CSA Re-assessment Advice

chriszzz

RedSky wrote: »

Fortunately we are both content with our morals and who we are.

If someone takes away my right to choose then they have also taken away my right to be held responsible. If a soldier kills by carrying out orders, who is responsible for the death?

The soldier, he has a choice, to kill or not to kill. He went into that field to kill, he is responsible for pulling that trigger even under orders.


As we both know the Law stands with the woman and whatever she decides goes.....not saying that I agree with the Law but thats the way it is, so my way of thinking is.....dont put yourself in that situation without being fully protected. We all no the consequences of our actions.

Anyway this really does not refer to me because I have took responsibility for my actions and raised all my children, pity one of the parents to my children did not share the same morals and responsibility to be in the lives of their children that they had been apart of for 10yrs.

kelloggs36

RedSky wrote: »

Even if the female signs a document to declare she has taken the pill or the male uses a condom, it still does not change anything. Regardless of who did what or who, stupidly, trusted the other; the responsibilities, rights and decisions are exactly the same. Some may view it different morally but nothing changes legally.

No it doesn't and nor should it - they both have equal resonsibility and it is extremely difficult to legislate against the woman's right to choose whether to go ahead with an unplanned pregnancy; the bottom line is you do the deed you need to accept all that results from that. It would be nice if the father in these sorts of cases wanted to have a relationship with their children but again, you can't make them but you can make parents financially responsible which in my view, is entirely right. For those who claim women are manipulative, yes some are, but men need to be more aware of this and protect themselves as much as possible. Being caught out in a proper relationship is one thing, but in a very short -term one is quite another.

RedSky

kelloggs36 wrote: »

No it doesn't and nor should it - they both have equal resonsibility and it is extremely difficult to legislate against the woman's right to choose whether to go ahead with an unplanned pregnancy.

If they both have equal responsibility then they should both have equal rights to choose. Equality and human rights does not favour one person over the other. But no two cases are the same.

chriszzz

RedSky wrote: »

If they both have equal responsibility then they should both have equal rights to choose. Equality and human rights does not favour one person over the other. But no two cases are the same.

I have to agree with you on the equal rights, for what I see the man does not appear to have those rights as being an equal parent.

He has to ask permission, where as the woman doesnt.

kelloggs36

It wouldn't work though, how could it?

RedSky

I agree, it would be extremely difficult and controversial. A child has a right to the best start in life from two loving and committed parents who will provide life long support at all costs. If two unmarried adults cannot make the commitment to each other and an unborn child then one can argue that the child deserves better or even the adults do not deserve to be parents. Failing a joint commitment, then to make the best of a bad situation those two adults should at least commit to agree on an alternative. Failing that then one may question if they are even capable or responsible enough to be parents.

Deepmistrust

RedSky wrote: »

I agree, it would be extremely difficult and controversial. A child has a right to the best start in life from two loving and committed parents who will provide life long support at all costs. If two unmarried adults cannot make the commitment to each other and an unborn child then one can argue that the child deserves better or even the adults do not deserve to be parents. Failing a joint commitment, then to make the best of a bad situation those two adults should at least commit to agree on an alternative. Failing that then one may question if they are even capable or responsible enough to be parents.

If two people fail to jointly raise a child, doesn't mean either is not capable or not responsible enough, or undeserving enough, to do so independently.
Committing to each other, is completely different from committing to the child.

RedSky

Deepmistrust wrote: »

If two people fail to jointly raise a child, doesn't mean either is not capable or not responsible enough, or undeserving enough, to do so independently.
Committing to each other, is completely different from committing to the child.

"Committing to each other" as in that they will commit to raise and support a child together. The interests of the child is the priority. If one can do it independently then they will have the right to choose so. If one does not want to raise the child then they will have the right to choose not to do so. If they can't even agree on this before the child is born, then its chances for the best start in life is already disadvantaged.

Deepmistrust

RedSky wrote: »

"Committing to each other" as in that they will commit to raise and support a child together. The interests of the child is the priority. If one can do it independently then they will have the right to choose so. If one does not want to raise the child then they will have the right to choose not to do so. If they can't even agree on this before the child is born, then its chances for the best start in life is already disadvantaged.

The interests of the child is not best served by two people committing to each for no other reason than to raise the child. Unhappy children are raised this way. Ideally two parents will love and care for the child, regardless of whether they are married, or even together or not.

A child is not necessarily disadvantaged (in many contexts) because it only has one loving parent. Nor is this justification to terminate a pregnancy on it's own grounds.

If one parent does not want any emotional involvement then no one can force them. They can however be made to face up to their financial responsibility. No one but them, did the deed that led to the pregnancy.

RedSky

Deepmistrust wrote: »

The interests of the child is not best served by two people committing to each for no other reason than to raise the child. Unhappy children are raised this way. Ideally two parents will love and care for the child, regardless of whether they are married, or even together or not.

I may have crossed some wires here. "commitment to each other" was referring to both parents committing to raise and support a child not two people committing to maintain a marriage or be together because they have a child.

Deepmistrust wrote: »

A child is not necessarily disadvantaged (in many contexts) because it only has one loving parent. Nor is this justification to terminate a pregnancy on it's own grounds.

I agree.

Deepmistrust wrote: »

If one parent does not want any emotional involvement then no one can force them. They can however be made to face up to their financial responsibility. No one but them, did the deed that led to the pregnancy.

Two people did the deed. Equality therefore says two people have equal rights if two people are equally responsible and not, which can currently occur, one person has automatic rights to choose that the other will only have a limited and/or financial responsibility.