Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group say - Polidicks

Mentioned a bunch of times so far is the choice of orphaning, which I feel is a much more common thing that will happen than a straight abortion. Everyone's talking about keeping the kid and what that would do to the mother, but the mother has so many options if she can't take care of her child, like letting family members help raise them or orphaning them. It's unfair that if a man wasn't able or ready to support a child that he has no way to escape being forced into the commitment, even though the woman has so many choices. The argument of "what if she's pro-life/anti-contraception" doesn't really make sense to me because most people who hold those morals typically also hold to the belief that premarital/open sex is also wrong. To be honest, though, I don't know what people expect when they have unprotected sex and one of them isn't on the pill. I don't even understand the people who just randomly have sex, much less the people who refuse to use protection. Just don't have sex, it's not like it's necessary for day-to-day life like water or something. I'm just glad that there will finally stop being that story of "Now I'm locked in for the next 20 years paying for some kid that I'll never really know/see, because we had sex and she wanted a baby"

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49915875]Being drunk has never been a legal precedent to absolve someone of responsibility (man and woman). [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] Look, I'm pro-choice all the way but I am also pro-sucking it up and facing the consequences of your actions whether you intended for something to happen or not.[/QUOTE] You spew out big words that have nothing to do with what I said, man still has no choice in the matter. Woman, morally/legally accepted or not, still has choice.

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;49915896]This is a system to talk about if conception is achieved for whatever reason, here are both of your options, male here are your options[/QUOTE] Free to go no questions asked don't worry about the fact that you made a choice you no longer have to deal with it good luck with your future endeavors. [QUOTE=ubersoldier;49915896]female here are you options.[/QUOTE] Get an abortion, raise a child with a shitty standard of living, or give the child to the state to burden everyone with the mutual decision to have intercourse. [QUOTE=ubersoldier;49915896]Sweden women have the right to abort a child, men do not have the same right, that is all this is and nothing more.[/QUOTE] Do you really want to live in a world where a man can use the force of the state to abort a mothers pregnancy? [QUOTE=willer;49915897]Mentioned a bunch of times so far is the choice of orphaning, which I feel is a much more common thing that will happen than a straight abortion. Everyone's talking about keeping the kid and what that would do to the mother, but the mother has so many options if she can't take care of her child, like letting family members help raise them or orphaning them. It's unfair that if a man wasn't able or ready to support a child that he has no way to escape being forced into the commitment, even though the woman has so many choices. The argument of "what if she's pro-life/anti-contraception" doesn't really make sense to me because most people who hold those morals typically also hold to the belief that premarital/open sex is also wrong.[/QUOTE] That just moves the financial burden to the state or to family members who in some cases might make the situation better, but not all, and I'd presume most. Like I already stated before, I think guys get the raw end of child support here in the US. More than that, I know good guys who just want to see the kids that they are devoting a quarter of their paycheck a week to. But I don't see this as a solution. [QUOTE=willer;49915897]To be honest, though, I don't know what people expect when they have unprotected sex and one of them isn't on the pill. I don't even understand the people who just randomly have sex, much less the people who refuse to use protection. Just don't have sex, it's not like it's necessary for day-to-day life like water or something. I'm just glad that there will finally stop being that story of "Now I'm locked in for the next 20 years paying for some kid that I'll never really know/see, because we had sex and she wanted a baby"[/QUOTE] Expecting human beings to just stop having sex is the reason abstinence as social engineering is a spectacular failure.

The man should have to compensate the mother until adoption for a certain point, if the mother chooses to keep the child instead after that point then he should be absolved from financing the child but also stripped completely from having any contact with the child until it's independent. On top of that though, if the father makes contact with the child before it's independent, beyond random fluke, he should be forced to pay child support for the years he missed. This system sounds reasonably fair to me.

