Men's rights on Abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 08:43PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 08:43PM

Oh dear, I do hope you are not engaging in your old approach of ignoring the posts I write to you, and replying only to very occasional posts I write to others? Let's find out I guess!

end of the road wrote: »

we don't leave people make their own decisian to protect born lives or not themselves.

Last time I checked we were not talking about BORN lives in that post however. So not sure what your point is here. We were talking about the fetus. At least TRY to reply to what the conversation actually was at the time, please?

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.

I have been offered many ASSERTIONS but not reasons. Many of them from you, and when I entertained your assertions with conversation you dodged and ignored the posts, waited awhile, and then flung the exact same assertions at me all over again. Then rinse and repeat, several times.

So no, I have not been offered much of what you claim I have been offered at all. Least of all by you. And yes I do see the fetus as human. Biologically that is. So please do not tell me what I think. Especially if you intend to warp it.

What I do not see the fetus as however is a PERSON. And it is to PEOPLE we assign rights, not biological taxonomy.

end of the road wrote: »

it will develop into a person

So you agree it is NOT a person then. That is a start.

end of the road wrote: »

therefore it has rights.

Except that "therefore" is one of those many assertions you make but refuse to EVER back up. Explain the "therefore" rather than merely assert it.

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.

Yeah just like it is perfectly fine to look at a spade and see it as a spade. It is perfectly fine to see things as they actually are.

ForestFire wrote: »

(Also look up the development stages week by week to see what functions are and are not developed)

One could do that sure, but it would partially be a waste of time. A slightly quicker approach would be to identify what functions should give us reason to afford moral and ethical concern to the fetus. And then look up when THEY develop or when they do not.

After all a function like, say, the opening of eyes is not all that relevant is it?

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 08:44PM

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...

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.

neonsofa · 31-01-2018 08:50PM

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 ??

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.

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 08:57PM

drunkmonkey wrote:

Were gone past the face to face discussion, so yes all the rest if it was my partner and child.

Ok so you've got your legal injunction, what then, how does that injunction get enforced? Take her passport? Surveillance? It's totally impractical!

littlevillage · 31-01-2018 09:01PM

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.

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 seperate laws to deal with that scenario.

meeeeh · 31-01-2018 09:01PM

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!

I had some really constructive suggestions yesterday but for whatever reason they were not appreciated.

Calhoun · 31-01-2018 09:02PM

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.

You see when you disagree with someone you make a point relative to what they are saying and pick apart their argument like many do. If you start comparing people with different attitudes to the "same folk" of another period in time or with a certain outlook you are trying to create a divide of us versus them. Put them into a nice little label bucket that certain folk in our society like to do.

How should people think to be able to have a valid viewpoint in an argument? Then we can go from there.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 09:03PM

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!

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.

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 09:04PM

drunkmonkey wrote:

To be perfectly honest I don't care about the woman's opinion or rights in the context of this thread.

Well it's easy as pie to make any argument you like when you don't care about the rights of the parties involved.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 09:06PM

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.

Have you being paying attention at all.

Calhoun · 31-01-2018 09:07PM

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 ...

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.

meeeeh · 31-01-2018 09:09PM

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.

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.

njs030 · 31-01-2018 09:13PM

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.

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 why yours holds higher value than her wants or needs.
Perhaps that's why you don't want us taking part, because we ask tough questions?

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 09:16PM

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.

It's not going to be figured out because it's totally nonsensical, it's impossible to enforce, and before you even get to that the mothers rights some of which are constitutionally protected would have to be removed. Legislators don't have that power.

LirW · 31-01-2018 09:16PM

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.

I'm the woman and if I'd get pregnant again, god forbid, I couldn't cope with another pregnancy, the last one made my life hell on earth. I was bed-bound, I couldn't keep solid food down for months and had to be hospitalized, I was permanently sad and it all ended with an Emergency C-Section.
We're both healthy and she was very much wanted but I couldn't go through this again. My first pregnancy was a walk in the park compared to that.

In most relationships, and I know that the majority of abortions happen in intact relationships are very much joint decisions.
There are situations of domestic abuse where birthcontrol is tossed, the women are assaulted from their partner and impregnated against their will. It sounds ridiculous but this is true. I can understand every woman that doesn't want to bring a child into a volatile situation like this one.
Under no circumstances should a father have the right to the child, you have no idea what doors that would open.

There is no equality in pregnancy because the woman is the one carrying the baby. If it has any impact on her physical or mental health, and believe me, pregnancy does even when you waited for this to happen for a long time, that can do horrible things to you, the fact needs to be accepted that the woman is a living, breathing human being.

If anything goes wrong during birth, most hospitals have the policy to save the child first if possible, not taken into account the situation of the mother or her or her partners wishes.

This autonomy has to stand higher than a potential life and the potential father's rights.

littlevillage · 31-01-2018 09:16PM

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.

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.

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 09:21PM

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?

Cool the jets this thread isn't aimed at women, should have put up a big sign at the start. "No women allowed" Seems only fair as men aren't getting a look in from your side.

I'm not asking for control over women, the question was should men have a say. Quite clearly you think no as a lot of other women probably do. That's fine your entitled to you opinion but would you take it somewhere else as we don't need a female opinion right now.
When we've figured it out we'll get back to you and let you know.

LirW · 31-01-2018 09:26PM

This forum is here for the benefit of all the men of boards.ie, but all genders and sexualities are welcome.

The charter says that it's all cool with women being around.

neonsofa · 31-01-2018 09:30PM

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.

They're going to hunt him down all over the globe? With not even an address to go by? I can walk into a grada station and say "I've no idea where he is,no phone number, or where he even last lived but he is somewhere in the world so track him down for me so he can be brought to court- where he will claim he has no income and the judge will rule that he physically cant pay"? The legislation and cross country agreements you're referring to are for existing orders.

I'm well aware of the legislation when there is a maintenance order in place, I'm saying if you don't have any address for him how can they court order him in the first place?

Varying an order, or non compliance of an existing order is very different to pursuing one in the first place.

Triceratops Ballet · 31-01-2018 09:30PM

That's inaccurate, I think he can have all the say he wants, but he can't then legally compel someone to bear his child against her will and I think you'll find it's not only women in this thread who believe that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 09:31PM

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

Wow that sounds horrific to me. I have known parents who were together who lost their work and hence their house and more. No one told them to get it together or go to jail. They were in fact supported in their inability to meet their financial demands by the state.

But just because two parents are split up it is somehow ok to do this to a homeless person in that context? Threaten them with jail in a way many other people are not?

Well if I did not feel SOMETHING has to change before reading that already, I certainly do now.

Though I have to admit that I a have a fear of homelessness myself. I would happily take jail over homelessness if that were my only two options. I strongly feel for, and empathize with the homeless. Despite having one person tell me that unless you have been homeless you can not put yourself in any level of empathy with people who have been. Because apperently empathy only works if you have directly identical experience or something

drunkmonkey · 31-01-2018 09:34PM

LirW wrote: »

The charter says that it's all cool with women being around.

And that's my Q to go join the rest of the lads. Time to see what's happening down the pint shop.

gozunda · 31-01-2018 09:35PM

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 will take it that your empathy for unconcieved or unborn 'junior's is more important to you compared to real living people such as 'women'?

LOL. I previously stopped you about your 'lob the head assertions' - which you failed to answer btw. What part of the proposed referendum are exactly are you referring to there? Do share please...

No it's not the ladies lounge HOWEVER the issue does concern women - our sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters. Ignore this fact and the discussion borders on psychopathy.

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.

Your own declared experiences appear to have left you without empathy or ability to consider the issue in a holistical manner.

littlevillage · 31-01-2018 09:40PM

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.

You have gone and done it again. You have speed read through my post and blasted out a reply.

If there is evidence of a crime being commited, then we have laws to deal with that scenario, so please stop focusing on examples where a differnt law would supercede the proposed Abortion law.

I also said that I didn't support the father having a veto over an abortion decision by a woman who was carrying his child, so to inform him, wouldn't be to seek permission, but more of a courtesy and perhaps grant a right of reply, I suppose. Something similar to the way victims of crime are currently informed about progress in their cases and offered a victims impact report. Its doesn't have any material effect on the court case which is the state versus the alleged perpetrator but it keeps the victim at least 'in the loop'.

In the case of a broken up relationship and you think ex partner should have a say.

Not so much a say, but more of a right to be informed. Much the same way that if the mother in a broken relationship decided to go ahead and have the child, the father should be informed too.

Its slightly off point, but I believe that a mother should be legally bound to inform the biological father (where possible) if she is pregnant, full stop, regardless of the relationship status.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 09:44PM

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.

Nobody is curtailing those rights though, and certainly those rights are still not curtailed merely by his impregnating a woman who has chosen against his wishes to continue her pregnancy. His right not to become a parent ends when the woman he impregnates gives birth.

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.

Providing support for his child is inarguably in the childs best interests.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But she has that option anyway? So you aren't giving a woman an option she doesn't have already. That argument doesn't do anything for a man who doesn't want to provide supprt for his child, and the woman having the option to have an abortion is in no way related to whether or not a man is obliged to support a child he doesn't want to support because he didn't want to be a father.

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".

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.

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.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 09:57PM

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.

Again you are missing that distinction between being an ACTUAL parent (which he would be) and being one in the legal sense. I am discussing the latter. You here are talking about the former.

We are taking their right to NOT become a parent (again in the legal sense rather than the physical sense lest you pull your linguistic dodge again) and saying they have no choice but to become one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

His right not to become a parent ends when the woman he impregnates gives birth.

Well yes, that is what the point is. I am seeing no reason why that SHOULD be the case if a person does not want to be a parent in that sense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Providing support for his child is inarguably in the childs best interests.

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.

Especially if arguing from a notion that the child has a right to a relationship with such a parent (which you have not substantiated) or that such a child benefits from a relationship with a biological parent specifically (which you have not substantiated) let alone one that is an entirely unwilling and forced participant in said relationship (which you definitely have not substantiated).

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.

I have addressed and quoted DIRECTLY what you have said. So the only "third time" going on here is your third time dodging 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.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That argument doesn't do anything for a man who doesn't want to provide supprt for his child

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

gozunda · 31-01-2018 09:58PM

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.

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.

Wibbs · 31-01-2018 10:43PM

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 ...

While the hyperbole is strong with the differing opinions and I would not say it's like before, but I would say it's equally naive to think there isn't an emerging "groupthink" for the want of a better word in this "brave new world". It is always thus. Each generation/culture is convinced that they're more right than the last/others. Is there progress on more than a few angles? Of course, very much so. However it is still the case in a few environments where not following "Correct think" can and does lead to ostracism and a form of "damnation". EG try working in say Google and being known for being against abortion, or saying you're an egalitarian, but not a feminist. See how long you last in your job holding that kind of opinion.

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.

Certainly, but as I say one man's dark ages is another man's enlightenment. And it was and is always thus. You might be on the right side of history, but you equally may not. Consider this if this was 1950's Ireland you would almost certainly be voting against any repeal. The "you" in 2050 might well vote it back in.

I only say all this because just as you may feel it's blindingly obvious what is the Right Thing To Do™, so do those who oppose what you may feel. Might help some on both sides at least begin to appreciate, if not agree with, the strong feelings of the other.

One eyed Jack · 31-01-2018 10:45PM

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.

In a case where a woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy, she has every right to seek maintenance from the father to maintain their child. She doesn't have to continue her pregnancy in the knowledge that no support will be forthcoming, because any maintenance payment isn't for her, it's for the child.

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.

But a woman can do that already? In the case where a woman gives birth, she has the choice to apply for a maintenance order for the child. That's what you don't appear to be understanding. The man can inform her all he wants that he will not be paying maintenance for his child. The courts will likely decide otherwise if the mother makes an application to the court for maintenance for their child.

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.

The point you made does nothing for your argument that a man should be able to abscond himself from his responsibilities.

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.

And you're still missing the point that when there is a child, that would render any previous agreement void as the child is a separate party to any previous agreement between the parents, with separate interests and rights of their own which must be regarded and protected by law.

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.

Right, so I can consider this veto you were talking about earlier for a man who does not want to become a parent is irrelevant then, because you're not talking about anything related to a child that is not there at that point in time.

I tell ya, I'm trying to keep up, but your arguments are all over the place.

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.

Cool, so no crystal ball gazing about a man being able to inform a woman that he has no intention to support a child that doesn't exist yet.

I think I've finally caught up - you're not arguing that a man should be able to exercise any veto before a child is born. You're arguing that he should only be able to exercise a veto once the child is born. That veto obviously isn't in the childs best interests, because it means depriving the child of support to which they are legally entitled.

So your argument then essentially consists of giving parents the right to deny their children support that those children may need.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments