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

All I'll say on this is that I don't think this sort of reform is the solution. I believe the father should absolutely not have to be involved with a child's life if they don't want to be, but absolving them from ALL financial responsibility... seems a bit much. And abortion isn't just like "hey lemme go into this doctor okay it's done I can go home now" it can be pretty traumatizing (and expensive, to boot). As can giving up a child for adoption. A woman who wants to keep the child for whatever reason cannot always necessarily financially care for it and asking her to make these choices to give up her child in one way or another because of it doesn't necessarily seem fair either. There's not really a clear cut solution for this imo but I am in favor of men not getting the short end of the stick when it comes to having to pay egregious amounts of child support for a child they don't want or care about.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916299]Well, I just switched to my phone. I digress though. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] I agree that both are equally responsible for conception. I disagree with the notion that everything has to be split equally in regards to childbirth because it is [B]biologically[/B] unfair. When we develop the technology for men to carry babies around for 9 months and nurse them then I'll change my mind. Have sex for fun, be responsible, use condoms, the pill, IUD's, depo shot or whatever. Just know that despite whatever contraception you use childbirth is a potential consequence, and both adults (especially the man) should be ready to accept or negotiate whatever decision is made about the child.[/QUOTE] How can you argue that a woman should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, as it's her body and a child is an enormous burden, but then argue that a man has to concede to the woman's decision because she carries it? Even if both parties use birth control and something goes wrong. He says he doesn't want a child, she says she does. She has it anyway, against his wishes that he explained to her thoroughly. Maybe he has trouble with money. Maybe he already has dependents, other kids, or relatives in need of care (disability, age). Maybe he just doesn't want it, there could be any number of reasons why, but a pro-choice argument should extend to all those responsible. Any reason a woman has for aborting a child, bar those relating to the birth, could apply to a man. Why does a man have to "suck it up, that's life" because he "knew the risks" and should have just stayed at home and jacked it if he wasn't able or willing to support children? We cannot blame biology for this inequality. In the modern world, a woman may still have to carry the child, but she is under no obligation to do so if pregnant. Moral and religious feelings against abortion do not invalidate what is in most cases, a conscious choice to bring the child to term. It's a choice, and if a woman makes that choice in full knowledge of the father's lack of commitment, it's on her to take the burden of either raising that child or giving it up for adoption. I'm sorry, but that's fair.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49916513]How can you argue that a woman should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, as it's her body and a child is an enormous burden, but then argue that a man has to concede to the woman's decision because she carries it? Even if both parties use birth control and something goes wrong. He says he doesn't want a child, she says she does. She has it anyway, against his wishes that he explained to her thoroughly. Maybe he has trouble with money. Maybe he already has dependents, other kids, or relatives in need of care (disability, age). Maybe he just doesn't want it, there could be any number of reasons why, but a pro-choice argument should extend to all those responsible. Any reason a woman has for aborting a child, bar those relating to the birth, could apply to a man. Why does a man have to "suck it up, that's life" because he "knew the risks" and should have just stayed at home and jacked it if he wasn't able or willing to support children? We cannot blame biology for this inequality. In the modern world, a woman may still have to carry the child, but she is under no obligation to do so if pregnant. Moral and religious feelings against abortion do not invalidate what is in most cases, a conscious choice to bring the child to term. It's a choice, and if a woman makes that choice in full knowledge of the father's lack of commitment, it's on her to take the burden of either raising that child or giving it up for adoption. I'm sorry, but that's fair.[/QUOTE] Thank you for voicing my opinion in a much more eloquent way than I ever could.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916391]You don't have to help raise the child if you don't want to but I believe you should at least have some financial responsibility since you're half of the equation. My core belief is that you are totally responsible for the voluntary decisions you make as a consenting adult. If you accidentally knock up a crazy bitch that doesn't want an abortion for whatever reason that really sucks for you, but you alone made the choice to put your dick inside of her as much as she made the choice to give it up to you.[/QUOTE] Simple solution to it. Don't stick your dick in crazy.

