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

Abortion For Men

1…1112131517

Comments

  • #422
    The Purveyor of Truth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭The Purveyor of Truth


    pajopearl wrote: »
    If a couple become pregnant, even though they had decided that they didn't want any (more) children, the woman decides to keep the baby but the man decides he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy or child, does he have a case for insisting she get an abortion and should he take legal steps to ensure she gets one?

    Obviously not.

    The woman in this scenario wants to keep the child and once one parent wants the child, then there should be no reason to abort the pregnancy.


  • #423
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »
    What if he had unprotected sex with her? What if they were in a relationship at the time and they broke up after she conceived/had the baby?
    If they were in a relationship and she put holes in the condom or told him she was on the pill (and you should be able to trust your partner) I'd see where you're coming from, but there are scenarios where a father should pay for his child even if he doesn't want to be part of the child's life.

    If he had unprotected sex with her I would assume it was consensual and that she knew the risks.

    And whose to say they broke up through his fault? Maybe it was mutual. Maybe she cheated. Maybe they didn't know she was pregnant until after they split.

    No matter the situation we all know no-one would force the woman to be a mother. Unless and until that mindset changes, and I hope it doesn't, I refuse to accept that men should be forced to be fathers in anyway, financially or otherwise.

    I really don't understand this strange desire to punish men for what is generally a consensual two person act. It really doesn't sit well with me and paints all of us as women in a very bad light.


  • #424
    diveout
    Closed Accounts Posts: 746 ✭✭✭diveout


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If he had unprotected sex with her I would assume it was consensual and that she knew the risks.

    And whose to say they broke up through his fault? Maybe it was mutual. Maybe she cheated. Maybe they didn't know she was pregnant until after they split.

    No matter the situation we all know no-one would force the woman to be a mother. Unless and until that mindset changes, and I hope it doesn't, I refuse to accept that men should be forced to be fathers in anyway, financially or otherwise.

    I really don't understand this strange desire to punish men for what is a two person act. It really doesn't sit well with me and paints all of us as women in a very bad light.

    As it is, you can't force a father to be a father other than demanding some financial support. Unless you are saying all there is to being a father is money, which I don't support philosphically.

    Some of the posts have a punitive edge. However think practically, if there is NO consequence to fathering unwanted children, then there is no encouragement to taking precautions in the first place.

    As it stands now, children growing up in single parent households are poorer and more vulnerable. With greater poverty you have greater crime, you have greater drop outs in school, you have a greater chance of delinquency, depression, etc. I could go on. So you have to consider also, the bigger picture.

    I was in the waiting room of a hospital a few years ago and was talking to this young man who was there with his pregnant girlfriend. He told me his brother has 9 children all around the country with different women, none whom he sees or pays for. This is what you are endorsing.

    Where I might come around to agreeing with you is in a wider question of how much of a right does the state have to take out of people's pockets- it might be interesting in terms of a libertarian argument.


  • #425
    Holsten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Most men would not want the situation where they have a child they don't want. It would be avoided at all costs, by the use of by contraceptives both partners.

    You really think if men didn't have to fork out pregnancy rates would go up? In my view they would drop quite significantly.


  • #426
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    Simply because I believe that my daughter should have the same rights as my exs "own family" doesn't mean I have a notion that men should be the breadwinners and I've no idea where you pulled that notion from because it certainly isn't my posts.

    I didn't say that you said that

    I'm just seriously uncomfortable with the idea that you feel a child born from an unplanned pregnancy should somehow have different legal rights to the inheritance of its parent than children born of planned pregnancies. Absolutely nothing to do with some archaic notion that the man should provide.

    we are talking about a specific idea in a situation whereby decisions are made to proceed with everyone's views taken into account

    if the man retains no rights over the child why should the child retain rights over him?


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    ash23 wrote: »
    I'm just seriously uncomfortable with the idea that you feel a child born from an unplanned pregnancy should somehow have different legal rights to the inheritance of its parent than children born of planned pregnancies. Absolutely nothing to do with some archaic notion that the man should provide.

    For me I'd think that somebody inheriting something from somebody else generally should have had some sort of relationship with the person they're doing the inheriting from. Also the decision to leave anything to anybody should rest solely with the person who is going to be doing the leaving and no other person should have the right to tell them what to do in that case. Now that's probably going wildly off topic mind.


  • #428
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    diveout wrote: »
    As it is, you can't force a father to be a father other than demanding some financial support. Unless you are saying all there is to being a father is money, which I don't support philosphically.

