One eyed Jack wrote: » Nobody is curtailing any mans rights that they don't have in the first place. You have yet to establish a convincing argument as to why a man should have the right to abdicate a responsibility he doesn't have in the first place before a child is born, and then establish why he should have a right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child when they are born.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It is generally better for a child to have a relationship with both their biological parents. I'm not even going to argue that with you because to deny it is just ridiculous. What's to discuss? Obviously if something is detrimental to a child's well-being, it isn't in their best interests. No, the intention is to act in the best interests of the child. It's the most basic principle in family law. I don't have to prove that forcing a man to pay maintenance for his children is in the childs best interests because it's obvious that the child benefits from provisions being made for their welfare.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've already pointed out to you that the argument has nothing to do with other types of parenting configurations. It is solely about whether or not the welfare of children is better served by comparing the outcomes of having both biological parents present and involved in the childs life, versus the effects on a child who does not have a relationship with either one of their biological parents.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nobody is removing that right from him. He has every right to say it at least. When he actually becomes a father though, then the rights of the child become relevant and the man no longer has the right not to become a father. He is a father.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't either. However, I see plenty of good for the child in forcing their parents to at least pay maintenance for their children, and you have yet to muster an argument to suggest that it is not in the childs best interests that their parents be forced to pay to maintain their own children. The same would apply if a woman were in a position where she would be compelled to pay maintenance if the child primarily resides with the father and the father requires the payment to maintain the child.
end of the road wrote: » we don't leave people make their own decisian to protect born lives or not themselves.
end of the road wrote: » you have been offered plenty of reasons, but as you don't see the unborn as human, then no argument is going to convince you.
end of the road wrote: » it will develop into a person
end of the road wrote: » therefore it has rights.
ForestFire wrote: » It you see this picture as a not a baby with rights or still just a group of cells, that is perfectly fine.
ForestFire wrote: » (Also look up the development stages week by week to see what functions are and are not developed)
gozunda wrote: » Therin lies the most part of the issue. Women are central to the issue of pregnancy and the consequences that it entails. You may as well say that you are only interested in your rights to swing your fist as you wish - with no concern as to whether someone else's face might be in the way. Your posts to my mind scarily lack any apparent understanding or empathy. However I do not get that you are in anyway 'confused on the matter' at hand at all...
littlevillage wrote: » Whatever kind of deal your daughter/family made with the father of your daughters child, in the eyes of the law the father is financially responsible for the child up until the child is 18 years of age (and 23 in the majority of cases). So what you are saying is simply untrue. Child maintenance is persued by the courts and Gardai with fairly savage zeal. and even after paying maintenanace, your daughter has the power to block the father from ever laying eyes on his child, is that fair? I can't comment on the gaurdianship question that you bring up, but that seems daft and I suspect you don't have the full story. btw : hope you don't swear like that around the child ??
drunkmonkey wrote: Were gone past the face to face discussion, so yes all the rest if it was my partner and child.
meeeeh wrote: » 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.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Ok so you've got your legal injunction, what then, how does that injunction get enforced? Take her passport? Surveillance? It's totally impractical!
Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: » Almost 650 posts in 24 hours, really shut down discussion. Been nothing but referendum discussion in the media for days. Social media is full of it too. People disagreeing isn't people telling you you have to think a certain way. People pointing out flaws in, and consequences of, viewpoints and beliefs is not some social warrior oppression.
drunkmonkey wrote: To be perfectly honest I don't care about the woman's opinion or rights in the context of this thread.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Well it's easy as pie to make any argument you like when you don't care about the rights of the parties involved.
gozunda wrote: » Definitely Ireland is not a "magical fairy social justice land" lol. I think It's quite clear we are living in the wake of a extremely conservative and religious society whose talons remain buried deeply in the moral psyche of many. Imo some of the posts on this thread are truly deeply scary in what they advocate in support of a misogynistic and twisted world view ...
littlevillage wrote: » In your race to be offended, you are mis-quoting me. You might want to re-read my entire post. I am surmissing that the Referendum will probably be passsed and the legislation that will follow will likely not even mention the father. This is a situation that I disagree with although I would stop short of givng the father an all out veto on a proposed abortion. I made two suggestions that would make the situation better for fathers. 1). that the father of the child (where the father of the child would qualify as the automatic gaurdian of said child) should be informed if the mother chooses to abort his child. Remember the biological father does not always automatically qualify as his childrens gaurdian. 2). and in cases where there is a, lets call it question mark over the womans mental state that she be referred to experts (much as is the case at the minute) I didn't mention rape or anything else...if a crime has been comitted we have laws to deal with that scenario.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Your talking to me about empathy says mr lob the head off it. Women are not central to this thread, I didn't ask this question in the lady's lounge, it's to hear men's opinions as they have friends and family who's seen it from the other side. It's a discussion about mens rights will you take it as such. I've seen this from a few sides through life experience, my mind isn't made up. I've an easy decision on the 8th not so simple on the second question without proper checks and balances in place.
