal advice from people on the Internet. You should encourage your friend to consult with their solicitor if they haven't done so already.

So the question still stands. While countries signed up to UN Conventions are MEANT to comply by it, they do not always do they? That is why they have to show up and "periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention".

No, it's true that the State does not always comply with it's obligations, but that does not absolve the State of it's obligations, any more than a man is absolved of his obligations towards his child just because he doesn't want to meet his obligations.

YOU claim that child has some right to a relationship with it's parents. And I am not rebutting you but simply saying I have no idea if your claim is true or not. And the text you cited does not address that query at all.

So if this right actually exists in our law then point me to our law. And to test it, answer my example rather than use words like "silly" to dismiss it out of convienience. A woman is living alone and the father is long gone. The child reaches whatever age and demands to know who it's father is. The mother decides not to tell the child who the father is.

But since according to you the child has a right to a relationship with said parent, what would the child's next step IN LAW IN IRELAND be to assert that right? What are the steps and specific laws that would come into play at that point?

The right of a child to a relationship with both their parents is exercised in various statutes, policies and practices in relation to the welfare of children in Ireland. Your example is still silly because any decisions regarding the childs welfare would depend entirely upon the individual circumstances in each case, and any determination would be made with regard to the principle of what is in the best interests of the child in each case. The text I cited does address this, in black and white. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge it really isn't my problem.

If there is such a law great. If not then should there be? And if not then how real is this "right" you speak of? Or is the "right" very contextual and specific to things like adoption only as Seamus seems to have suggested above?

Plus I think the parts you bolded do not read to me in the same was as I suspect they read to you. For example "A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents."

That reads to me as a right to MAINTAIN such a relationship. Not a right TO such a relationship. Which are two very different things. It would be like the difference between me saying "I have a right to maintain my friendship with Joe Bloggs" and "I have a right TO a friendship with Joe Bloggs". I am reading your bolded text like the former, your claims about a child's right to a relationship with a parent makes me suspect you are reading it like the latter.

In other words it reads to me like the child who wishes to seek such a relationship has a right to unencumbered by the state. It is NOT saying the child has a right TO that relationship in and of itself though. Very very different things. And if a parent refuses such a relationship, I do not see that the child has a right to it. Certainly not in the text you have cited.

Obviously how you choose to interpret what is written is your own business, and I can't be held accountable for how you choose to interpret anything, which is why I was only willing to demonstrate that the right does exist, and after that you're on your own tbh, no need to be dragging anyone else into your misunderstanding in an attempt to legitimise it.

Riskymove

_Dara_ wrote: »

EDIT: But absolutely no way should a woman be forced to go through with a pregnancy. I've never heard anything so chilling in my life. Think of how you would go about achieving that. It would take STASI-style monitoring of the woman's movements, for starters.

basically if you think about it it simply can't work. A woman cannot be subjugated to the man's decision on the matter, as the woman is the one who is preganant effectively you would be allowing the man the say on what happens

the only real issue here that could be explored is the right of a man to walk away and not be subject to any liability for an unwanted pregnancy in certain circumstances.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're doing it again. You're building a strawman because the context in which we're talking about here is the child's relationship with their biological parents

Yes, and that is why there is no straw man. I am responding to YOUR claim that "research suggests that it's actually better for children to develop a relationship with their biological parents" by pointing out A) I have seen no such research and now you are not providing it when asked and

I have seen (and on other threads cited) much research showing the exact opposite, including research on families with other structures.

That is not a straw man, it is a direct rebuttal of your claim. Straw man does not mean "Failure to agree with me".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't have to fabricate ignorance for you at all when you don't appear to be able to understand the difference between child abandonment and adoption.

But that is what you are fabricating exactly. As my point was not even ABOUT the difference between the two. So you can not imply ignorance from a point I did not ever actually make.

My point is about how you claimed that "neither men nor women can abdicate their parental responsibilities towards the child or children." and I am showing that through adoption, for just one example, they can do EXACTLY that.

