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

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917783]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.[/QUOTE] Having to undergo an abortion is not as bad as having to pay for child support for 18 years though. In your example it'd only be fair that the man has to go through some hassle as well but how exactly would you go about that in a way that demands as much effort from both parties.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49917804]Having to undergo an abortion is not as bad as having to pay for child support for 18 years though. In your example it'd only be fair that the man has to go through some hassle as well but how exactly would you go about that in a way that demands as much effort from both parties.[/QUOTE]Make man pay abortion costs + lunch money after it?

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49917633]If the child doesn't see the father what does it matter who pays the child support.[/QUOTE] My point is who's paying the child support? If not the father then the buck's just passed onto the tax payer which isn't much better. Not to mention if its neither then the child is the one who's left out in the cold. I like the idea but I want to see it fleshed out before I support it. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917584]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.[/QUOTE] Not the same really is it? They chose to have the baby so i assume they know if they can support it, this is a case where they might not be able to support them selves and their baby. Also in cases of adoption or insemination there can still be a provider since there can be two parents.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917810]Make man pay abortion costs + lunch money after it?[/QUOTE] Aren't abortions free in Sweden?

If you're a woman who can't support a child on her own, don't fucking have sex. It's that simple. No reason why someone else should be funding your terrible life decisions. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;49917829]Aren't abortions free in Sweden?[/QUOTE] In that case pay for her lunch as one last goodbye.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917799][B]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. [/B] 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.[/QUOTE] Yet we still have laws against rape, and in some cases you actually might be able to prove it. Which makes the law not really moot. A father shouldn't just be able to walk away from a pregnancy in my opinion, would disadvantage women to a high degree in my opinion, and would basically promote not using contraceptives because why bother, right? There's a much easier way to not become a father - use a condom.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917835]Yet we still have laws against rape, and in some cases you actually might be able to prove it. Which makes the law not really moot. A father shouldn't just be able to walk away from a pregnancy in my opinion, would disadvantage women to a high degree in my opinion, and would basically promote not using contraceptives because why bother, right? There's a much easier way to not become a father - use a condom.[/QUOTE] Would disadvantage women? Oh yeah it's ok when men are disadvantaged, god forbid women taste equality. I still can't tell if feminism wants equality or abolish responsibility from women.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917812]Not the same really is it? They chose to have the baby so i assume they know if they can support it, this is a case where they might not be able to support them selves and their baby. Also in cases of adoption or insemination there can still be a provider since there can be two parents.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that many kids are raised in poverty - what about if the father passed away early on? Does the state provide an equivalent amount of money until the child's 18th birthday? I'm sympathetic to the fact that kids should have the best possible childhood, but if we're not really regulating the lower acceptable boundary for what a childhood should be, but rather emulating the childhood the kid could have had (child support is (afaik) relative to the father's income), it's a pretty silly exercise in my opinion. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=rndgenerator;49917843]Would disadvantage women? Oh yeah it's ok when men are disadvantaged, god forbid women taste equality. I still can't tell if feminism wants equality or abolish responsibility from women.[/QUOTE] Men don't have to go through abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy, and as I said you've already given your implicit acceptance if you made no effort (or communicated an intention) to avoid a pregnancy. From then on it's basically the woman's decision. You had a very good opportunity to avoid the situation, and you can only blame your own stupidity if you end up in it.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917853]I'm just saying that many kids are raised in poverty - what about if the father passed away early on? Does the state provide an equivalent amount of money until the child's 18th birthday? I'm sympathetic to the fact that kids should have the best possible childhood, but if we're not really regulating the lower acceptable boundary for what a childhood should be, but rather emulating the childhood the kid could have had (child support is (afaik) relative to the father's income), it's a pretty silly exercise in my opinion. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] Men don't have to go through abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy, and as I said you've already given your implicit acceptance if you made no effort (or communicated an intention) to avoid a pregnancy. From then on it's basically the woman's decision. You had a very good opportunity to avoid the situation, and you can only blame your own stupidity if you end up in it.[/QUOTE] True but should we allow someone to live in a state of poverty when its preventable? Maybe the real question is should the state provide better benefits for single parents. Maybe government subsidized jobs that can be done from home?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917853]Men don't have to go through abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy, and as I said you've already given your implicit acceptance if you made no effort (or communicated an intention) to avoid a pregnancy. From then on it's basically the woman's decision. You had a very good opportunity to avoid the situation, and you can only blame your own stupidity if you end up in it.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? According to your logic women also give their implicit acceptance if they make no effort to avoid a pregnancy, and thus shouldn't be granted the right to an abortion. How exactly does the fact women have to undergo the abortion justify this double standard? [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] People keep reusing pro-lifer arguments word for word and acting like it's not the same thing at all simply because it targets men this time. This is retarded.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917878]True but should we allow someone to live in a state of poverty when its preventable? Maybe the real question is should the state provide better benefits for single parents. Maybe government subsidized jobs that can be done from home?[/QUOTE] Well, I'm just saying that a decision should be made. Either there are acceptable standards or else there are inconsistent child support fees. Either way child support shouldn't impoverish the father either. Maybe make it so poor people pay a small part of the total bill (with the state covering the rest), and rich people pay most or all? [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;49917884]Uh, what? According to your logic women also give their implicit acceptance if they make no effort to avoid a pregnancy, and thus shouldn't be granted the right to an abortion. How exactly does the fact women have to undergo the abortion justify this double standard? [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] People keep reusing pro-lifer arguments word for word and acting like it's not the same thing at all simply because it targets men this time. This is retarded.[/QUOTE] Yeah, women accept that they get pregnant. Women can also accept a surgical (or well, mostly non-surgical) procedure to terminate that pregnancy - [I]until a certain point in time[/I]. The principle is the same, the cut-off date is not. The decision is also not the same. The man is only choosing not to pay a bill each month, while the woman is generally choosing both to put a lot of her income towards raising a kid, but also spending a lot of time raising that kid. The situations are not equivalent. Personally I think we have to look at child custody, and make it so fathers get more time with their kids, but that's a different issue entirely.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917904]Well, I'm just saying that a decision should be made. Either there are acceptable standards or else there are inconsistent child support fees. Either way child support shouldn't impoverish the father either. Maybe make it so poor people pay a small part of the total bill (with the state covering the rest), and rich people pay most or all? [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] Yeah, women accept that they get pregnant. Women can also accept a surgical (or well, mostly non-surgical) procedure to terminate that pregnancy - [I]until a certain point in time[/I]. The principle is the same, the cut-off date is not. The decision is also not the same. The man is only choosing not to pay a bill each month, while the woman is generally choosing both to put a lot of her income towards raising a kid, but also spending a lot of time raising that kid. The situations are not equivalent. Personally I think we have to look at child custody, and make it so fathers get more time with their kids, but that's a different issue entirely.[/QUOTE] I think that would be better, they should really try to pass the bill with a child support bill.

[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] Because a woman can't snap her fingers ans have a "legal abortion". She's the one who is pregnant. I'm not one who believes a couple of cells counts as human life, but for the woman in question it might be a seriously big deal, and this is important to understand. An abortion can be a huge psyhical burden, sometimes for the rest of ones life. A legal abortion is just paperwork.

Knowing actual stories of baby crazy women who secretly give poked condoms or steal used condoms, I can fully see this being an option to deal with women who are literally holding a baby hostage for free money.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49917904]Yeah, women accept that they get pregnant. Women can also accept a surgical (or well, mostly non-surgical) procedure to terminate that pregnancy - [I]until a certain point in time[/I]. The principle is the same, the cut-off date is not. The decision is also not the same. The man is only choosing not to pay a bill each month, while the woman is generally choosing both to put a lot of her income towards raising a kid, but also spending a lot of time raising that kid. The situations are not equivalent. Personally I think we have to look at child custody, and make it so fathers get more time with their kids, but that's a different issue entirely.[/QUOTE] You keep referring to ways the situation of men and women are different, which is kind of obvious given the biological differences, but none of those differences justify giving the father no choice whatsoever while giving the mother complete control over her future (or not) child. Your pro-lifer style arguments still apply to men the same way they do to women ie not at all.

You have to consider the situation in which this happens. It may seem absurd in one situation, but in another you might find that it is actually not all that unreasonable. Are the parents a couple/married? Did they use some form of protection (which failed) Was someone deceived into believing there was protection? Is there a chance the child might have a serious genetic defect? People are taking something incredibly complex and are acting like it's very straightforward.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49918033]You keep referring to ways the situation of men and women are different, which is kind of obvious given the biological differences, but none of those differences justify giving the father no choice whatsoever while giving the mother complete control over her future (or not) child. Your pro-lifer style arguments still apply to men the same way they do to women ie not at all.[/QUOTE] How are my arguments in the style of pro-lifers'? What I'm talking about has nothing to do with whether life starts at conception or not.

[QUOTE=proch;49917948]Because a woman can't snap her fingers ans have a "legal abortion". She's the one who is pregnant. I'm not one who believes a couple of cells counts as human life, but for the woman in question it might be a seriously big deal, and this is important to understand. An abortion can be a huge psyhical burden, sometimes for the rest of ones life. A legal abortion is just paperwork.[/QUOTE] Men shouldn't be able to abstain from parenthood (financially) because it's "too easy?" Free abortions are bad because it's "too easy," contraception should be harder to get - it's too easy? The difficulty of the abortion process - whether legal or medical - doesn't factor into the arguement, rather what factors is the consequences of going through with it. Many people choose to have an abortion because they can't support a child and that's not a uniquely motherly trait. Seriously, the difficulty of having an abortion is completely irrelevant. If medical science developed to the point where having an abortion was as simple as taking a free pill at home at any point during the pregnancy (or some other impossibly convenient method), would you suddenly want to ban them because it's too convenient? I'm not saying you're pro-life, I'm saying you're hypocritical because you're not applying the same standards here as you (presumably) are in your pro-choice beliefs.

