Rights of the father.
So it seems the thread about the women who was tricked into aborting her pregnancy as devolved into a debate about what rights the father should or shouldn't have when it comes to children.
And by rights I mean should the father have involvement ( legally ) on whether the baby is kept or not
Should the father have a right to walk away without consequence to his actions.
Should the mother have a right to obligate the father to pay child support.
Forgot to mention this first time round but people have brought it up, should the father be obligated to have emotional/practical involvement in the child's life separate of financial support,
Basically potential legal obligations of the father.
I myself am undecided on the issue . My present thinking is over idealistic and could never be used for a real legal system.
And by rights I mean should the father have involvement ( legally ) on whether the baby is kept or not
Should the father have a right to walk away without consequence to his actions.
Should the mother have a right to obligate the father to pay child support.
Forgot to mention this first time round but people have brought it up, should the father be obligated to have emotional/practical involvement in the child's life separate of financial support,
Basically potential legal obligations of the father.
I myself am undecided on the issue . My present thinking is over idealistic and could never be used for a real legal system.
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Yes
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
Posted from TSR Mobile
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Father should and can walk away if they don't want anything to do with the kid.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
Original post by bittr n swt
Father should and can walk away if they don't want anything to do with the kid.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
Why is it the fathers responsibility to use protection? The woman's the one who at risk of getting pregnant, why shouldn't she take responsibility?
Original post by Zargabaath
Why is it the fathers responsibility to use protection? The woman's the one who at risk of getting pregnant, why shouldn't she take responsibility?
i totally agree.
Both should be using protection however the pill isn't 100% effective but if a condom doesn't split then surely there's no chance of getting pregnant
Original post by Fanatical Geek
Yes
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
Posted from TSR Mobile
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
Posted from TSR Mobile
So you saying the father should have legal involvement in the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy, is that a legal obligation for him to be informed of the decision or go beyond that, an obligation to discuss the decision with him or maybe even further.
In regards to the last one ( which you say depends on circumstance you specifically mention income), why is it fair that a women who has less money ( than a certain amount ) be allowed to obligate a man to pay to raise the child. It is not his fault ( or at least assumably isn't) his fault for her not being above the cut of point.
Original post by bittr n swt
Father should and can walk away if they don't want anything to do with the kid.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
But the father should be taken responsibility, should have put a condom on.
So he shouldn't have to pay for the child he has produced?
Original post by Zargabaath
Why is it the fathers responsibility to use protection? The woman's the one who at risk of getting pregnant, why shouldn't she take responsibility?
Yes the women is the one who will get pregnant but ultimately the act of bring about a child ( at least in the traditional sense ) requires his action. Doesn't it make far more sense for it to be both their responsibility.
Original post by garfeeled
So you saying the father should have legal involvement in the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy, is that a legal obligation for him to be informed of the decision or go beyond that, an obligation to discuss the decision with him or maybe even further. In regards to the last one ( which you say depends on circumstance you specifically mention income), why is it fair that a women who has less money ( than a certain amount ) be allowed to obligate a man to pay to raise the child. It is not his fault ( or at least assumably isn't) his fault for her not being above the cut of point. So he shouldn't have to pay for the child he has produced?
If he has made his intentions clear from the beginning the pregnancy was announced that he doesn't want the child then he shouldn't pay for the child.
At the end of the day the woman carries the baby and so bears most responsibility
Original post by Europhile
I'm against abortion. I think it should be the last resort in certain circumstances such as complications in regard to the mothers health.
Not solely an abortion question ( though that removes doubt about the father being legaly involved in the decision to keep or not, unless you believe he should even in situations such as when she is at risk
What about involvement during the child's life, should their ever be expectation on him to pay for the child ( legally )
The father should have the opportunity to walk away from the pregnancy and should not be expected to have any obligations, until the point the child can no longer be aborted (giving men and women the same chance to opt in/out of the pregnancy).
Obviously though he should be given the right to be a part of the child's life if he "opts in" (provided he isn't a danger to it). He shouldn't be forced into paying child support if he decides before the abortion date he doesn't want to, however he shouldn't expect to have a role in the child's life.
However he shouldn't be able to force the woman into terminating or carrying out the pregnancy. That decision can ultimately only be made by the mother
Obviously though he should be given the right to be a part of the child's life if he "opts in" (provided he isn't a danger to it). He shouldn't be forced into paying child support if he decides before the abortion date he doesn't want to, however he shouldn't expect to have a role in the child's life.
However he shouldn't be able to force the woman into terminating or carrying out the pregnancy. That decision can ultimately only be made by the mother
Original post by bittr n swt
If he has made his intentions clear from the beginning the pregnancy was announced that he doesn't want the child then he shouldn't pay for the child.
At the end of the day the woman carries the baby and so bears most responsibility
At the end of the day the woman carries the baby and so bears most responsibility
But why p, you accept he bears some responsibility ( or at least I think you do ). If he engages in unprotected sex with an individual not on any form of contraception why is he not expect to bear some sort of responsibility ( financial, legal etc ).