you guys are making the exact same arguments that pro-lifers are having. If you flip the genders, your arguments are literally indistinguishable from pro-lifers, yet you all argue that abortion itself should be fine. A man and a woman both consent to having sex. The woman gets pregnant and chooses not to abort. The man is fucked. You tell him, "shouldn't have had sex then." But oh, those nasty, horrible pro-lifers telling women to "just not have sex." Don't they [b]understand[/b] that abortion is about a woman's choice? Women shouldn't be forced to deal with a child for 18 years just because they had sex! Fuck men though.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49916513]How can you argue that a woman should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, as it's her body and a child is an enormous burden, but then argue that a man has to concede to the woman's decision because she carries it? Even if both parties use birth control and something goes wrong. He says he doesn't want a child, she says she does. She has it anyway, against his wishes that he explained to her thoroughly. Maybe he has trouble with money. Maybe he already has dependents, other kids, or relatives in need of care (disability, age). Maybe he just doesn't want it, there could be any number of reasons why, but a pro-choice argument should extend to all those responsible. Any reason a woman has for aborting a child, bar those relating to the birth, could apply to a man. Why does a man have to "suck it up, that's life" because he "knew the risks" and should have just stayed at home and jacked it if he wasn't able or willing to support children? We cannot blame biology for this inequality. In the modern world, a woman may still have to carry the child, but she is under no obligation to do so if pregnant. Moral and religious feelings against abortion do not invalidate what is in most cases, a conscious choice to bring the child to term. It's a choice, and if a woman makes that choice in full knowledge of the father's lack of commitment, it's on her to take the burden of either raising that child or giving it up for adoption. I'm sorry, but that's fair.[/QUOTE] What if he wants the child and she doesn't?

This seem like the type of thing that can only work if a country that actually has programs that can help single mothers considering this basically gives full financial responsibility to a single person,can you imagine that doing it in the US?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49916528]What if he wants the child and she doesn't?[/QUOTE] Until we invent synthetic wombs and birthing chambers, where the only contribution both parties make is supplying their gametes, the final choice to carry and birth a child will always be the woman's. Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want is all kinds of immoral and generally just a bad idea. It's not fair by any means, and I personally can't wait until science makes this a non-issue, but there's no alternative.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49916528]What if he wants the child and she doesn't?[/QUOTE] -- Snip -- I misread that, sorry.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49916528]What if he wants the child and she doesn't?[/QUOTE] Then she aborts it, she has that right (and that's why she should have the responsibility should she bring it to term). [QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;49916629]This seem like the type of thing that can only work if a country that actually has programs that can help single mothers considering this basically gives full financial responsibility to a single person,can you imagine that doing it in the US?[/QUOTE] In the context of this thread this is a political push in Sweden, I can't be bothered to look into it right now but I'm pretty sure Sweden is pretty accommodating when it comes to healthcare and social policy, also they get preschool care that's fees are based on your income level, allowing single parents to work without forking out ridiculous expenses in babysitting. But in the U.S. we have a long ways to go before this could become anywhere near viable, many places still fight against abortion in any way they can, making it prohibitively difficult in certain areas. Though in the U.S. we're damn ready for looking at no-fault divorce alimony payments, in my opinion.

holy hell Sweden was the last place I'd expect to go all MRA like this

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49916440] Pro-choice, [B]woman should not be forced to have an abortion because a man doesn't want a child[/B], both parties should practice safe sex, know the risks, be responsible, take ownership of your actions if things don't go your way.[/QUOTE] I totally agree, I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to have an [I]actual[/I] abortion. However, I think the male should be able to forfeit financial responsibility for the child if they want to, since it would be a 'legal' abortion. As others have argued in this thread, it's only fair for the male to have the same legal option to 'back out' of parenthood as a woman does with abortions.

[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49916991]holy hell Sweden was the last place I'd expect to go all MRA like this[/QUOTE] Thanks for the shitpost friend. MRAs might seem ridiculous to you but you realize they exist specifically because people ignore things like this whilst trying to force feed "gender equality" down everyone's throats, right?

[I]Oh god can this not turn into an MRA discussion please[/I]

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;49917084][I]Oh god can this not turn into an MRA discussion please[/I][/QUOTE] It's not, but it's absurd for someone to call people MRAs for expecting gender equality to actually tackle problems for both genders.

[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] Tell me how this argument stands up in cases like this; [quote=Gaveuponaname562]I was with this girl for 4 years and she had an abortion against my wishes. I stayed with her for a year after the abortion like a dumb shit and she ended up pregnant again right before we broke up. She decided to keep this one because we were broken up, she hid the pregnancy. I had just got into the laborers union and she was looking at this like a meal ticket. She worked me for child support for 2 years while she collected welfare for her other kid. I eventually collected enough evidence to have a solid case for full custody and gave her an ultimatum. Either we split custody and zero child support on my end or I destroy her in court. I never wanted to keep my son from her but as soon as she realized that her free ride was over she showed up with all my son's stuff and gave him to me. I've been a single dad for 7 years and I honestly can't complain. My son and I are best friends and I'm stable enough to give him an awesome lifestyle. EDIT: just to clear things up a little bit. We didn't have a court order before she gave my son up. She was already collecting welfare for her other 2 kids and I was stocking her house with food and providing all clothing, baby supplies and some cash on my own without a court order. When I told her I wanted to go to court for 50/50 custody she went ballistic. I never intended to take him I just wanted to spend my fair share of time with my son. I truly wish it would've ended peacefully and adult like but it didn't. To this day I DO NOT keep him from her. I encourage her to let him visit her. I've even offered her every other weekend.[/quote] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4a0om1/men_should_have_the_right_to_abort_responsibility/d0whddd[/url] As long as people like this exist then men should be allowed to 'legally' abort a child in the same way women can.