[QUOTE=meek;49915558]The man makes a choice the moment he chooses to have intercourse that can result in a baby, though.[/QUOTE] So does the woman. I notice a worrying trend in this thread, where a number of people are essentially claiming that it's up to a man to take steps preventing conception. When this ought to be something both should be doing. Honestly how children are handled ought to be reciprocal, rather than one sided. Sure a woman can ultimately decide everything concerning her own body. But that doesn't mean a man should be bereft of options in terms of his own life.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;49918117]So does the woman. I notice a worrying trend in this thread, where a number of people are essentially claiming that it's up to a man to take steps preventing conception. When this ought to be something both should be doing. Honestly how children are handled ought to be reciprocal, rather than one sided. Sure a woman can ultimately decide everything concerning her own body. But that doesn't mean a man should be bereft of options in terms of his own life.[/QUOTE] Discussed this with my girlfriend because I thought it was interesting, and we both agree with this line of reasoning. Contraception is a two way street, so you can't force a man to be responsible for a pregnancy he doesn't want, and pinning it on the legal abortion date seemed fitting to us both. We ended up having a longer discussion about how (legislatively) cases where the man was not informed of the pregnancy until 18 weeks had elapsed would be... awkward.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;49918117]So does the woman. I notice a worrying trend in this thread, where a number of people are essentially claiming that it's up to a man to take steps preventing conception. When this ought to be something both should be doing.[/QUOTE] That's something I don't quite get. In a liberal sex positive world we live in, why is man alone responsible for the baby making? And why is a man's only option to guarantee his financial well being is abstaining from sex? Seems like many believe that a woman should not be responsible for it but then later given all the power if such a thing happens? Sex involves more than 1 person, all of them should be equally responsible and hold equal power in decision making. It's 2016 for gods sake, as a man I do not want to have a one night stand and then worry about possibility of being drained for 18 years. That's not how future should be if we wish to progress.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49918162]That's something I don't quite get. In a liberal sex positive world we live in, why is man alone responsible for the baby making? And why is a man's only option to guarantee his financial well being is abstaining from sex? Seems like many believe that a woman should not be responsible for it but then later given all the power if such a thing happens? Sex involves more than 1 person, all of them should be equally responsible and hold equal power in decision making. It's 2016 for gods sake, as a man I do not want to have a one night stand and then worry about possibility of being drained for 18 years. That's not how future should be if we wish to progress.[/QUOTE] The man doesn't have to abstain from sex to ensure his financial well-being. He can plop on a condom which cost less than a Euro a piece even for the fancy ones. Even though I think the rules should be changed up a bit, so men are protected even when contraceptives fail, you as a male have pretty good options. For all [I]practical[/I] purposes, the man is very well equipped to not pay unwanted child support. In countries such as Sweden it is of course easy to get an abortion for women, but in some states in the US it is for all practical purpose illegal. Introducing federal laws where men can renounce their parenthood while women have poor access to abortion would disadvantage them massively. This of course does not apply to all countries equally, but I think you guys are equating judicial abortion and medical abortion with no regard for psychological and physical consequences. Those two decisions aren't the same.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;49918146]Discussed this with my girlfriend because I thought it was interesting, and we both agree with this line of reasoning. Contraception is a two way street, so you can't force a man to be responsible for a pregnancy he doesn't want, and pinning it on the legal abortion date seemed fitting to us both. We ended up having a longer discussion about how (legislatively) cases where the man was not informed of the pregnancy until 18 weeks had elapsed would be... awkward.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that just fall under equitable tolling? The man's due diligence ought to be to check up with the woman and make sure she isn't pregnant. If she lies and the man makes his decision based off of that lie, she hasn't acted in good faith and so the clock can't be held against the guy.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918186]you as a male have pretty good options. For all [I]practical[/I] purposes, the man is very well equipped to not pay unwanted child support.[/QUOTE] Last I checked if your name is on the cert, you either become a dad, pay up or move really long distance. I wouldn't call any of these options good if a man does not want to be a father.

