UK Abortion Act is not working as intended

[Peter F]

Yes - and it seems you would be happy to see a father driven into bankruptcy to satify your concept of fairness.

Tyranny in the name of good intentions is still a tyranny.

Then be bankrupt. Lack of cash does not excuse any father or mother of thier minimal duty to the child.

[Riverwind]

Eminantly reasonable. I love the SCC!

Do you really belive that a man should be compelled by pay child support for children that are living with their biological father?

Then be bankrupt. Lack of cash does not excuse any father or mother of thier minimal duty to the child.

I suppose you would like the court to start ording uncles, coaches, teachers and any other male who acts in an father like role. After all if step dads have a duty then so do all of the others. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

Do you really belive that a man should be compelled by pay child support for children that are living with their biological father?

If he has/had taken on a role of parent, then YES.

I suppose you would like the court to start ording uncles, coaches, teachers and any other male who acts in an father like role. After all if step dads have a duty then so do all of the others.

Yes, absolutly. If they have taken on the role of parent then parent they are.

[Riverwind]

If he has/had taken on a role of parent, then YES.

Yes, absolutly. If they have taken on the role of parent then parent they are.

I am pretty sure the majority of people disagree with you. The trouble is the courts often decide a man took the role of the parent even though that was never his intention. He was simply being kind to the children he was living with. For that reason the courts cannot be trusted to make a sensible determination and no one should have any financial obligation to children that they did not legally adopt. Too many judges let their obsession with "the best interests of the child" override any concept of common sense or fairness. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

The trouble is the courts have decided the man took the role of the parent even though that was never his intention. He was simply being kind to the children he was living with. For that reason the courts cannot be trusted to make a sensible determination and no one should have any financial obligation to children that they did not legally adopt.

Hey, I can be kind to my girlfriends children, I can even buy them a present on thier birthdays. But I think M Chartier did far more than that, Its the courts that determine intention, not the accused.

Believe it or not, there are hundreds of men in this country who feel they do not owe thier biological children a dime - even if they have been thier active parent for years - simply to spite the woman that spurned him.

Just cause they say 'But your honour, I was never thier parent' doesn't make it true.

deadbeat dads

Edit to add:

Every case must be determined on its own facts and from the evidence and it must be established that the adult acted so as to stand in the place of a parent to the child.

So what TV shows or editorials say is the case, may not necessarily be so. It is up to the courts to decide if the role of parent is disputed.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Peter F

[Riverwind]

But I think M Chartier did far more than that, Its the courts that determine intention, not the accused.

Interesting choice of words. It speaks volumes about your bias against the male partners in relationship. Ironically, the father would have a much better chance if he really was the 'accused' because then the mother would have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he acted as a father.

Here are some more stories from someone with experience with the real judgements:

Nor does the child necessarily reciprocate with any kind of benefit to the step-parent—even filial affection. The flow of benefits is all too often completely one-way. In many cases I’ve seen, the kids remained aloof or even actively hostile to the step-parent despite the adult’s best efforts to foster a relationship. “My real dad says you’re not my father and I don’t have to listen to you,” is the stock sentence that clients quote their step-children as having uttered.

In fact, conflict between step-parent and step-child is often one of the reasons why the relationship between the two adult partners ultimately breaks down. Unfortunately, before the final denouement, in an attempt to salvage the relationship, the husband frequently promises the wife that he will henceforth make even greater efforts to treat the ungrateful little wretches as if they were his own. In Ontario, that’s the coup de grace. The law says that if you have “demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as a child of his or her family” then you’re a “parent”, with all the consequent support obligations.

Frankly I think this states the best reasons for getting rid of 'step parent' support obligations:

Good laws should encourage responsible behaviour and discourage irresponsible behaviour. The law makes people support their biological children as a disincentive to irresponsible procreation. You don’t get to make babies and walk away scot-free. But this reasoning doesn’t apply to step-children. The children are already in existence when the step-parent comes on the scene, so allowing step-parents to walk away would not encourage irresponsible procreation.