Adbicate: to give up or renounce (authority, duties, an office, etc.), especially in a voluntary, public, or formal manner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your question didn't become silly. It was silly to begin with, and you would be compounding such silliness were you ever to take legal advice from people on the Internet. You should encourage your friend to consult with their solicitor if they haven't done so already. No, it's true that the State does not always comply with it's obligations, but that does not absolve the State of it's obligations, any more than a man is absolved of his obligations towards his child just because he doesn't want to meet his obligations. The right of a child to a relationship with both their parents is exercised in various statutes, policies and practices in relation to the welfare of children in Ireland. Your example is still silly because any decisions regarding the childs welfare would depend entirely upon the individual circumstances in each case, and any determination would be made with regard to the principle of what is in the best interests of the child in each case. The text I cited does address this, in black and white. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge it really isn't my problem. Obviously how you choose to interpret what is written is your own business, and I can't be held accountable for how you choose to interpret anything, which is why I was only willing to demonstrate that the right does exist, and after that you're on your own tbh, no need to be dragging anyone else into your misunderstanding in an attempt to legitimise it.

Again calling a question silly just because you do not want to answer it, does not magically make the question silly. If you do not want to, or can not answer it, then fine. I can not either. So it is not slight on you. But let us not insult both of our intelligences by pretending your not answering it has anything to do with the question itself. It is not being answered because NEITHER of us has an answer to give. The difference is, I am the one being honest about that.

The simple fact is your cited text does NOT answer the question asked. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge that really isn't my problem. It remains a fact none the less. Nothing you have cited shows the child has a right TO such a relationship, just a right to MAINTAIN such a relationship. As I said there is a large difference between me saying "I have a right to maintain my friendship with Joe Bloggs" and "I have a right TO a friendship with Joe Bloggs". The text you cited clearly refers to a right to MAINTAIN such a relationship. Not a right to HAVE such a relationship. So you have not demonstrated the right exists OR that I have a misunderstanding you want to fallaciously suggest I am attempting to legitimize.

The text you cited is about the state affording the child the rights to maintain such a relationship. So, for example, if the parents live in different states the state will do nothing to impede that relationship. NOTHING you cited.... like nothing at all.... suggests the child has a right TO that relationship in the first place however. Just the maintenance of it should be facilitated if it does exist. The text simply does not support your claims.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Horrible as this is its the other side of a coin in Ireland, in ways it might be the better thing for men of Ireland to do. Just vanish and make no contact even if it means that your let a mortgage collapse and a family home go into repocession.

Going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean that you will pay for a house you dont live in, pay for maintenance for a child you get to see on the weekends if your lucky. You can have protection orders or be dragged to court ect on very little evidence and be cut out completely.

Until we drag out court system out of the past and place equal responsibility and trust in parents things wont get any better as current system does not drive people to go by the book.

You won't address any of the issues you've raised though by suggesting that men should be able to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. Surely if your argument consists of the fact that you're claiming men are denied access to their children, then how is abandoning their children supposed to address that?

You're suggesting that going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean you will pay for a house you don't live in, pay maintenance for a child you don't get to see, be subjected to protection orders on the basis of very little evidence, and cut out completely. The judicial system already does place equal responsibility on both parents for their children's welfare, because the courts are acting in the best interests of the child, not in the best interests of the parents, so it's absolutely not true to say that solely by virtue of the fact that they are a man, men are treated unfairly by the courts. There's obviously more to it than that, and I have never once heard a parent of either sex admit they were treated fairly by the courts.

The courts already place equal responsibility and trust in both parents, but what you're arguing for in relation to giving men the right to abandon their children, is the right to abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and why should anyone trust anyone who would want to do such a thing? That's why the courts have to enforce orders to at least make fathers financially responsible for their children, because it is in the best interests of the child.

What you're suggesting is simply spiteful because a minority of men can't have everything their own way. That's not equality!

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The courts already place equal responsibility and trust in both parents, but what you're arguing for in relation to giving men the right to abandon their children, is the right to abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and why should anyone trust anyone who would want to do such a thing? That's why the courts have to enforce orders to at least make fathers financially responsible for their children, because it is in the best interests of the child.