[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] The abstinence only approach really isn't fair. People are going to get in relationships, have sex. That doesn't mean that they're ready for children emotionally or financially. I've been in a stable relationship for two years now, my girlfriend lives with me, and neither of us wants to have children for another few years, but of course we're going to have sex. That's a normal and healthy part of a relationship. It's lucky that we have birth control available, but birth control can fail. Accidents can happen. It simply isn't fair to say that should such an accident occur, we must throw away our entire plan for the future, because having a child now would devastate us financially and destroy my chances of starting my business. Reproduction is [I]our choice[/I]. The state has no place in forcing us to have children we aren't ready for, nor in demanding that we no longer have or enjoy sex. Another thing to consider is that few options exist as far as male contraceptives go. You have vasectomies, which are often non-reversible meaning you better be willing to commit to [I]never[/I] having children if you consider it, and you have condoms, which generally work but make sex much less pleasant for both people. There needs to be a convenient, effective, comfortable, and temporary method of male birth control so that men, too, can take control of their reproductive functions in a way that still allows them to have sex recreationally without sacrificing most of the sensation.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918186]The man doesn't have to abstain from sex to ensure his financial well-being. He can plop on a condom which cost less than a Euro a piece even for the fancy ones. Even though I think the rules should be changed up a bit, so men are protected even when contraceptives fail, you as a male have pretty good options. For all [I]practical[/I] purposes, the man is very well equipped to not pay unwanted child support. In countries such as Sweden it is of course easy to get an abortion for women, but in some states in the US it is for all practical purpose illegal. Introducing federal laws where men can renounce their parenthood while women have poor access to abortion would disadvantage them massively. This of course does not apply to all countries equally, but I think you guys are equating judicial abortion and medical abortion with no regard for psychological and physical consequences. Those two decisions aren't the same.[/QUOTE] Notice that the places where this discussion also happens tend to be places where contraception is well understood and women are seen as beings which can make equally valid decisions as men. As to practical ways for men to avoid paying child support? In western countries, those means aren't really that simple. Renouncing a parental obligation is pretty much one of the few recourses men might have in such a case. Claiming that actual abortion is a way for men to avoid parenthood is patently false (not to mention forcing someone to have an abortion is also criminal), as such a man who wishes to not be a father, but who has become one due to consensual behavior on both sides is left very few options in how to proceed. The problem with not giving them any rights on the decision is essentially robbing them of any chance for legal options. Yes obviously a man would have no say whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion, even in cases he wants to be a father and she not a mother. It is her body and ultimately her own decision. But in cases where the man does not wish for a child, the reality should not be forced on him in the same way as it should not be pushed on the woman.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49918193]Last I checked if your name is on the cert, you either become a dad, pay up or move really long distance. I wouldn't call any of these options good if a man does not want to be a father.[/QUOTE] You have to be willfully ignorant to not know that engaging in sexual activity without protection is probably going to end with you becoming a father. For all practical purposes, women are pretty well protected too. What I'm saying is, child support is not working as well as it should (and I'm open to change that), but the problem is - for most men - very easily solvable. Use. Protection. This is not a big problem if you're willing to use the brain with which you've been graced. On top of that judicial abortion with no questions asked opens a new can of worms that is in my opinion much bigger than the current one. Some women may not want to get an abortion, maybe because of personal conviction or pressure from people around them, and the situation they're faced with is way worse than that of the man, who could just say "Yeah, I'm not gonna support her". The woman is now faced with raising a kid as a single mother with no outside support, or face consequences from her family, friends and whatnot. Not to mention getting an abortion in itself can be emotionally scaring - after all, you have something in you that would otherwise end up as a kid, and you're making the decision to end that potential life. In comparison to that, I think the current situation is preferable. Which does not close the door on a limited form of judicial abortion where males who have actually actively (as you should, unless you want a kid) tried to avoid a pregnancy won't be hit with financial stress. Or some other solution where child support is done differently. I'm basically saying your solution is bad, not that there isn't a problem.

I don't agree that this kind of policy would be the best way to handle the issue. It gives men an easy option to simply remove themselves from the problem and saddle all of the burden on a woman. It doesn't encourage responsible sex.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918236]I'm basically saying your solution is bad, not that there isn't a problem.[/QUOTE] I can see that but I still can't see any valid argument. All you say is "2 people had sex, one got pregnant, now the other is a slave to the system, good riddance". The current solution is even worse if anything. If you, as an adult, responsible and consenting woman choose to keep the baby, you should man up to your choices. Instead current system pretty much forces men to bow down and strips them of power in case such an accident happens. It's a lot more unfair to men as they have literally no choice besides "don't have sex" which is plenty ridiculous. The current system is quite fucked up and so biased against men it can be called misandrist. I won't even comment on the ad hominem you did. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;49918254]I don't agree that this kind of policy would be the best way to handle the issue. It gives men an easy option to simply remove themselves from the problem and saddle all of the burden on a woman. It doesn't encourage responsible sex.[/QUOTE] Neither does current system, women are free to do anything since they are not held responsible for reproduction.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49918258]I can see that but I still can't see any valid argument. All you say is "2 people had sex, one got pregnant, now the other is a slave to the system, good riddance". The current solution is even worse if anything. If you, as an adult, responsible and consenting woman choose to keep the baby, you should man up to your choices. Instead current system pretty much forces men to bow down and strips them of power in case such an [B]accident[/B] happens. It's a lot more unfair to men as they have literally no choice besides "don't have sex" which is plenty ridiculous. The current system is quite fucked up and so biased against men it can be called misandrist. I won't even comment on the ad hominem you did.[/QUOTE] When you say accident, what exactly do you mean? Please point me to the ad hominem, at the very least I wasn't trying to make one, though I have an idea of what you might've misunderstood. When I say "You" I'm not talking about [I]you[/I], but rather people in general. I'm not saying you are willfully ignorant and that you don't use your brain, I'm saying that about people who have sex with no protection and expect not to get a kid.