The step-parent support laws are actually perverse, providing disincentives for socially desirable behaviour. First, they discourage people from entering into relationships with single parents. Second, they discourage people from attempting to forge close relationships with their step-children if they are so foolhardy as to overcome the first disincentive. It is only because so many people are ignorant of the law that it “works” at all.

[Peter F]

Interesting choice of words. It speaks volumes about your bias against the male partners in relationship. Ironically, the father would have a much better chance if he really was the 'accused' because then the mother would have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he acted as a father.

Here are some more stories from someone with experience with the real judgements:

Frankly I think this states the best reasons for getting rid of 'step parent' support obligations:

Hah! If they don't want to be considered the parent then don't take on the parental responsibility. Support payments are not conditional upon the childs love or lack of it.

[Riverwind]

Hah! If they don't want to be considered the parent then don't take on the parental responsibility. Support payments are not conditional upon the childs love or lack of it.

The trouble is the only way to avoid 'parental responsibility' is to refuse to enter into a relationship with a single woman or to be outright nasty to the kids. Do you really believe that it is in society's interest to encourage such behavoir?

[Peter F]

The trouble is the only way to avoid 'parental responsibility' is to refuse to enter into a relationship with a single woman or to be outright nasty to the kids. Do you really believe that it is in society's interest to encourage such behavoir?

What you advocate equals the same thing - without financial support.

[Riverwind]

What you advocate equals the same thing - without financial support.

Which is better for the kids:

1) Living in a single parent household with no financial support;

2) Living a two parent household with financial support as long as relationship lasts;

Most people would agree that 2) is better than 1) yet you advocate laws that will ensure that more kids have to deal with 1).

The only reason step parents are on the hook today is because most of them are ignorant of the laws. As more and more people realize how punative the laws are they will think twice about entering into relationships with step kids. The biggest losers are the kids that you claim to care about.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA:

It's horrid to force a woman to give birth because its horrid to force a woman to be and remain pregnant.

It's quite allright to force a man to pay for it because the man isn't paying for the womans pregnancy; he is paying for the support of a live human being.

It's enlightened to celebrate a womans choice because we acknowledge that women whole human beings with full control of thier own bodies - just like men.

We decry a mans choice to not be a father as "selfish and irresponsible" because he is denying support to a single woman and her child, just so's his bank account can get fatter - That is selfish and irresponsible.

What a load of PC hogswaddle. The woman has the choice to boink and then abort or not, and the man has the choice to boink. Thereafter he has no choice at all...everything thereafter is the choice of the woman. If she decides to abort, she aborts, regardless of what the man wants. That's the end of the story. If she decides not to abort, the man has no choice, but is faced with paying child support, regardless of his choices, for the next 18 to 21 years. Everything is the woman's "choice."

[Peter F]

Which is better for the kids:

1) Living in a single parent household with no financial support;

2) Living a two parent household with financial support as long as relationship lasts;

Most people would agree that 2) is better than 1) yet you advocate laws that will ensure that more kids have to deal with 1).

The only reason step parents are on the hook today is because most of them are ignorant of the laws. As more and more people realize how punative the laws are they will think twice about entering into relationships with step kids. The biggest losers are the kids that you claim to care about.

Bullshit. It's you who claim the possibility of being a parent is keeping you away from the woman and children you supposedly care about. You want to be able to walk away on a whim with no consideration for those left in the lurch.

So don't had me the crap that you are only seeking to make thier lives better, just like a bunch of bitchy step-parents who are pissed about paying child support.

I think the lesson here is, wich you apparently reject, is:

Know who you're going to have sex with.

Know who the person is that you intend to have children with.

Sex can always result in pregnancy

You cannot walk away from being a parent. Though many try and too many succeed.

Now enough of this silly back and forth. I have stated my case and there it stands for good or ill.

[Peter F]

If she decides to abort, she aborts, regardless of what the man wants. That's the end of the story. If she decides not to abort, the man has no choice, but is faced with paying child support, regardless of his choices, for the next 18 to 21 years. Everything is the woman's "choice."

