Comments on: On the one hand http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/ coming home again Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:20:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Jax http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230232 Jax Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:33:04 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230232 Idiots indeed - welcome to the blog :) Idiots indeed - welcome to the blog :)

]]> By: JoVE http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230221 JoVE Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:09:47 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230221 I understood that the reason he had to show up to get on the birth certificate was to prevent women from fraudulently claiming that some bloke was the father of their child without his knowledge. I mean for a lot of the single moms who are on income support, the actual father of the baby might not be a good bet for child support anyway on account of him not having any money anyway. So why not write in Mick Jagger? or Prince Charles? I could rant forever on the Child Support Act (1991), but my favorite peeve about it is that only 2 years after the Children Act, it wrote into law a biological definition of fatherhood. Prior to this, the man married to the mother was the legal father of the baby. The Children Act (1989) made all kinds of moves to recognize social parenthood in making decisions about parental responsibility. And then the Child Support Act actually says that the biological father is financially responsible. I recall that a couple of years later a man got out of his support payments for his daughter on the grounds that he was not her biological father despite the fact that he was married to the mother at the time of the birth, and that the mother got pregnant by donor insemination because he was sterile WITH HIS CONSENT. Idiots. I understood that the reason he had to show up to get on the birth certificate was to prevent women from fraudulently claiming that some bloke was the father of their child without his knowledge. I mean for a lot of the single moms who are on income support, the actual father of the baby might not be a good bet for child support anyway on account of him not having any money anyway. So why not write in Mick Jagger? or Prince Charles?

I could rant forever on the Child Support Act (1991), but my favorite peeve about it is that only 2 years after the Children Act, it wrote into law a biological definition of fatherhood. Prior to this, the man married to the mother was the legal father of the baby. The Children Act (1989) made all kinds of moves to recognize social parenthood in making decisions about parental responsibility. And then the Child Support Act actually says that the biological father is financially responsible. I recall that a couple of years later a man got out of his support payments for his daughter on the grounds that he was not her biological father despite the fact that he was married to the mother at the time of the birth, and that the mother got pregnant by donor insemination because he was sterile WITH HIS CONSENT.

Idiots.

]]> By: Jax http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230216 Jax Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:17:07 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230216 Good question - no idea. But probably not what I would consider to be so. Good question - no idea. But probably not what I would consider to be so.

]]> By: dottyspots http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230215 dottyspots Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:14:03 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230215 Hmph! This is a subject I could really rant on about as well. What would be considered: “unreasonable to do so”. Hmph! This is a subject I could really rant on about as well. What would be considered: “unreasonable to do so”.

]]> By: Gill http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230187 Gill Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:38:35 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230187 ROFL ROFL

]]> By: Tim http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230186 Tim Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:25:59 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230186 :rofl: :rofl:

]]> By: Merry http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230185 Merry Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:52:05 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230185 Only if you write "he sez c u l8r" Only if you write “he sez c u l8r”

]]> By: Gill http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230184 Gill Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:51:39 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230184 I never knew that about registering the birth! When I registered Lyddie I had the choice, so the change must have happened before then. Yup, it should be assumed that a woman who chooses not to name the father must have good reasons for not doing so other than 'can't be bothered'. It's not like she even has to write it herself! I'm starting to think (OK, scratch the 'starting' bit ;) ) that coercing people into making 'good' choices *for themselves* isn't the aim at all. I never knew that about registering the birth! When I registered Lyddie I had the choice, so the change must have happened before then.

Yup, it should be assumed that a woman who chooses not to name the father must have good reasons for not doing so other than ‘can’t be bothered’. It’s not like she even has to write it herself!

I’m starting to think (OK, scratch the ’starting’ bit ;) ) that coercing people into making ‘good’ choices *for themselves* isn’t the aim at all.

]]> By: Tim http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230102 Tim Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:56:57 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230102 What if you only have the father's mobile phone no? Can you put that on the birth cert? :-) What if you only have the father’s mobile phone no? Can you put that on the birth cert? :-)

]]> By: Merry http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-230044 Merry Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:07:26 +0000 http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2006/12/14/on-the-one-hand/#comment-230044 Hear, hear... i think. Hear, hear… i think.

]]>