Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…8687899192…325

Comments

  • Options
    #2642
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stupify wrote: »
    Legally they have to pay, am I wrong? They can be brought to court and even jailed if they don't.

    If they are on the birth cert. If they stick around for that part.
    If they stay in the country.
    & then if they fight it & get a good accountant & lawyer then they may not be paying too much.
    Also, they cannot be forced into the child's life.
    I would advise going back & reading the last thread, pages & pages on this topic there.


  • Options
    #2643
    BabysCoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 4,712 ✭✭✭BabysCoffee


    applehunter wrote: »
    They are not in favour of abortion.

    I received a letter from my aunt recently and she ended it with a quotation by Martin Niemoller Germany WW2.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Huh?

    Can't see how this relates to the 8th amendment


  • Options
    #2644
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    neonsofa wrote: »
    In fairness (and I'm saying this as a single parent receiving no support from the other parent, financial or otherwise) many fathers are pursued for maintenance even if they have/want no involvement in the child's life. So if the woman wants to raise the baby and the man doesn't, he can walk away but once the baby is born he is liable to contribute financially.

    Having said that I just don't see how it can be legally regulated- these type of "legal abortions"- in theory I think I agree with them but in practice, a baby is born and that changes everything whereas a termination doesn't result in another human with rights and needs.

    But it's another case of biology just being the way it is and sometimes it's fair and sometimes it's not.

    I appreciate the input, I would love to see a method for men to be able to rid themselves of responsibility for a child they don't want, I also don't think it will happen anytime soon though.

    It could be regulated I think, but the support to get it something like this legalized in the first place just isn't there.


  • Options
    #2645
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,094 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Stupify wrote: »
    But they then have to pay child support right? Thats not the same as the choice women have.

    Married women can't walk away though, so it's not a male/female distinctuon.

    There are issues around unmarried fathers' rights, true - but that, like the ban on abortion, is a hangover from times when women's reproductive capacities were seen as needing to be controlled by society. It was about not allowing people to have children outside marriage. It wasnt about giving women rights that men didnt have, it was punishing them by ensuring their children "born out of wedlock" didnt have the same claim on their father's earnings as if she'd been married.

    The solution is to deal with that issue, not to confuse it with abortion by creating false equivalence.

    Once the child is born, the father is responsible for it because it exists and needs to be fed and clothed. The alternative is to have children starving even though their fathers are well off, or else the state, ie the rest of society, takes the cost.

    I cant see why legalizing abortion means the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother any more.


  • Options
    #2646
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    bubblypop wrote: »
    If they are on the birth cert. If they stick around for that part.
    If they stay in the country.
    & then if they fight it & get a good accountant & lawyer then they may not be paying too much.
    Also, they cannot be forced into the child's life.
    I would advise going back & reading the last thread, pages & pages on this topic there.

    They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

    They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

    At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

    Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2647
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Married women can't walk away though, so it's not a male/female distinctuon.

    There are issues around unmarried fathers' rights, true - but that, like the ban on abortion, is a hangover from times when women's reproductive capacities were seen as needing to be controlled by society. It was about not allowing people to have children outside marriage. It wasnt about giving women rights that men didnt have, it was punishing them by ensuring their children "born out of wedlock" didnt have the same claim on their father's earnings as if she'd been married.

    The solution is to deal with that issue, not to confuse it with abortion by creating false equivalence.

    Once the child is born, the father is responsible for it because it exists and needs to be fed and clothed. The alternative is to have children starving even though their fathers are well off, or else the state, ie the rest of society, takes the cost.

    I cant see why legalizing abortion means the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother any more.

    What do you mean married women can't walk away? If the referendum passes any woman can get an abortion here for any reason up to 12 weeks.

    The wealth of the father has nothing to do with this, just because a woman is wealthy doesn't mean she should be forced to have a child she doesn't want, it should work the same for a man in this situation.

    I'm not saying the state should pay for the children of fathers who dont get on with the mother anymore, in these cases they wanted the child so should be forced to pay. It's in the cases where they dont want the child from birth that they should be off the hook.


  • Options
    #2648
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Stupify wrote: »
    They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

    They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

    At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

    Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

    There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.


  • Options
    #2649
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stupify wrote: »
    They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

    They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

    At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

    Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

    Since when can they be put on the birth cert without their consent?
    Can be chased all over the eu for maintenance? Have you ever ever even heard of this being done?
    Its hard enough to get a European arrest warrant & a person arrested for serious offence, do you really think anyone cares about some maintenance!


  • Options
    #2650
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Mongfinder General wrote: »
    Is anybody else concerned that the legalization of abortion could be used to target women in poorer demographics? Many of these women may be seen as a burden to the state, unemployed, living in state housing, not contributing from financially to the state? Could there be an ulterior motive behind this referendum?
    Its mad that people suddenly claim to care about poor people.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #2651
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    applehunter wrote: »
    I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

    Witch doctors?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2652
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Stupify wrote: »
    They can be put on the birth cert without their consent.

    They can also be chased for child support all over the EU so would have to go far away to dodge it, seems unfair to force someone to do that just so they don't have to pay for a child they never wanted. Rings similar to forcing women to travel for an abortion no?

    At the end of the day I feel they shouldn't be forced to pay for a child they don't want.

    Just because something was discussed in another thread doesn't mean it should not be discussed here and now too.

    There's more of an issue if a father ISN'T listed on the birth cert, and he wants access to his children.

    But neither that, nor your issue has anything to do with the 8th.


  • Options
    #2653
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,131 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Married women can't walk away though...

    Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

    That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

    This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.


