Mother can keep birth a secret

[MamaMaiasaura]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7109774.stm what do you think about this?

Why are people so interested in protecting fathers' rights?

People who care about children, don't generally talk about fathers' or mothers' rights. They talk about children's welfare.

You know I think it says an awful lot about the two of you that you don't think the rights of certain group of people are valid. Everyone has rights, fathers included. Nobodys rights should ever be ignored.

I don't think father's rights aren't valid

I just don't think they outweigh the rights of mothers and children.

As you appear to.

I don't think that they should outweigh a mothers but I do think it should be equal to it

And I think nature has arranged it so that it's not. And won't ever be. You can rant and rail against nature, but that just seems to me to be silly.

There are loads of examples in nature where both parents rear the children. There are also some examples of gang rape so should we start to think thats ok to?

And anyway you don't believe a father's rights should equal to that of the mother. You've stated quite clearly that you think a father should have control of a mother's body, where she disagrees with him. I think she should have control of her own body. So inconveniently, nature has arranged it so that one of their rights has to trump those of the other.

I'm not talking about nature vis a vis ducks or foxes or lizards. I'm talking about human beings, I'm that narrow-minded.

This is absolutely right
Anything else would give a man - and potentially a virtual stranger - rights over a woman's body

but if she didn't want the baby, why shouldn't she tell him and at least ask if he wants it.
it seems it's not about the child's rights it's about what the mother wants.
they sound like a completely irresponsible pair of pr*ts to me.
Though I guess that the probability is that he wouldn't care anyway.
I know I am in the minority but one night stands are yuck! (imo and I am not talking from personal experience)

what also seems odd to me is that we all want men to care once the babies are born and be the perfect dad, but they aren't supposed to care until birth???

she could have told the father after the birth if she wanted to.
If she thinks he will be a poor father then why would she though?

look at it from another point of view. what if you really wanted said baby and the dad didn't so had the right to make you have a termination. Every time a woman has a termination against a fathers wishes she is depriving him of his child.
I am definitely against forcing a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she doesn't want, but can't see why a mans feelings can't be just as valid as a womans

Elizabetth i think responsible people should check if they have unwittingly fathered a child. (Unless of course they were so disgusting that they didn't even know the womans name!!)

I might have missed something but I thought the Judge had made it reasonably clear he didn't think she actually knew who the father was? Or have I muddled up two cases?

In one judgment (and I might be wrong and have muddled the cases) Munby J said (regarding the mother not giving further information about the father, and saying that couldn't give information she didn't have):

"suppose that I was satisfied to the criminal standard that she was telling lies. Could it seriously be suggested that she should be punished, even sent to prison? Surely not. Punishment would surely be unthinkable.

The whole process smacks too much of the Inquisition to be tolerable. And it is not to be justified merely because we believe, however strongly, that what we are doing is being done in the best interests of a child. Here again, as it seems to me, the wise words of Holman J have a powerful resonance."

Holman J having said:

?So far as I know, it has not previously been suggested, nor judicially determined, that that confidentiality of the mother cannot be respected and maintained. If it is now to be eroded, there is, in my judgment, a real risk that more pregnant women would seek abortions or give birth secretly, to the risk of both themselves and their babies ? There is, in my judgment, a strong social need, if it is lawful, to continue to enable some mothers, such as this mother, to make discreet, dignified and humane arrangements for the birth and subsequent adoption of their babies, without their families knowing anything about it, if the mother, for good reason, so wishes.?

Littlebella as far as I know nature still requires a man and a woman to make a baby.

Er, yes paula. The man has to have a shag and deposit his sperm in the woman. Thank you, I knew about that, but my memory of it is somewhat distant and hazy, so thank you for the reminder.

Then after that, the woman has to carry the child in her own body for nearly ten months and then go through a life-threatening process of bringing it into the world. Then feed the child from her own body for at least six months and then beyond even when it is eating other foods. The child recognises her smell, taste and touch as soon as it comes out of her body into the world.

So of course, logically, that means that the man should have more say over what happens to that child than the woman does. And if the woman disagrees with him, his word should take priority over hers.

What "rights" do fathers have that need protecting? I think it's mothers' and babies' rights which need to be protected myself.

I have no particular interest in fathers' rights. I was referring to the wider hoo-ha surrounding this case. I do think it's a poor test case for mens groups to take on as a cause celebre (given that there was no long term relationship between the parents), and my personal view is far closer to yours and Little Bella's than Paula's as I understand it - in that it's her body and her right to choose who knows she's pregnant.

I don't assume anything about women. Please don't put imaginary words into my mouth and then take offense at them.

I didn't. I was drawing a parallel. I was disagreeing with the supposition on your part that a man who had no prior wish to become a father would inevitably have no interest were the circumstances to change.

In my opinion your use of such hyperbolic language as 'leaving his sperm behind after a drunken one night stand' and 'depositing his sperm' does your arguments a disservice (although I wouldn't presume my opinion interests you that much).

As I said, I would presume you accept the rights of women to have consensual sex with whoever they want, drunken and casual if they so choose. If we hope to raise a generation of boys that grow into men with the proper respect for women, couching arguments in 'us v them' terms is only going to be counterproductive.

Again let me say that I do not think that a father should have more rights but that the right to a child should be equal.

So? I don't think that just because a woman has to carry the baby should mean that she has more rights over it than the father. The father's role may be smaller but its no less important in the process. She couldn't have done it without him.

"If we hope to raise a generation of boys that grow into men with the proper respect for women, couching arguments in 'us v them' terms is only going to be counterproductive."

I agree. Luckily I haven't done this.

Heh. I submit in the face of your comedic genius

A bit late to this discussion. UNICEF's statement on the rights of a child:

"Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. "

Therefore the rights of mother and father are subservient surely to the rights of the welfare of that child?

As to who safeguards their rights? I suppose that comes down to individual states. But the UNICEF principle would seem to me to indicate that the state uphold the rights of the child as paramount, and by extension, where possible allow for that child to know both it's biological parents?

Ot is that a leap of logic too far?