The distinction between a fetus and a child becomes important here though. I do not think many people ARE advocating allowing men to "abandon their responsibilities towards their children". If the man HAS children he very much should be held to his responsibilities to them.

However people on this thread appear to be talking about a fetus, and discussing whether a possible system is attainable by which a man can reject taking on or being given such responsibilities in the first place. To say, at a stage early enough for the woman to action it (for example through abortion) that they do not want to become a parent.

As for what is in "the best interests of the child" I would say a good starting point is to be born to parent(s) who actually WANT to be it's parent(s) and who have signed up to, and committed themselves to, the process from the outset, and are not here parenting for no other reason than being legally forced to.

So I have no objections to offer against the idea in and of itself that there could be a window during which someone could veto the process of officially becoming a parent. Any strong rebuttal to such a system for me is likely to come from the angle of how workable it would or could be. But certainly, to go back to the core subject of the actual thread, I do not think we will attain such a system by giving the woman anything but 100% say as to whether to abort or not. A man who does not want to become a father should have no ability to compel, let alone force, a woman to abort. Nor should be have the remotest capability to veto such an abortion.

Triceratops Ballet

Calhoun wrote: »

Horrible as this is its the other side of a coin in Ireland, in ways it might be the better thing for men of Ireland to do. Just vanish and make no contact even if it means that your let a mortgage collapse and a family home go into repocession.

Going by the book as a man in Ireland generally will mean that you will pay for a house you dont live in, pay for maintenance for a child you get to see on the weekends if your lucky. You can have protection orders or be dragged to court ect on very little evidence and be cut out completely.

Until we drag out court system out of the past and place equal responsibility and trust in parents things wont get any better as current system does not drive people to go by the book.

What you seem to be talking about here is different, and is not the same as signing away rights at birth. Parents are required to support their born children. Opting out and letting the mortgage collapse after a relationship breakdown is very different to opting out post conception pre birth.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However people on this thread appear to be talking about a fetus, and discussing whether a possible system is attainable by which a man can reject taking on or being given such responsibilities in the first place. To say, at a stage early enough for the woman to action it (for example through abortion) that they do not want to become a parent.

He can't, obviously, if the outcome of her decision is that a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy and give birth to a child, in spite of his objections. Then the argument is about the rights of the child versus allowing for a man to have no responsibility towards their child. It has nothing in those circumstances to do with abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He can't, obviously, if the outcome of her decision is that a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy and give birth to a child, in spite of his objections. Then the argument is about the rights of the child versus allowing for a man to have no responsibility towards their child. It has nothing in those circumstances to do with abortion.

Exactly. It is two different conversations overlapping. But since the thread is ABOUT the man's right with regards abortion and the rules of the forum require us to keep to the topic, it is worth tying the two back to each other.

The conversation people are having is about whether the man BEFORE he has a child can refuse taking on the responsibility for a child. Clearly we agree he should not attain that scenario by being able to compel the woman to have an abortion. So we, and most of the thread, appear to have 100% common ground there. Or at least those who do not share that common ground have offered us little as to what they DO envision.... which has promoted the "Well do you want to chain them to raidators" type comment from those trying to elicit an explanation from them.

So the questions left seem to be:

1) Is there good argument for allowing a man, within a certain time window, to officially disavow himself from attaining responsibilities to a child he does not want and does not yet actually have.

2) If so, then is such a system workable and realistic in reality? Especially given a woman could simply keep the pregnancy secret until such a time window has passed.

I think the answer to 1 is yes, and the answer to 2 is that I genuinely do not know.

Triceratops Ballet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) Is there good argument for allowing a man, within a certain time window, to officially disavow himself from attaining responsibilities to a child he does not want and does not yet actually have.

2) If so, then is such a system workable and realistic in reality? Especially given a woman could simply keep the pregnancy secret until such a time window has passed.

I think the answer to 1 is yes, and the answer to 2 is that I genuinely do not know.

as regards 2, there's so much to consider, if it's to be an equal measure to abortion then it has to be as permanent, so that would mean no room to change your mind, one can't have a deathbed turnaround, or rock up when a later child of theirs needs a kidney and the abandoned child might be a match, it would mean that any grand parents/ aunties and uncles would have no claim or right to be involved, but at the same time is it fair on the child at a later date to prevent them having those relationships if they want them and both child and estranged father/family member are willing.