  • Options
    #2654
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Since when can they be put on the birth cert without their consent?
    Can be chased all over the eu for maintenance? Have you ever ever even heard of this being done?
    Its hard enough to get a European arrest warrant & a person arrested for serious offence, do you really think anyone cares about some maintenance!

    So if a man refuses to sign a birth-cert he's off the hook for child support? I don't think so. They will only leave a birth-Cert blank in extraordinary cases, according to Treoirs website: The mother will be asked for contact details of the father and the Registrar will then make ‘all reasonable efforts’ to contact the father and invite him to attend the Registrar’s Office within 28 days in order to complete the registration. Only in exceptional cases, where ‘compelling reasons’ are provided, will the father’s name be omitted.

    Here's a link to prove my point about maintenance from abroad Stateshttp://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html
    Anyway, the point is a man shouldn't have to leave the country to avoid paying for a child he doesn't want, doesn't matter how difficult it is to retrieve the maintenance, someone shouldn't have to uproot their life in this case.


  • Options
    #2655
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    applehunter wrote: »
    I have 5 doctors in my family all voting against repeal.

    Which is fine. And even if things don't go their way, they'll not be asked to perform, or endure, an abortion.

    And I genuinely hope they are never in that position. However, lots of people are.


  • Options
    #2656
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    There's no real need for discussion on it HERE, as it doesn't have any bearing on the 8th, good, bad, or indifferent.

    I believe it should be discussed alongside it, women and men should be equal with regards to their choice to have a child.

    There are obvious reasons that they aren't equal, a woman can choose to give birth to a child where a man can't do the same thing, so there should be legislation to allow a man not be regarded as the childs father.


  • Options
    #2657
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.


  • Options
    #2658
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Of course they can. Men and women, married and single, can, and do, walk away from their responsibilities all the time.

    That has nothing to do with repealing the 8th, though.

    This whole line in the thread is, ahem, stupefying.

    I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.


  • Options
    #2659
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,094 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Stupify wrote: »
    I believe it should be discussed alongside it, women and men should be equal with regards to their choice to have a child.

    There are obvious reasons that they aren't equal, a woman can choose to give birth to a child where a man can't do the same thing, so there should be legislation to allow a man not be regarded as the childs father.

    LOL. I think your comparison just blew up in your face there.


  • Options
    #2660
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,131 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Stupify wrote: »
    I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

    It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.


  • Options
    #2661
    Parklife1988
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭Parklife1988


    Stupify wrote: »
    I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

    Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2662
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    What you are arguing for is not comparable to abortion, you are arguing for legalized child abandonment.

    Not at all, how is a man not wishing to pay for a child he doesn't want comparable to child abandonment? I am not advocating for men who wanted a kid and 1 year down the line after the kid is born decide to up and leave, these men should be sought after for significant maintenance orders. I'm advocating for the men who dont want kids but are forced to have them.


  • Options
    #2663
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Parklife1988 wrote: »
    Perfect choice of username. Impenetrabley stupid irrelevant sideshow argument.

    Jesus dude, seriously? gone to playground tactics now? Are people here unable to have a cool tempered conversation?


  • Options
    #2664
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    Not at all, how is a man not wishing to pay for a child he doesn't want comparable to child abandonment? I am not advocating for men who wanted a kid and 1 year down the line after the kid is born decide to up and leave, these men should be sought after for significant maintenance orders. I'm advocating for the men who dont want kids but are forced to have them.

    I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult person but...ok.

    After an abortion there is no baby, there is no child that is the point of having an abortion.

    After your legal abortion a baby is born - you can tell the baby that it is illegally continuing to exist in defiance of a court order but I doubt it'll listen.


  • Options
    #2665
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It's not linked to the 8th, and you're [deliberately] derailing the thread.

    I really am not attempting to derail the thread, I believe it is linked to the 8th, but if a mod would like to chime in and tell me off I suppose I could set up a different thread for this offshoot of the discussion.


  • Options
    #2666
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Stupify wrote: »
    I think it's a discussion worth bringing up here, this is linked with the 8th in that new legislation should include a provision for this.

    I'd say it's more relevant to adoption legislation. You are giving up legal rights to the child.

    Not the 8th. And so, has no bearing on this conversation.

    (For the record, I do think it's a conversation that could be had, but I'd also wager that it wouldn't be well received.)


  • Options
    #2667
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    B0jangles wrote: »
    I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult person but...ok.

    After an abortion there is no baby, there is no child that is the point of having an abortion.

    After your legal abortion a baby is born - you can tell the baby that it is illegally continuing to exist in defiance of a court order but I doubt it'll listen.

    You are the one who isn't getting it tbh, a woman has a choice and a man doesn't.

    A man should have a choice too, that is what I am advocating. If a man could have an abortion when he doesn't want a child, he would, but he can't, so this should be legislated for.


  • Options
    #2668
    Parklife1988
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭Parklife1988


    Stupify wrote: »
    Jesus dude, seriously? gone to playground tactics now? Are people here unable to have a cool tempered conversation?

    Absolutely but you’re in entirely the wrong thread for the conversation you want to have.


  • Options
    #2669
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    volchitsa wrote: »
    LOL. I think your comparison just blew up in your face there.
    I don't see how? The comparison was to show the man has no choice.


  • Options
    #2670
    Stupify
    Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭Stupify


    Parklife1988 wrote: »
    Absolutely but you’re in entirely the wrong thread for the conversation you want to have.
    If you believe that then you can say it calmly, no need for the name calling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2671
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Stupify wrote: »
    You are the one who isn't getting it tbh, a woman has a choice and a man doesn't.

    A man should have a choice too, that is what I am advocating. If a man could have an abortion when he doesn't want a child, he would, but he can't, so this should be legislated for.

    No she doesn't, not in this country - that's what this whole campaign is about.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement