Woodward wrote: » Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.
iptba wrote: » An idea that should be less radical but hasn't happened so far and doesn't look close to happening any time soon would be automatic paternity testing at birth (or at least that is the default with couples having the option to opt out). That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.
This could also be beneficial to the child as they would have a better idea of their family medical history. Having the wrong information about who your biological father is not the ideal situation medically. Also you could end up inadvertently getting into a relationship with a biological relative. Also sometimes paternity is challenged later when it becomes clearer that the child is not like the posited father. This can get very messy (I know of one case where this happened, the child was somewhere between 6 and 8). Also at that stage it could be much harder to look for the biological father. Also if there is certainty about paternity, the man (and his family) may commit more to the child. I recall reading a study where how much resources grandparents put into their grandchildren was based on whether they were maternal or paternal grandparents, with maternal grandparents giving more (and grandmothers giving more than grandfathers), the theory being they were more sure the child was a blood relative. I can't remember much more about the study.If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask. Edited to add: if there is any possibility that there was a mixup in children in hospital, a great effort will be put in to ensure the mother can be sure of maternity but there isn't the same effort about paternity.
Woodward wrote: » where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy
Woodward wrote: The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.
iptba wrote: That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child.
Sleeper12 wrote: » What is it with younger generations? They want all the fun but none of the responsibilities.
Woodward wrote: » The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.
Sleeper12 wrote: A few tips :You can make sure contraception is used correctly by using it yourself.
Sleeper12 wrote: Don't sleep with a woman that you don't trust to tell you the truth. She could have HIV for gods sake. A pregnancy might be the least of your worries
Cyrus wrote: » I have said this elsewhere it's the logical extension of most of the pro choice rhetoric, although as they were thinking only of women I don't think they followed it all the way through . Won't happen however .
the_syco wrote: » Woodward wrote: » where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy Get a vasectomy. Otherwise, pay up if you knock her up.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's really not, because it's not an argument for giving men choices over their own bodies. That's just one of the key differences. Secondly, and this should be obvious, but men can't get pregnant. If they could, then you might be able to construct a logical argument that men too should have the right to choose whether or not they want to terminate a pregnancy. The chances are they would be afforded that right the same as women, but because they can't get pregnant in the first place, it's a non-starter. Thirdly, the fundamental difference between pregnancy and parenthood is that nobody becomes a parent until a child is actually born, and then the rights of all people involved are taken into consideration, and determinations are made in what is in the best interests of the child, not their parents. Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men. Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children. In short - abortion has nothing to do with parental rights, and as the law currently stands, both genders already have equal parental rights, and neither gender has this perceived right "not to be a parent". You can legislate for biology with regard to gender equality only to a certain extent, and only in circumstances where all biological factors are equal, and that's why you can't legislate to give men control over women's pregnancies, and you can't legislate for circumstances which would not be in the childs best interests.
judeboy101 wrote: » And if she rapes you? Can you demand she abort it?
VonZan wrote: » It is a very simple concept. If a woman sleeps with a man and she becomes pregnant she will have a choice whether to carry the baby to full term or not, even against the wishes of the man. It takes two to tango but only one person ultimately has the right to a decision.
Also, both parents don't have equal rights under the law. You obviously have never heard of the family court in this country.
Is aborting a child in the best interests of the child? I'm not arguing against abortion but you make a very hypocritical argument.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Finally, a man doesn't have to pay any financial consideration unless he is proven to be the father of the child (assuming the parents aren't married), and women are just as much equally responsible for their children's welfare as men. Women who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children are condemned even more harshly than men who abandon their responsibilities towards their children, and ultimately it's the children who lose out in that scenario. I would have argued previously that children were better off without someone in their lives who didn't want to be in their lives, but the research is 50/50 on that one, arguing that permanence and stability are key factors in a childs development, and having to drag fathers through the courts to provide for their children introduces instability into the childs life that influences their outcomes as adults. It would be better for children if we didn't have to do that, but then fathers would be complaining that they have no access to their children. .
whereas unmarried men aren't, and have to apply for guardianship rights, but for men who don't want to do that, and provided the mother doesn't want them to have guardianship rights either, there are no consequences for men who choose to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You're conflating two very different circumstances to try and argue gender inequality. They're two fundamentally different concepts. Men don't need the right to an abortion, because they cannot become pregnant. That has nothing to do with gender equality in law. The law cannot do anything to address that. The only difference in law between men and women with regard to the law and their children is in respect of guardianship rights where unmarried women are automatically granted guardianship of their children, whereas unmarried men aren't, and have to apply for guardianship rights, but for men who don't want to do that, and provided the mother doesn't want them to have guardianship rights either, there are no consequences for men who choose to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. The most common reason why cases end up in the family courts is precisely because of disagreement between the parents of the child where all too often the mother of the child is fighting to have the father take responsibility for his children, and the Courts tend to agree that it is in the best interests of the child that the father take responsibility for their children and support their children and that the children have access to their fathers. It's not in the best interests of children that either parent be permitted to abandon their responsibilities towards their children. No it's not, clearly! But then you're the one making the hypocritical argument if you're suggesting that because a woman is permitted to end her pregnancy (and therefore there is no child born), then men should be permitted to abdicate their responsibility towards a child when the child is born. Neither men nor women have that right, they are both equally responsible for the welfare of any children that are born, and that's what you seem to be glossing over.
professore wrote: » Also on equal parenting rights and responsibilities : Can a man can have his child adopted against the wishes of the woman he isn't married to? The reverse is true for sure.
professore wrote: » She had the choice to have the child. He didn't. It's that simple. If they were in a LTR or married and chose to have a child together that's very very different, as they made an agreement. But a drunken ONS? Or where he is adamant he doesn't want children? She chooses to have that child she takes care of it. He should also have that choice. He shouldn't be forced to. End of story. Anything else is discrimination. Where is the consent here? I don't see it. It's not OK to force someone to have sex against their will but it is OK to force them to pay support for 18 years for a child they didn't consent to?
Cyrus wrote: » Are you seriously trying to separate pregnancy and parenthood ?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't have to try and separate them, they're already two completely different circumstances.
Cyrus wrote: » Yeah completly different
One eyed Jack wrote: » How do you imagine they're the same circumstances? If a woman terminates her pregnancy, then there is no child born that either of them are responsible for. Men are not expected to be responsible for a woman's pregnancy, women are entirely responsible for the welfare of the unborn child in those circumstances. The responsibility for her pregnancy ends when the child is born, and then both parents are responsible for that child's welfare. If it is permitted that men should have no legal responsibility for their children, then the same right must be granted to women, but we don't grant either men or women the right not to become parents. We can introduce legislation to try and prevent circumstances where an unwanted child is born, but legislating for circumstances when an unwanted child is born are an entirely different matter. Then the rights and welfare of the child in question generally take precedence over the perceived rights of their parents.
Cyrus wrote: » Why do you think the majority of people have a termination, do you think it's to avoid being pregnant or avoid having a child ?
Women can decide not to become a parent by terminating the pregnancy a man cannot choose , that's not equality
iptba wrote: » A pretty radical idea. An idea that should be less radical but hasn't happened so far and doesn't look close to happening any time soon would be automatic paternity testing at birth (or at least that is the default with couples having the option to opt out). That would mean that at least men would have security that the child was their biological child. This could also be beneficial to the child as they would have a better idea of their family medical history. Having the wrong information about who your biological father is not the ideal situation medically. Also you could end up inadvertently getting into a relationship with a biological relative. Also sometimes paternity is challenged later when it becomes clearer that the child is not like the posited father. This can get very messy (I know of one case where this happened, the child was somewhere between 6 and 8). Also at that stage it could be much harder to look for the biological father. Also if there is certainty about paternity, the man (and his family) may commit more to the child. I recall reading a study where how much resources grandparents put into their grandchildren was based on whether they were maternal or paternal grandparents, with maternal grandparents giving more (and grandmothers giving more than grandfathers), the theory being they were more sure the child was a blood relative. I can't remember much more about the study. If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask. Edited to add: if there is any possibility that there was a mixup in children in hospital, a great effort will be put in to ensure the mother can be sure of maternity but there isn't the same effort about paternity.
France DNA paternity testing is solely performed on decision of a judge in case of a judiciary procedure in order either to establish or contest paternity or to obtain or deny child support[18]. Private DNA paternity testing is forbidden and punished by law[19].Germany Under the Gene Diagnostics Act of 2009, secret paternity testing is illegal. Any paternity testing must be conducted by a licensed physician or by an expert with a university degree in science and special education in parentage testing, and the laboratory carrying out genetic testing must be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025. Full informed consent of both parents is required, and prenatal paternity testing is prohibited, with the exception of sexual abuse and rape cases. Any genetic testing done without the other parent's consent is punishable with a €5,000 fine.[20] Due to an amendment of the civil law section 1598a in 2005, any man who contests paternity no longer automatically severs legal rights and obligations to the child.[21][
One eyed Jack wrote: » If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask. Working on the default assumption that the potential father could be anyone? I can see why any woman would find that insinuation... problematic :pac:
If a man asks for such testing now, he is likely (seriously) jeopardising the relationship but if it was the default, then the onus wouldn't be on him to ask.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)