Original post by Fanatical Geek
Yes
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
No
And depends on circumstance (e.g. income levels of the two partners, women could eat much more etc)
So you're saying that, as a reason for the amount of child support paid from one parent to another, a woman shouldn't have to pay as much as the man normally would because she chooses to have a larger portion of pasta? Or have I missed something?
Original post by garfeeled
But why p, you accept he bears some responsibility ( or at least I think you do ). If he engages in unprotected sex with an individual not on any form of contraception why is he not expect to bear some sort of responsibility ( financial, legal etc ).
fine maybe i can reason and say he should pay for the first 5 years but after that nothing. It's unreasonable to force someone to pay for a child they didn't want for 18 years or is it 16?
Well, don't have sex then.
Who else is going to support the baby then? More Tax payer money?
The reality is that if Father's decide to walk away when they want then the State / Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to support the Kid along with the Mum.
So, quite frankly, I couldn't care if you are stupid enough to have a baby and you have to support it. Your mistake. You pay.
Who else is going to support the baby then? More Tax payer money?
The reality is that if Father's decide to walk away when they want then the State / Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to support the Kid along with the Mum.
So, quite frankly, I couldn't care if you are stupid enough to have a baby and you have to support it. Your mistake. You pay.
Whether to keep a child or abort it should be entirely the woman's choice. It's her body so it's her decision.
Fathers shouldn't be forced to have practical and emotional involvement in the child's life because that wouldn't be a positive influence on the child but the should pay for the child whatever. It's not about punishing the father it's about not punishing an innocent child.
Fathers shouldn't be forced to have practical and emotional involvement in the child's life because that wouldn't be a positive influence on the child but the should pay for the child whatever. It's not about punishing the father it's about not punishing an innocent child.
Original post by Europhile
If the father does not have a direct involvement in the childs life I think the father should pay into a frozen fund for the child that they can access later on in life but the mother cant access it. This can be used to pay towards private education or whatever. If at 18 the child wants to give some to the mother for what she has done then that is their decision as an adult.
Frozen fund that would be accessible to pay for education and assumably other important thing such as food and clothes and toys and sittersp. So some sort of system where by the mother would have to declare what the money was for like a special credit card.
By should do you mean a legal should such that the mother can have her request for child support backed by the government.
If it was decided that the farther had a legal right to decide whether a foetus was aborted or not, how would that be enforced?
It cant be two people's decision if they disagree. Would the want of an abortion beat the want of a baby, even if it was the women who wanted the baby?
Have the police arrest the women and have her taken kicking and screaming into the operating theatre?
Im completely pro-choice, but this seems unworkable.
It cant be two people's decision if they disagree. Would the want of an abortion beat the want of a baby, even if it was the women who wanted the baby?
Have the police arrest the women and have her taken kicking and screaming into the operating theatre?
Im completely pro-choice, but this seems unworkable.
Original post by Zargabaath
Why is it the fathers responsibility to use protection? The woman's the one who at risk of getting pregnant, why shouldn't she take responsibility?
2) Man is at risk of contracting any of a number of unpleasant STIs if he doesn't routinely use condoms with new partners.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
Whether to keep a child or abort it should be entirely the woman's choice. It's her body so it's her decision.
Fathers shouldn't be forced to have practical and emotional involvement in the child's life because that wouldn't be a positive influence on the child but the should pay for the child whatever. It's not about punishing the father it's about not punishing an innocent child.
Fathers shouldn't be forced to have practical and emotional involvement in the child's life because that wouldn't be a positive influence on the child but the should pay for the child whatever. It's not about punishing the father it's about not punishing an innocent child.
I'm attempting to play Devils advocate for as many people in this thread as possible but I have to say I can't think of any reason to disagree with this.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, don't have sex then.
Who else is going to support the baby then? More Tax payer money?
The reality is that if Father's decide to walk away when they want then the State / Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to support the Kid along with the Mum.
So, quite frankly, I couldn't care if you are stupid enough to have a baby and you have to support it. Your mistake. You pay.
Who else is going to support the baby then? More Tax payer money?
The reality is that if Father's decide to walk away when they want then the State / Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to support the Kid along with the Mum.
So, quite frankly, I couldn't care if you are stupid enough to have a baby and you have to support it. Your mistake. You pay.
That isn't the reality though is it. All women are capable of earning a living, if they choose to have a child knowing that the father will not support them financially that's their decision. Women get pregnant, contraception is their responsibility, that can include insisting that the man wears a condom, but the buck stops with women when they decide what contraception they're going to use as they're the ones who get pregnant.
Contrary to popular belief, I personally can't see how contraception is anybody responsibility apart from that of the person who gets pregnant. It's their body, their responsibility. Of course there are things men can do here, but as I see it it is the responsibility of the woman to say what contraception she'd like the man to be using if they're to have sex (if he lies and has sex without a condom for example then that's a different issue).
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