You, too, have the right to be pregnant.

(apologies to 'Life of Brian')

[Riverwind]

Bullshit. It's you who claim the possibility of being a parent is keeping you away from the woman and children you supposedly care about. You want to be able to walk away on a whim with no consideration for those left in the lurch.

Hold it buddy. Relationships breakdown for any number of reasons. In many cases it is the woman who wants to walk away and take her ex-es paycheck with her. For every deadbeat dad story there is a gold digging bitch story. More importantly, people who get remarried have usually already gone through one divorce which means they will be more cautious. In other words, you have no business making presumptions about the commitment or motives of step parents who would refuse to enter into a relationship because of step kids.

So don't had me the crap that you are only seeking to make their lives better, just like a bunch of bitchy step-parents who are pissed about paying child support.

I am simply pointing out that the policies that you support will put kids is a worse situation in the long run. You can deny it if you like but that does not alter the truth of what I say. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

Hold it buddy. Relationships breakdown for any number of reasons. In many cases it is the woman who wants to walk away and take her ex-es paycheck with her. For every deadbeat dad story there is a gold digging bitch story. More importantly, people who get remarried have usually already gone through one divorce which means they will be more cautious. In other words, you have no business making presumptions about the commitment or motives of step parents who would refuse to enter into a relationship because of step kids.

True enough. I have no business making presumptions. You are correct to point that out.

However, this morphed discussion is not about step parents who refuse to enter into relationships because of kids, but about people who do enter into relationships involving kids.

I am simply pointing out that the policies that you support will put kids is a worse situation in the long run. You can deny it if you like but that does not alter the truth of what I say.

I think the argument that the childrens lives are enhanced by not paying child support would last about 30 seconds in a court of law.

But then, I'm not trained in the nuances of Family Law.

[Riverwind]

I think the argument that the childrens lives are enhanced by not paying child support would last about 30 seconds in a court of law.

This discussion is about how does society balance the competing rights of men, women and children. It is about the principals and tradeoffs involved - not about what the current law requires. I suspect that most people do agree that allowing a mother to collect support from multiple fathers is rediculously unfair that the law should be changed. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

So no one could blame you for your decision to quit using condoms? Come on. You made a bad choice in trusting the woman, but the key word there is "choice." Ultimately you are the one who made the decision, and as such, would have been responsible for that decsion. Fact is, we're held accountable for our bad decsions too. Making a bad choice doesn't absolve us of responsiblity.

I don't recall saying that. Nice strawperson.

I do recall responding to a post that laid the onus on a man for conception. I suppose if I'm being lied to, or defrauded of my wealth, the onus is on the victim.

Isn't that what you are arguing? If a telemarketer defrauds you, you must not claim foul, but simply be responsible for your decision to open wide your wallet.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't recall saying that. Nice strawperson.

I do recall responding to a post that laid the onus on a man for conception. I suppose if I'm being lied to, or defrauded of my wealth, the onus is on the victim.

Isn't that what you are arguing? If a telemarketer defrauds you, you must not claim foul, but simply be responsible for your decision to open wide your wallet.

Whether you recall saying it or not, you did say it. Right here I really couldn't have quoted you if you hadn't said it, eh?

And no. I'm not talking about telemarketers. Unless when you have sex it's a business transaction.

[M.Dancer]

Whether you recall saying it or not, you did say it. Right here I really couldn't have quoted you if you hadn't said it, eh?

And no. I'm not talking about telemarketers. Unless when you have sex it's a business transaction.

Hey, Obviously I'm not as gifted as you when it comes to reading what is not there. Show me where I said I was blameless. Take your time....

And besides, you didn't quote me as saying I shouldn't be blamed, you made that up. I was saying to the poster above that it isn't always the man's decision to procreate.....

Anyway, in your world, the victimn is to blame, there can't be one law for one type of fraud and another for what ever you feel like. The person who gives their credit card to a fraudster is just as gullible as a young man convinced he needn't wear a condom....