drunkmonkey wrote: Guerilla glue her to the back of the door, look I'm not a legislator neither are you so were not going to figure it out.
drunkmonkey wrote: » This is it knowing what you know and your wife says she doesn't want another one and wants to abort. Your in objection what do you do, who can you turn to. What rights have you. It's a perfectly healthy blobby baby.
neonsofa wrote: » If a person moves and doesn't give a forwarding address it is very difficult to bring them to court in the first place. If they work cash in hand the court can't order maintenance from someone who technically has no income. There are many ways to get out of paying maintenance that you believe is "persued by the courts and Gardai with fairly savage zeal." If the father went to court for access it is very likely he will get it if he is not a danger to the child. Perhaps not the amount he wants (which is irrelevant in this case as that poster said he himself opted out of the childs life) but generally speaking he will not be completely denied access if he is seeking it through court.
notjustsweet wrote: » Women are central to any conversation about the 8th amendment given it's about them and their reproductive rights. Thankfully you don't get to decide who can and can't post in this thread or forum and women are capable of wandering in here and giving our (mostly) well thought out points of view. Despite many attempts you've yet to explain why you hold your point of view or why you feel your point of view should give you control of the woman you impregnated and hold higher value than her wants or needs. Perhaps that's why you don't want us taking part? Because we ask tough questions?
This forum is here for the benefit of all the men of boards.ie, but all genders and sexualities are welcome.
littlevillage wrote: » Au contraire my friend, Gardai and the Courts Service in Ireland persue errant fathers for maintenance accross the globe. Ireland has aggreements with all EU members, USA, Canada etc. So a father would need to go to fairly serious lengths to avoid paying up. I don't know if you read about a fairly recent case where an Irish homeless man was denied his application to have a child maintenance order suspended or reduced. Get your act together and pay up or go to jail for breaking a court order...was the direction of the Judge. So ability to pay has little to do with it either. There is only one scenario that I know of where a father can walk away from child maintenance payments... and thats where the mother doesn't give his identity to the State services.
littlevillage wrote: » an Irish homeless man was denied his application to have a child maintenance order suspended or reduced. Get your act together and pay up or go to jail for breaking a court order
LirW wrote: » The charter says that it's all cool with women being around.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Your talking to me about empathy says mr lob the head off it. Women are not central to this thread, I didn't ask this question in the lady's lounge, it's to hear men's opinions as they have friends and family who's seen it from the other side....It's a discussion about mens rights will you take it as such.
drunkmonkey wrote: » I've seen this from a few sides through life experience, my mind isn't made up. I've an easy decision on the 8th not so simple on the second question without proper checks and balances in place.
meeeeh wrote: » I'm not offended I think your suggestions are sinister. I think I understood you perfectly correctly the first time but anyway... Even in your amended version you are ill suggesting for an example that abusive husband of a woman would have the right to be informed about abortion. So what you are saying is if a battered wife leaves her husband and goes to gp for an abortion pill the first thing gp should do is contact the husband? And do what, ask for permission? That's extreme example but it could be just a broken up relationship and you think ex partner should have a say.
In the case of a broken up relationship and you think ex partner should have a say.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then take it up with someone talking about rights they do not have in the first place. I was talking about rights a person DOES have. The right to choose your future. The right to choose to become a parent or not. The right to freedom and well being.
If we are going to curtail THOSE rights then we need to do so with a reason. Doing so for the good of the child is a well intentioned reason but I am yet to see A) And evidence it actually does the child good and any argument as to why the good of the child should override the good of the adult and C) anything comparing the good of the child compared to the harm to the adult and whether one is proportionally worse or more significant than the other.
So I am not seeing any argument for curtailing the free choice of an adult who is NOT a parent, to not want to BE a parent.
Ah yes there is the same move again.... you can not defend a position or argue a point, so the challange magically gets dismissed as "silly" or "ridiculous" (like in the first quote above) before merely repeating the assertions unsubstantiated again (like in the second). A great way to simply dodge anything you can not address. Just demean it and run away from it and then simply repeat it, every time. But no I do not buy into your unsubstantiated assertions. As I said on a previous thread about parents I cited MUCH research showing children being brought up by people that are not their biological parents fare just as well, and sometimes even BETTER. You did little more than go off on a tangent about the liberal bias in academia. But that did not make those findings magically go away or your LACK of citation (despite being asked twice now) magically appear. What benefits children is parent(s) who want them, love them, have a good relationship with them, care for them, education them, feed them, protect them and guide them. And NOTHING about being biologically connected or not either adds to that, or hinders it. The benefit of a relationship wit someone specifically biologically connected........ let alone when one or more people in that relationship is their AGAINST THEIR WILL........... seemingly exists solely in the assertion matrix of your own mind.