    Some of the posts have a punitive edge. However think practically, if there is NO consequence to fathering unwanted children, then there is no encouragement to taking precautions in the first place.

    As it stands now, children growing up in single parent households are poorer and more vulnerable. With greater poverty you have greater crime, you have greater drop outs in school, you have a greater chance of delinquency, depression, etc. I could go on. So you have to consider also, the bigger picture.

    I was in the waiting room of a hospital a few years ago and was talking to this young man who was there with his pregnant girlfriend. He told me his brother has 9 children all around the country with different women, none whom he sees or pays for. This is what you are endorsing.

    Where I might come around to agreeing with you is in a wider question of how much of a right does the state have to take out of people's pockets- it might be interesting in terms of a libertarian argument.

    Of course they are poorer as are kids of divorce. Both parents have to pay rent rather than sharing.


  • #429
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    P_1 wrote: »
    For me I'd think that somebody inheriting something from somebody else generally should have had some sort of relationship with the person they're doing the inheriting from. Also the decision to leave anything to anybody should rest solely with the person who is going to be doing the leaving and no other person should have the right to tell them what to do in that case. Now that's probably going wildly off topic mind.

    Ideally.

    But that's not the case for any child or spouse so I don't think it would be fair to single out children just because they are the result of an unplanned pregnancy. If that law applied to all children then fair enough. How often have we heard of people being cut out of a will?
    But as things stand now, the following applies when a will was made and a child excluded

    In contrast have is a right to apply to the Court to have provision made for them out of the estate. The Court will only do so if it finds that the deceased parent has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means.

    The courts will look at all the surrounding circumstances, in particular:

    The age of the child
    Their position in life
    The age and position of the other children of the testator
    The means of the parent
    Whether and what provision the parent made for the chid during his lifetime
    They may look at the conduct of the child towards their parent
    Whether that child had a need which the parent was able to satisfy in accordance with his/her means.

    Where there is no will, the children of a person get 1/3 if there's a spouse.


    It's my opinion that a man who walks away from his child has failed in his moral duty as described above.

    It's not really as straightforward when there is a will and a lot of it comes down to whether the child was looked after by the parent or not.

    But this also applies to "wanted" children.

    My issue is with the notion that there would be a law like that above for one set of children and a separate law for another set. It's not right. If the law is to be changed it should apply to all and not just some.

    It's the very notion that some people feel that these laws should apply to one set of children and not another is what is making me uncomfortable. It's marking them out as being different. Bad enough that their parent has already rejected them without their legal rights being diminished also.


  • #430
    Fabreo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭Fabreo


    ash23 wrote: »
    Ideally.

    But that's not the case for any child or spouse so I don't think it would be fair to single out children just because they are the result of an unplanned pregnancy. If that law applied to all children then fair enough. How often have we heard of people being cut out of a will?
    But as things stand now, the following applies when a will was made and a child excluded

    In contrast have is a right to apply to the Court to have provision made for them out of the estate. The Court will only do so if it finds that the deceased parent has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means.

    The courts will look at all the surrounding circumstances, in particular:

    The age of the child
    Their position in life
    The age and position of the other children of the testator
    The means of the parent
    Whether and what provision the parent made for the chid during his lifetime
    They may look at the conduct of the child towards their parent
    Whether that child had a need which the parent was able to satisfy in accordance with his/her means.

    Where there is no will, the children of a person get 1/3 if there's a spouse.


    It's my opinion that a man who walks away from his child has failed in his moral duty as described above.

    It's not really as straightforward when there is a will and a lot of it comes down to whether the child was looked after by the parent or not.

    But this also applies to "wanted" children.

    My issue is with the notion that there would be a law like that above for one set of children and a separate law for another set. It's not right.

    Do you believe that a woman who aborts has failed her moral duty?


  • #431
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Fabreo wrote: »
    Do you believe that a woman who aborts has failed her moral duty?


    There's no child to provide for if she has an abortion so no, I don't.

    If a woman gives birth and dumps a baby in foster care or on the father or with her parents etc then I belive that she has.

    If she signs over her legal rights and allows the child to be adopted then no, she hasn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    My issue is with the notion that there would be a law like that above for one set of children and a separate law for another set. It's not right. If the law is to be changed it should apply to all and not just some.

    It's the very notion that some people feel that these laws should apply to one set of children and not another is what is making me uncomfortable. It's marking them out as being different. Bad enough that their parent has already rejected them without their legal rights being diminished also.

    Of course there is an ideal of both parents involved and a shared relationship.

    That is not what is being discussed.



    What you fail to see is, that if there is a group of people to who the law is not applied equally to...it is unmarried fathers..whether involved or not with a child.


    I personally see no issue with different inheritance rights where the child and parent have no relationship or where rights have been waived etc. For example, adopted children have no such rights afaik.

    I dont think it makes anyone "different" or degrades "anyone"


    for example, if someone fathers a child but has no relationshaip and then that child's mother marries again and have a comfortable and well-off life...why should the child also have rights to the father's estate...even if small and at the same time reduce the inheritance of other children.


  • #433
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    ash23 wrote: »
    There's no child to provide for if she has an abortion so no, I don't.

    If a woman gives birth and dumps a baby in foster care or on the father or with her parents etc then I belive that she has.

    If she signs over her legal rights and allows the child to be adopted then no, she hasn't.


    It comes back to the same issue. The woman has choices that have huge ramifications for the would be father who only has responsibilities.


  • #434
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Riskymove wrote: »
    Of course there is an ideal of both parents involved and a shared relationship.

    That is not what is being discussed.



    What you fail to see is, that if there is a group of people to who the law is not applied equally to...it is unmarried fathers..whether involved or not with a child.


    I personally see no issue with different inheritance rights where the child and parent have no relationship or where rights have been waived etc. For example, adopted children have no such rights afaik.

    I dont think it makes anyone "different" or degrades "anyone"


    for example, if someone fathers a child but has no relationshaip and then that child's mother marries again and have a comfortable and well-off life...why should the child also have rights to the father's estate...even if small and at the same time reduce the inheritance of other children.

    Because regardless of what kind of life the child has, it is still HIS child. And whether the mother provides a great life for the child or not is immaterial. It's about the father and whether he provided for HIS child.
    If someone else picked up the slack for him, that doesn't lessen his obligation to a child that he fathered.
    Just because the father abandoned the child or wanted nothing to do with it doesn't lessen the fact that he fathered a child.


  • #435
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    It comes back to the same issue. The woman has choices that have huge ramifications for the would be father who only has responsibilities.


    The woman has one choice that the father doesn't have.
    Other than that they have the same choices to make.

    The mother also bears the physical brunt of the pregnancy, be that by having the child or having an abortion. It's not something the father can do but I don't hear anyone hear complaining of how unfair that is?


  • #436
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    Just because the father abandoned the child or wanted nothing to do with it doesn't lessen the fact that he fathered a child.

    but there are also fathers excluded against their wishes yet the same obligations remain...etc.


    anyways, see my previous points....again it just seems to go around and around

    I am not sure where else to go with this discussion with you


  • #437
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    Other than that they have the same choices to make.

    that plainly isn't true

    The mother also bears the physical brunt of the pregnancy, be that by having the child or having an abortion. It's not something the father can do but I don't hear anyone hear complaining of how unfair that is?

    what would be the point about complaining about human biology...not a lot that can be done about it...yet!


  • #438
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Riskymove wrote: »
    that plainly isn't true



    what would be the point about complaining about human biology...not a lot that can be done about it...yet!


    And yet you think that men should be able to abscond from their obligation to a child they create because of biology (women can have abortions and men can't).

    That's kind of my point. It's biology that gives a woman that extra right to choose because she is the one who is pregnant. It's not fair on the man but it's biology.
    It's not fair on the woman to have to be pregnant but that's biology


  • #439
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    ash23 wrote: »
    The woman has one choice that the father doesn't have.
    Other than that they have the same choices to make.

    The mother also bears the physical brunt of the pregnancy, be that by having the child or having an abortion. It's not something the father can do but I don't hear anyone hear complaining of how unfair that is?

    Thats biology. You can complain but you cant do anything about it.
    There are multiple choices from the start and the have consequences for the father.


  • #440
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Riskymove wrote: »
    but there are also fathers excluded against their wishes yet the same obligations remain...etc.


    anyways, see my previous points....again it just seems to go around and around

    I am not sure where else to go with this discussion with you

    I've already said that I think that women and men should have equal rights from birth to the child and if that was what was being discussed or fought for, then I'd be all for it.

    But that's not what is being discussed. What is being looked for here is a way out and I wouldn't support that.


  • #441
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    Thats biology. You can complain but you cant do anything about it.
    There are multiple choices from the start and the have consequences for the father.


    Such as?


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    ash23 wrote: »
    And yet you think that men should be able to abscond from their obligation to a child they create because of biology (women can have abortions and men can't).