Edited December 3, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Guest American Woman]

Hey, Obviously I'm not as gifted as you when it comes to reading what is not there. Show me where I said I was blameless. Take your time....

And besides, you didn't quote me as saying I shouldn't be blamed, you made that up. I was saying to the poster above that it isn't always the man's decision to procreate.....

Anyway, in your world, the victimn is to blame, there can't be one law for one type of fraud and another for what ever you feel like. The person who gives their credit card to a fraudster is just as gullible as a young man convinced he needn't wear a condom....

You said "you can't blame the man if they get conned." I thought that meant you can't blame the man if they get conned by a woman saying she's on the pill. Perhaps I misinterpreted your post.

But business deals and personal decsions are two very different things. If you tried to get out of paying child support for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy by telling the judge that you were "conned" into having sex without taking precautions yourself, that you were a victim, I would hope that judge would be Judge Judy so I could hear her response.

Edited December 3, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

This is what I was reponding to.

QUOTE(Riverwind @ Dec 2 2007, 05:43 PM)

A false argument. It was the man's choices that created the fetus.

It wouldn't have been my choice to create a fetus, but it was my choice to believe her when she said that I didn't need a condom, that she had been celebate, etc etc....that I should trust her....if I loved her.....

....christ, how young could I have been?

On a side note, we broke up soon after that. She was pregnant 3 month later and married 6 months later.

[Guest American Woman]

This is what I was reponding to.

It wouldn't have been my choice to create a fetus, but it was my choice to believe her when she said that I didn't need a condom, that she had been celebate, etc etc....that I should trust her....if I loved her.....

....christ, how young could I have been?

On a side note, we broke up soon after that. She was pregnant 3 month later and married 6 months later.

Like I said before, I obviously misinterpreted your post. I in no way condone anyone lying to a parter to get them to have sex, to try to have a baby, etc. But it does go on, so that's why everyone should take responsibility for themself because ultimately you have no one to blame but yourself because bad judgement/making bad choices doesn't absolve you of responsiblity. That was my only point. Obviously I don't know how young you were, but I do know it's a good thing that you got out of the relationship.

Edited December 3, 2007 by American Woman

[Frankie]

It's hard to say, I mean I've always felt like it is "wrong" to kill the baby before birth, but on the other hand it makes sense and seems to solves more problems then it causes if people were allowed to have abortions. I guess people feel like the idea of having a baby before you and your mate are ready would be discouraging so they would more likely refrain from sex until they're ready, but if they told they can have an abortion at any point, then they wouldn't be so concerned. So ideally abortions should be for people who really need it, like if the birth might cause major health concerns for the mother, or if it would be impossible for the parent(s) to comfortably raise a child financially and with the time they could offer, etc...

[M.Dancer]

It's hard to say, I mean I've always felt like it is "wrong" to kill the baby before birth, but on the other hand it makes sense and seems to solves more problems then it causes if people were allowed to have abortions. I guess people feel like the idea of having a baby before you and your mate are ready would be discouraging so they would more likely refrain from sex until they're ready, but if they told they can have an abortion at any point, then they wouldn't be so concerned. So ideally abortions should be for people who really need it, like if the birth might cause major health concerns for the mother, or if it would be impossible for the parent(s) to comfortably raise a child financially and with the time they could offer, etc...

If I had to list what I thought were valid reasons for an abortion, they would go like this:

When the mother is too young

When the Mother is too old

When there are serious birth defects

When it is a case of rape or incest

When there are psychological issues

When childbirth presents serious health concerns to the mother

[Guest American Woman]

This discussion is about how does society balance the competing rights of men, women and children. It is about the principals and tradeoffs involved - not about what the current law requires. I suspect that most people do agree that allowing a mother to collect support from multiple fathers is rediculously unfair that the law should be changed.

I've told a few people about that and they can't believe it. Now I have another question about Canada's child support laws. In light of the "best interest of the child" line of thought, how does a child from a man's second family fare? Here the child/children from the first family takes precedence. Not exactly in the "best interest of the child" (from the second family), I must admit.