I do not think the linguistic pedantry of pretending not to know what I meant adds to your case. I think it was quite clear what I meant by "say it". And I think it was quite clear I meant more than merely SAY it. Feigning misunderstanding makes you look bad, not me. Again the point is, if we are going to force a person who is not a parent to (legally, not physically) become one against their will.... we would want to have a better reason for doing so than a vague "Its for the good of the child" that can not be substantiated in any way.
Well I can understand your financial reliance on the traditional family structure given your indication previously that you seemingly do not think single parents should get child allowance or social welfare. But in the thinking out loud I did earlier I was referring to a case where the mother would be able to factor the fathers decision not to be a parent into her decision to continue with the pregnancy. With abortion being an option for her.
So I too am moved by the concept that the father should be compelled to financially support the child in many cases. But not if he had the chance to veto that responsibility in a way that allowed the mother to choose abortion. Because in THAT scenario the mother has the chance to say "I will continue with this pregnancy despite the fact I will, and my own personal choice to, finance it entirely on my own".
It is THAT kind of system I was talking about in point "1" earlier and was musing out loud as to whether it could be workable in point "2". I was at no point talking about a system that would dump a woman, against her plans or expectation, into financing a parental role on her own.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nobody is curtailing those rights though
Again, nobody is curtailing his right not to be a parent. There is no way to prevent a man from becoming a parent without forcing a woman he impregnates to have an abortion, and you've already stated you wouldn't be in favour of that.
Again, the law isn't forcing a man to become a parent. The law forces parents, regardless of their gender, to provide for the maintenance of their children, and that provision of maintenances is a good thing for those children, whereas depriving a child of maintenance is obviously a bad thing for children.
One eyed Jack wrote: » His right not to become a parent ends when the woman he impregnates gives birth.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Providing support for his child is inarguably in the childs best interests.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Third time trying to have me address something I never said. It hasn't worked twice before, it's not going to work no matter how many times you repeat it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But she has that option anyway? So you aren't giving a woman an option she doesn't have already.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That argument doesn't do anything for a man who doesn't want to provide supprt for his child
One eyed Jack wrote: » He doesn't have an opportunity to veto that responsibility because there is no child at that point in time that he has any responsibility for.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Such a system would have to be supported by the State, and because the State would never support such a system, your thought experiment just doesn't map to reality.
Calhoun wrote: » I agree with you and as mature adults we should be able to debate and pick apart points.What i find scary is how quickly we are replacing a extremely conservative regime with a new group think, that is as dogmatic as the frock wearing priests.
gozunda wrote: » I would disagree. People are free to make up their own minds without the fear of damnation and ostracism as was practised by your 'frock wearing priest's'. You may not like this new brave new world but thats how it is ...
As to debate - where some of points being mooted come straight from the dark ages- there's not much left but to point this out.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » No one has denied that. Saying the support specifically HAS to come from an unwilling source who was not willing from the outset to be part of it is not in the childs best interest though. Especially in a situation where the woman was given the chance to continue with the pregnancy alone in the knowledge no such support would be coming.
Oh please do try and keep up, I was not talking about giving the woman any new option at all anywhere here. I was talking about giving the MAN the option to inform the WOMAN that he does not want to become a parent and for the woman then to use that fact in her decision to abort or not. And in that situation having chosen NOT to abort she would be acknowledging her own option and choice to become a single mother without any input from the Man who has aborted himself from the scenario.
Except it does a LOT for him in that it gives him the ability to legally and financially abscond himself from the process, even if the woman decides to have the child anyway without him. How does giving the man who does not want to provide support, the actual option not to provide support, do nothing for him? You are not making ANY sense here at all.
I have already explained. I am talking about a situation BEFORE there is a child where he has a window during which he can veto the reponsibility he WILL at this time be given when the child DOES come on the scene.
I am not AT ALL talking about vetoing anything related to a child that is not there at that point in time. And, I suspect, you knew that already.
I would rather stick to the arguments about the issue rather than crystal ball gazing about what you imagine the state would or would not do. We already, whether you like it or not, have state support for single parents.... child allowances.... social welfare...... all terrible things to some people I am sure.... but they are there.