Well even if I'm not to keen on the "abort any time" idea, this is good because it eliminates a double standard

this is actually a pretty good compromise. While its possibly the worst outcome, it doesn't force a child on someone who doesn't want it, and the time period for which a man can make this decision is sound enough that it won't likely be abused it should only be a last resort though, if a man and a woman can't come to some arrangement that they both agree on.

If the woman want the baby but the father doesn't, you could argue that; while pregnancy is biologically unfair to women for 9 month (pain, childbirth,etc), but it is also socially/financially unfair to men for 18 years. It's really simple : -Man and woman want kid -> both happy -Man and woman don't want kid, man has no say, woman has the choice to terminate -> both happy -Man doesn't want kid but woman does, man has no say , woman give birth -> man unhappy -Man want kid but woman doesn't, man has no say, woman abort -> man unhappy The real important point with this law is that the man has to decide before the woman, so she can make her choice to continue or terminate knowing exactly how things will end up.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49916528]What if he wants the child and she doesn't?[/QUOTE] Then he can tell her that, but it should still be her decision alone. Nobody should be forced through a pregnancy, and likewise no one should be forced to an abortion.

Equality swings both ways, baby.

Doesn't this just Punish the child?

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917529]Doesn't this just Punish the child?[/QUOTE] By this logic single mothers shouldn't be allowed to adopt or get an insemination. Obviously the child's economic situation would be worse, but that's the case for many children and I don't think they get "special" treatment because of that.

This thread is sorta bizarre. More rights for women? Cheers everywhere. More rights for men? Suddenly we're going too far? What the fuck? Women get the choice at all times. Man? Well, he had the choice to have sex, now he has to pay out because she has all the power. This is so damn stupid, how can people defend this? At that point man loses all choice (besides breaking the law and running away), his life is in her hands now. How can some people not see how skewed and broken that seems in a 1st world place that is all about freedom? Women have the choice to not have sex too. If you can't take care of a potential child, don't have sex. It's simple. But for some reason we only tell that to men?

[QUOTE=The Party Spy;49915198]I can see this being abused just as harshly as child support[/QUOTE] yeah child support stuff is pretty messed up, my mom recently had a kid and the father doesn't want anything to do with it, but he can't refuse and has to pay child support still

I think if the man acted recklessly enough not to use contraceptives, it's on him. A "legal abortion" would leave the woman flat on her face. I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't just a fingersnap

The whole reason child support is abused is because there is no law like this. That tends to happen when one party is abolished of all responsibility. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;49917716]I think if the man acted recklessly enough not to use contraceptives, it's on him. A "legal abortion" would leave the woman flat on her face. I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't just a fingersnap[/QUOTE] Why is it always on man? Are you saying women are incapable of responsible sex? Why wasn't she on contraceptives? Why did she choose to have sex if he didn't use a condom? It's her fault as much as his, no reason why in law it should be 100% his.

[QUOTE=proch;49917716]I think if the man acted recklessly enough not to use contraceptives, it's on him. A "legal abortion" would leave the woman flat on her face. I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't just a fingersnap[/QUOTE] How can you hold this position but be pro-choice? What I mean is, someone pro-choice would never say, "If a woman acted recklessly enough to get impregnated, it's on her." It's a hypocritical stance - infact, this statement is used often by people who are pro-life.

[QUOTE=proch;49917716]I think if the man acted recklessly enough not to use contraceptives, it's on him. A "legal abortion" would leave the woman flat on her face. I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't just a fingersnap[/QUOTE] Personally I would reserve legal abortion for situations where the contraceptives either failed or the man was misled to believe the woman was on the pill or the like. In a case where no one used contraceptives, the woman still has to go through an abortion, if she does not wish to have a child. To just let the man off scot-free in that case seems wrong. Using (or believing that you are) contraceptives should secure you the right of not having a child in the legal sense in my opinion. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Glent;49917740]How can you hold this position but be pro-choice? What I mean is, someone pro-choice would never say, "If a woman acted recklessly enough to get impregnated, it's on her." It's a hypocritical stance - infact, this statement is used often by people who are pro-life.[/QUOTE] If you haven't talked to the woman about not getting a kid out of it, not using contraceptives is implicit acceptance of her getting pregnant with your sperm. It's like giving someone a $1000 with no strings attached and then get upset when they spend them.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917783] Using (or believing that you are) contraceptives should secure you the right of not having a child in the legal sense in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Very hard to prove, making the law pretty much moot. It will be the same as with rape accusations, her word vs yours, but now there's also a fetus involved. It makes no sense to apply it to only very specific cases when it works just fine universally. If you don't want the child but she does, let her keep it but you can go away.