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the question still stands. While countries signed up to UN Conventions are MEANT to comply by it, they do not always do they? That is why they have to show up and "periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention".

It's worth noting that conventions are much broader and more general than any constitutional or national law. The intent of the statements should be taken as a whole rather than broken down and interpreted as self-standing groups of sub-statements.

Article 9, for example, which states

Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

may potentially be interpreted as a "right to know your parents". However, it's very clear that the intention of the entire article is to protect the best interests of a child where they've been removed from their parents by the state.
Thus the "right to personal relations" only applies in the context of the child having been legally removed from either parent by the state.

It doesn't apply to a child who has been abandoned by a parent.

The most relevant article is actually article 7, which states:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

But again, taking context into account one would surmise that this article's purpose is to protect the personhood of the child and avoid situations where a child could become stateless or legally non-existent; either intentionally or accidentally.

A parent being able to legally disassociate oneself from the child wouldn't necessarily contravene this article; especially since the convention doesn't actually make a distinction between biological or non-biological parents and also explicitly recognises and protects cultural differences in regards to how children may be raised.

So it's far from an iron-clad thing.

2) If so, then is such a system workable and realistic in reality? Especially given a woman could simply keep the pregnancy secret until such a time window has passed.

I guess any such system has to operate within the "as far as is practicable" boundaries. Yes, a woman could keep a pregnancy secret until the cut-off, and since we can't manipulate space and time, there's not much one can do about that, and the man is going to have to suck it up and accept he's a father. In kind of the same way that a woman may not realise she's pregnant until after any abortion limit; she's left with no choice but to become a parent.

Not perfect, not fair, but neither is life. You could make it a criminal offence to knowingly withhold the information from the other parent, but realistically how many pregnant women are we going to prosecute on that?

There are other tweaks of course that can be done - provide an unlimited window in which a man can have his parental status verified and added to the birth certificate. Remove any concept of historic maintenance payments - maintenance only becomes payable at the point where the man becomes aware he has a child, and so forth.

nozzferrahhtoo

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

as regards 2, there's so much to consider, if it's to be an equal measure to abortion then it has to be as permanent, so that would mean no room to change your mind

Yeah the sheer size of that question is likely why I have never engaged with it in depth in the past. People here seem to have their quick answers at one end of the spectrum or the other, but I am not comfortable with that myself. I SUSPECT there is a workable middle ground but it is so far above my pay grade I can not even make out the EURO symbol from here.

One slight disagreement is that with abortion there CAN BE no going back. With this however there can, if both parties agree. Sure the father can not rock back in and demand rights I would imagine. But I can envision situations where he can rock up and REQUEST them and be granted them by other parties such as the mother and/or child themselves.

I think we could facilitate WILLINGNESS on all sides, if not from one side.

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

may potentially be interpreted as a "right to know your parents". However, it's very clear that the intention of the entire article is to protect the best interests of a child where they've been removed from their parents by the state.

seamus wrote: »

A parent being able to legally disassociate oneself from the child wouldn't necessarily contravene this article

Thanks for that, at least I know I am not the only one interpreting things as I am. Not that that proves my interpretation, but it does feel better not to be the only one reading it this way

I think there is a distinction to be made between the right to maintain a relationship, and the right to HAVE that relationship. And the texts cited appear to be related to the former.

The texts cited in an earlier post from OEJ seem to be more related to the states obligation not to hinder the maintenance of such a relationship. Its about the states obligations towards such a relationship in other words. Not the rights of the people involved to HAVE that relationship.

But all that said, I was more asking about Irish Law. In our interpretations (or ignoring) of the UN mandates on this subjects do children in Ireland actually have the "right" that OEJ asserted they do. And I have seen nothing so far to suggest they actually do.

That is not to say they do not. I do not presume to know enough about Irish law to even pretend to be rebutting that assertion. But I am seeing nothing thus far supporting it as anything BUT assertion. Especially if questions are dodged by merely dismissing them as "silly" without showing anything silly about them.