    That's kind of my point. It's biology that gives a woman that extra right to choose because she is the one who is pregnant. It's not fair on the man but it's biology.
    It's not fair on the woman to have to be pregnant but that's biology

    Its not biology that gives the woman a choice its the rules we as a society decide what is legal.

    If we choose to give women the option of whether to be a parent or not shouldnt we give men the same right?


  • #443
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,544 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    ash23 wrote: »
    Such as?

    Morning after pill
    Aportion
    Adoption


  • #444
    Fabreo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭Fabreo


    ash23 wrote: »
    And yet you think that men should be able to abscond from their obligation to a child they create because of biology (women can have abortions and men can't).

    That's kind of my point. It's biology that gives a woman that extra right to choose because she is the one who is pregnant. It's not fair on the man but it's biology.
    It's not fair on the woman to have to be pregnant but that's biology

    Yes and we can make it fair by allowing men to be absolved of responsibilty if the mother won't have an abortion and ignore his wishes.


  • #445
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    And yet you think that men should be able to abscond from their obligation to a child they create because of biology (women can have abortions and men can't).

    That's kind of my point. It's biology that gives a woman that extra right to choose because she is the one who is pregnant. It's not fair on the man but it's biology.
    It's not fair on the woman to have to be pregnant but that's biology

    this completely distorts what we are talking about imo

    the discussion is about what obligations there should be in certain scenarios


    you have a fixed position on that...fair enough...but that doesn't mean that's how it has to be

    no one denies the right of the women to choose to have the baby

    if the man got pregnant, then the discussion would be about the effect on the woman


  • #446
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ash23 wrote: »
    What is being looked for here is a way out and I wouldn't support that.

    again, this is down to your fixed view on the consequences of fathering a child...however unplanned....and fair enough, you are entitled to it

    but that doesn't make other options right or wrong


  • #447
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    Morning after pill
    Aportion
    Adoption

    By the time the woman is pregnant it's too late for MAP.
    I've already mentioned abortion and how it is as a result of biology that a woman gets this choice and a man doesn't.
    A woman needs the permission of the father to place a child for adoption.

    My post was about the choices after abortion has been ruled out. It was stated that woman get all the choice but men just get the responsibility.


  • #448
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Fabreo wrote: »
    Yes and we can make it fair by allowing men to be absolved of responsibilty if the mother won't have an abortion and ignore his wishes.


    But that's not fair either. Nobody "wins" in an event like an unplanned pregnancy. Not the woman OR the man. But that shouldn't matter. Once the child is actually here, IT should be the main concern and what is best for the child should be the priority and the main aim of any law.

    Not a pissing contest between the parents.


  • #449
    Lux23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    pajopearl wrote: »
    Accidents happen mate.

    Cases have been brought before where women have wanted to get abortions for whatever reason, and men have gotten injunctions stopping them from getting them so why can't the reverse be true.

    Because you can't force anyone to undergo an evasive medical procedure like an abortion, it happens, but is considered horrific by most people with a conscious.


  • #450
    diveout
    Closed Accounts Posts: 746 ✭✭✭diveout


    ash23 wrote: »
    But that's not fair either. Nobody "wins" in an event like an unplanned pregnancy. Not the woman OR the man. But that shouldn't matter. Once the child is actually here, IT should be the main concern and what is best for the child should be the priority and the main aim of any law.

    Not a pissing contest between the parents.

    The law has to respect the right of adults and autonomous citizens. Sometimes this means there are costs. Nothing comes without a price.

    People like to natter on about children's rights. Children don't have rights in any essential form. When the courts talk about children's rights, all it means is whatever the expert in the room thinks it means, an expert getting paid several grand by a biased party.

    What should be and what is are two very different things. Let the shadow of the ideal follow you and it will obscure reality.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    diveout wrote: »
    The law has to respect the right of adults and autonomous citizens. Sometimes this means there are costs. Nothing comes without a price.

    People like to natter on about children's rights. Children don't have rights in any essential form. When the courts talk about children's rights, all it means is whatever the expert in the room thinks it means, an expert getting paid several grand by a biased party.

    What should be and what is are two very different things. Let the shadow of the ideal follow you and it will obscure reality.

    All the experts would say that having both parents in their life is for the best.

    To me, once a child is born it's a person and has the same rights as any other person. Seeing as the child had no say in the manner it was born, it is the one who should be protected. Whereas the man and woman who created it both made a choice to have sex and as adults both knew the consequences of that action.


Advertisement