If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Which general human rights would these be?
#2. If the man wants the child, and a woman that a pregnant does not want the child, I think the woman has the right to approve an abortion since being pregnant affects your body.
What about the parent's right to privacy?
I have already given a couple of examples, and explained the premise upon which I base my moral centrepoint of rights.
I was talking about the Man Rights choose to either take an interest in the upbring of his child or to NOT take an interest- what did you find so hard to understand about that? NOT about him knowing whether a child exists or not.
If a man unknowingly father's a child and 9 months later the CSA come knocking on his door does he have the right to say - naah sorry I'm not interested in this child I refuse to pay for it's upbringing?
If a woman has a child it seems she does have the right to say naah sorry I'm not interested in this child I'll give birth to it but I then give it up for adoption, and there ends her financial burden - if she so wishes.
Does this clear it up for you or do you need diagrams
I can hardly see that the parents rights of privacy is being infringed by a man (or woman for the sake of being) knowing he has a child.
Please explain.
Sure, what a woman does or does not do in or with her womb is her own private business.
ETA: I answered a different question - whoops!
But I don't understand your question actually. My comment on a parent's right to privacy was with regard to a suggestion that a child has a right to know who their parents are.
Why should there be any lengthy court battles in this case?
The woman doesn't want the child.
If the man is informed and he doesn't want the child either then fair enough put the child up for adoption.
If he does want the child and can provide for it - then why not give the child to it's father, who wants it.
IF the child was a result of rape that would be a very different matter but if two consenting adults of sound judgment created a child then why should one person be kept out of the loop and have other people decide if they have a right to know or not? The man might have other children, which means that child may have lost out on brothers and sisters it is biologically related to and they in turn miss out on a sibling.
BTW I come from a family that has two adopted aunts so I know a little something about life with adopted relatives.
And what's her womb got to do with anything? I'm assuming at this point the baby has been born.
yes, I got that. Yes, giving birth to a baby might be a private matter, but when the baby is indeed born, the birth is not a private matter for the mother anymore, but a matter concerning both parents unless there are certain conditions previously stated.
No more than it is an infraction of her rights to tell the government that the baby has been born, which is also presumably a requirement.
Conception of a child requires both a man and a woman. Why omit one of the parents out of the equation? If it requires effort to find the father, well that's the way it has to be if you ask me. I can't see that as an infraction to her rights. In fact it can be a way to improve her rights, it's probably easier to get child support if she shows that she truly made effort to find the right father.
What about the child's right to be raised by a Biological Parent that may want them, love them and have a physical ties to them? The ruling is denying the child the chance to be brought up by at least one of it's biological parents.
One parent (The Mother) doesn't want it - the father hasn't even be informed.
Also there is no information in that report on the father .. for all we know the woman wants it all kept secret from everyone because she's a school teacher and her one night stand was with her 14 year old Male Student. In which case informing the father means letting out the truth and her landing up in jail?
We don't know all the facts, we don't know if the judges know all the facts at the time of making their decision - all we do know is that the father has been kept out of the loop on everything.
Which it's why it's even more important to inform the father. If a mother that has kept the father out of the picture applies for child support, gets rejected and it all goes to court most judges would probably see it as a stronger argument if the father was informed and also added formally as a father.
Firstly, is that a right? Secondly, that does go back to my firstconundrum of where one right overwrites another one. the example I was thinking of (thoughI don't think I explicitly stated it) was the right to freedom of expression. the arguement of whether one person's freesom of expression overwrites another's right to not be threatened or even freedom of religion is quite a topical one. I think the consensus is that the freedom to not be threatened overwrites freedom of exression, and similarly a woman's frredom to live without being FORCED to contact someone overwrites a man's suggested right to know if he is a father or not. All that is just my opinion on what should be accepted as a 'right'. I'm not specifically commenting on this case, and I do actually think that in ordinary circumstances (ie those excluding issues like persoanl safety) it is curteous and proper to inform a man of his impending/existing fatherhood.
Indeed it does.
But contraception is also just as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. I have yet to see that be realised by men though. Its usually a case of "ooh I had unprotected sex, now she's pregnant/thinks she's pregnant, so poor me. Everybody pity poor little me."
Ever heard of condoms, boys??????
The existance of rights is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. There are no facts you could bring to the table to prove that someone has certain rights. Hell, why does a child's right to financial support from a biological father override the father's right to want to have nothing to do with it? Why does a father's right to see a child he knows about override the mothers right not to have him involved? There's no "proof" for either of these.
I see this as an entirely different debate (Thread contracpetion responsibility?) but I'll give an answer anyway.
Yes, it is a responsibility of both. But if it happens anyway (either because of complete lack of contraception or failure of contraception) and a child is given birth it is a matter of both parents.
I am specifically commenting on this case based upon the information we have been presented with - we don't know if the father is a 40 year old man with a wife and 2 kids already whom he loves dearly who'd welcome another child or a 14 year old who was misconstrued into having a one night stand.
Sorry, but with equal rights comes equal responsibilities. Which is why this argument also belongs in this thread. We are hearing an awful lot about how a man and a woman have equal rights over a child. We heard an awful lot in the abortion thread about a womans rights - and of course her responsibilities. Now we are questioning a man's rights in the area of fatherhood.
Not to be too argumentative, but if men want equal rights in the cases of unwanted pregnancies, then fair is fair. You will have to start shouldering equal responsibilities for avoiding them. Until you do, we will carry on with having the final word when it comes to a choice between abortion/adoption/single parenthood.
I understand that with abortion the woman has absolute control because it's her body. After that fuck her. The father has a right to know about the child. If you want a child without a fatrher go to a sperm bank.
Yeah right.
And if you want equal rights with the mother, then use a condom until you meet a woman you want to commit to and have children with. And stop calling women bitches, you immature, sexist twat.
Presumably then you also believe that a man has the "right" to choose whether or not he wants to be a part of the childs life, whether that's an active part or merely a financial part? I mean if the man doesn't want anything to do with raising the child, then surely he shouldn't have to pay any maintanance towards its upkeep if he chooses not to? That seems to be the logical conclusion to this argument to me. Either a man has certain responsibilities to any child he's fathered, and has the rights that go along with that, or he has none of the rights and none of the responsiblities. You can't have it both ways.
The only issue to me is a practical one, but that doesn't effect the principles of the argument.