[QUOTE=find me;49915911]You spew out big words that have nothing to do with what I said, man still has no choice in the matter. Woman, morally/legally accepted or not, still has choice.[/QUOTE] A man and a woman's choice begin the moment they have sex. A woman has more of a choice about keeping the kid than a man because she's the one that actually bears the load of the pregnancy. A man is never going to have an equal choice when it comes to pregnancy or childbirth because biology, boohoo. If you can't deal with the possible consequences of having sex then don't do it. That goes for both parties. You accept a measure of risk each time you do it.

I think the option for a man to opt out of parenthood should mirror the woman's ability to do so. If abortion is difficult to get in a given area, it should be difficult for to avoid paying child support so the mother isn't completely screwed over something she is unable to deal with when she wanted to. If a woman has easy access to abortion, then it should be just as simple for a man to "abort".

[QUOTE=meek;49915347]The guy still makes the decision to have unprotected sex.[/QUOTE] Because condoms never break, right? Vasectomies never repair themselves, hrm?

[QUOTE=TestECull;49916002]Because condoms never break, right? Vasectomies never repair themselves, hrm?[/QUOTE] What are the rates of these things happening?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49916010]What are the rates of these things happening?[/QUOTE] Condom's are 99% effective, I've never really heard of a vasectomy "repairing itself". With that being said, every Doctor I've worked with has recommended birth control to sexually active women who do not want to have children. It's both parties responsibility to practice effective birth control if they don't want to conceive.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49915977]A man and a woman's choice begin the moment they have sex. A woman has more of a choice about keeping the kid than a man because she's the one that actually bears the load of the pregnancy. A man is never going to have an equal choice when it comes to pregnancy or childbirth because biology, boohoo. If you can't deal with the possible consequences of having sex then don't do it. That goes for both parties. You accept a measure of risk each time you do it.[/QUOTE] You remind me of my retarded grandma, boohoo. I'm not going to argue with your ignorance anymore.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49915977]A man is never going to have an equal choice when it comes to pregnancy or childbirth because biology, boohoo.[/QUOTE] That he why he should be able to not pay child support. It's the only way for both genders to be equal on the topic of "opting out of parenthood".

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49915577] You might not want to have anything to do with the child but it does not change the fact that the child is a result of your actions. You should at least be held financially responsible for it. [/QUOTE] No, a child is the result of her choice to have the baby and not abort it. Saying it like that is kind of silly but that's why trying to plant blame or responsibility on someone results in. Your argument sounds like the pro-lifer argument. "You having sex and getting pregnant is your own choice, you now have the responsibility to give birth". Having a child needs to be a consensual thing between both parents whether or not accidents happen. In the case that the father opts out, the child should be payed for by the government. This is the area where reforms need to happen to make this work.

[QUOTE=AbioFlesh;49916019]That he why he should be able to not pay child support. It's the only way for both genders to be equal on the topic of opting out of parenthood.[/QUOTE] Why do we need to force this fucked up vision of equality you people have? It's not like a woman is just leaning back collecting child support checks without putting any work in. A woman has to equally provide for a child as a man. We're talking about human life here, this isn't a fucking loan repayment or anything. If a woman is pregnant and decides to keep the child for whatever religious, spiritual, or moralistic reason that is totally acceptable and the man should be held accountable in that scenario as well. The choice in childbirth begins when two people fuck, if you can't handle it then don't do it.

[QUOTE=dark-vivec;49916021]No, a child is the result of her choice to have the baby and not abort it. Your argument sounds like the pro-lifer argument. "You having sex and getting pregnant is your own choice, you now have the responsibility to give birth". In the case that the father opts out, the child should be payed for by the government.[/QUOTE] Why should the taxpayers pay for someones baby when it was a decision between two individuals?

[QUOTE=dark-vivec;49916021]No, a child is the result of her choice to have the baby and not abort it. Your argument sounds like the pro-lifer argument. "You having sex and getting pregnant is your own choice, you now have the responsibility to give birth". In the case that the father opts out, the child should be payed for by the government.[/QUOTE] My argument is a sensible pro-choice argument. If you want an abortion cool, if you don't want an abortion cool. It's your [B]choice[/B] after all. You should not be punished for your choice.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49915945]Get an abortion, raise a child with a shitty standard of living, or give the child to the state to burden everyone with the mutual decision to have intercourse.[/QUOTE] Physical abortion for females is basically equal to the males "free to go". Not accounting for how a females feels about it that is, but the process by itself. I'd imagine that giving the child to state is also more or less equal to "free to go", but I don't know a thing about it, so I can't say. [QUOTE=Raidyr;49915945] Do you really want to live in a world where a man can use the force of the state to abort a mothers pregnancy?[/QUOTE] I was talking in reference to the OP: [quote]woman's right to have an abortion whenever she wants one ... men the right to a "legal abortion" of an unborn child[/quote]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49916033]Why should the taxpayers pay for someones baby when it was a decision between two individuals?[/QUOTE] It wasn't a decision between two individuals though.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916032]Why do we need to force this fucked up vision of equality you people have? It's not like a woman is just leaning back collecting child support checks without putting any work in. A woman has to equally provide for a child as a man. We're talking about human life here, this isn't a fucking loan repayment or anything. If a woman is pregnant and decides to keep the child for whatever religious, spiritual, or moralistic reason that is totally acceptable and the man should be held accountable in that scenario as well. The choice in childbirth begins when two people fuck, if you can't handle it then don't do it.[/QUOTE] We are not talking about providing for the child, we are talking about not being involved with the child. Women have the option to do so in the form of abortion, it is only fair that men should be able to as well in other means. And no, just because people fuck doesn't mean they have to be parents if they don't want to be. That is why abortion exists in the first place.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49915647]People act like it is so hard for men to avoid putting their dicks inside women. If you don't want responsibility of a child, the answer is simple; don't have sex.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring reality and pretending a pipe dream ideal human is how the world works. A majority of the time people have sex for pleasure, we have contraceptives but they don't always work, and we have abortions. Things get complicated fast, people change their mind at all stages, and we should do the best we can to make sure both parties get fair treatment throughout the entire process, no matter how their feelings change or whether their partner lied about being on birth control or having a vasectomy or what the fuck ever. Just ignoring an entire solvable issue by demanding the population swear off sex is unrealistic right now. Call me when everyone's sex drive is cut out of their brain at birth, then you might have something to say here. Really, what would you say if a man pretended to have had a vasectomy and made someone pregnant. Is that rape? If so, why isn't pretending to be on birth control the same thing? If not, is the woman allowed to have an abortion or was it just "her choice" to have sex and therefore must go through with it. Stop shitpost/snipe pls.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49916033]Why should the taxpayers pay for someones baby when it was a decision between two individuals?[/QUOTE] Because I wish for a society with basic income and paying for children who cannot support themselves is an important part.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49916058]It wasn't a decision between two individuals though.[/QUOTE] Yes it was. Having sex is a consenting decision with very clear and obvious risks.

"I didn't feel inclined to use contraception when I had sex so a woman should be forced to abort our child or give it to the state for the taxpayers to raise". "Equality" sometimes does not mean moral, and this is one of those times. If you have unprotected sex with a woman you tacitly concede that she may or may not become pregnant, and may or may not have the child but if she does you need to be responsible in some way for raising that child. Maybe the particulars of child support payments, custody, and visiting rights but allowing a man to back out of the decision he made and put 100% of the responsibility for a child that could only be created by the two of them is wrong, end of.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916032]Why do we need to force this fucked up vision of equality you people have? It's not like a woman is just leaning back collecting child support checks without putting any work in. A woman has to equally provide for a child as a man. [/QUOTE] The inequality is that the man doesn't have the choice of whether he's forced to put in that work or not. The woman, once pregnant, can decide whether or not the man has the next 20 years of his life changed and the man has no say in it, other than avoiding ever having sex to begin with. Sure, it's stupid to have unprotected sex, and stupid to not make sure that a pregnancy won't happen unless they're ready for it, but why does that make it ok to have a massive chunk of someone's life drastically changed for the worse because he and someone else decided to have some private fun? It's not like they're murdering someone, in which case having the next few years of their life made worse is reasonable, this is something that almost everyone will do over the course of their lives multiple times.

If a woman has the rights to A) abort and B) give her child up for adoption, I think the father should be able to give up his rights and responsabilities as a father.

Getting a women pregnant is your punishment for being stupid, apparently. You should be forced to accept your fate via the dictatorial position of the other-half, your whole life changed from one forgotten birth control or condom. An argument for pro-abortion for women is usually about bringing a unwanted child into the world is bad, but I suppose this rhetoric is for women only? It certainly reads that way. I welcome the debate Sweden is having, having children is incredibly stressful and changes your life completely.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;49916120]It does make sense. The woman has the choice to carry the child to term and be legally responsible for raising it, or aborting it. Given that the father has zero say in either of those choices, giving him the choice of taking legal responsibility for the child's life financially or not early on gives the father a choice. Otherwise, he has zero choice and is left to the will of the mother, and she basically chooses whether or not he will have legal responsibility. Being honest, if the woman doesn't want the child but the father does, he's got no say, she does. If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, he has no say, she does. Ideally both parents would stick around and be responsible for the child. And don't say that they should have thought of that before having sex, because honestly that point really doesn't matter because it takes two people to have sex, its not something a man does to a woman. Both are responsible for the conception, both should be able to waive responsibility for the child early on. If the mother wants to carry the child to term and the father wants nothing to do with it, then it shouldn't be forced on the father to take care of it anymore than forcing the mother to take a child to term if the father wants it.[/QUOTE] It made sense in the past, when women were not in equal economic standing.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49916103]What if the man wears a condom that breaks, while the woman does not use any contraceptives at all. Is it now mostly the woman's responsibility?[/QUOTE] Well that woman should have been a bit more responsible but mitigating risks does not absolve you of responsibility if that risk happens. If something bad happens then it happens and was a very clear possibility. If someone is so irresponsible that they cant accept impregnation as a possible outcome of sex they should probably just keep masturbating instead.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;49916120]It does make sense. The woman has the choice to carry the child to term and be legally responsible for raising it, or aborting it. Given that the father has zero say in either of those choices, giving him the choice of taking legal responsibility for the child's life financially or not early on gives the father a choice. Otherwise, he has zero choice and is left to the will of the mother, and she basically chooses whether or not he will have legal responsibility. Being honest, if the woman doesn't want the child but the father does, he's got no say, she does. If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, he has no say, she does. Ideally both parents would stick around and be responsible for the child. And don't say that they should have thought of that before having sex, because honestly that point really doesn't matter because it takes two people to have sex, its not something a man does to a woman. Both are responsible for the conception, both should be able to waive responsibility for the child early on. If the mother wants to carry the child to term and the father wants nothing to do with it, then it shouldn't be forced on the father to take care of it anymore than forcing the mother to take a child to term if the father wants it.[/QUOTE] This would work of men and women were both burdened by pregnancy and motherhood but it simply, biologically isn't true.

[QUOTE=Charades;49915956]The man should have to compensate the mother until adoption for a certain point, if the mother chooses to keep the child instead after that point then he should be absolved from financing the child but also stripped completely from having any contact with the child until it's independent. On top of that though, if the father makes contact with the child before it's independent, beyond random fluke, he should be forced to pay child support for the years he missed. This system sounds reasonably fair to me.[/QUOTE] I think you fail to understand what the Thread is talking about.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916129]Well that woman should have been a bit more responsible but mitigating risks does not absolve you of responsibility if that risk happens. If something bad happens then it happens and was a very clear possibility. If someone is so irresponsible that they cant accept impregnation as a possible outcome of sex they should probably just keep masturbating instead.[/QUOTE] So women shouldn't be allowed to abort or give their babies up for adoption?