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

[Toews]

Sweden may well have among the most accepting views of abortion in the world — one recent poll found that 84 percent of the country supports a woman's right to have an abortion whenever she wants one. Yet a proposal from a Swedish group to offer men the right to a "legal abortion" of an unborn child has not been met with enthusiasm.

 

The idea, proposed by a regional branch of the youth wing of the centrist Liberal Party, would allow a potential father to legally abdicate his responsibility toward the child up to the 18th week of a woman's pregnancy. The man would lose any rights to visit the child but also would not pay any child support he may otherwise be required to contribute.

Marcus Nilsen, chairman of Liberal Youth of Sweden (LUF) West, told the newspaper Aftonbladet that the idea had actually come from a group of women inside his party. "It is important to discuss the role of men in pregnancy," Nilsen explained, adding that the proposed system would make it clear when men are legally required to play a role in their child's life and when they are not.

"It is important that men are honest with their intentions," he said. "With this proposal, there is a clear legal decision."

 

The proposal has sparked a debate within Sweden, with some sticking up for the plan and others denouncing it. On Twitter, some Swedes referred to the idea as "madness" and "disgusting" and described the Liberal Party as an April Fools' joke. Even the party's central office was unimpressed with the idea. "We think that the current legislation is good as it is," Eric Aronsson, press officer for the Liberals, told the website Nyheter24.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/08/men-should-have-the-right-to-abort-responsibility-for-an-unborn-child-swedish-political-group-says/

 

The Canucks talk forum is such a depressing place right now so I decided to post this.

 

It's a slightly older article but I thought this would be an interesting debate and I am curious what position posters on this forum take. 

 

I have always been a supporter of choice but I have never really stopped to consider how little choice men have in such situations. The idea does sound good to me in theory especially since it does bridge the gap when it comes to gender equality. I am not sure how feasible it is to implement. I see a consequence of this is that absolving responsibility of the father could increase the responsibility of the state. 

 

Would you be for or against such a an issue either in theory or practice?

[Spotted Zebra]

Unfortunately in writing it "makes sense" but it is also a system which has the potential of abuse and would lead to a bunch of kids unfairly growing up without a father

[Wandering Cynic]

I agree to this 100%. Men should have the right to not be a part of raising the child, if the woman decides not to abort it. Is it the right thing to do? That's a moral question.  But in terms of legality, this should be put into practice.

[Toews]

2 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said:

Unfortunately in writing it "makes sense" but it is also a system which has the potential of abuse and would lead to a bunch of kids unfairly growing up without a father

Can you clarify why you think this has potential for abuse?

 

A lot of kids grow up without one of their parents or both. Some are better off not having them in their life. The world is already an unfair place. 

[Spotted Zebra]

18 minutes ago, Toews said:

Can you clarify why you think this has potential for abuse?

 

A lot of kids grow up without one of their parents or both. Some are better off not having them in their life. The world is already an unfair place. 

Sure, I'm not saying that kids have to grow up with a mother figure or a father figure or one or the other, they can still turn out fine.

 

It has the potential for abuse because isn't there now the mindset that "Hey I can have unprotected sex now, without worry of having to provide financially for this kid or the mother they impregnated"

 

I'll be the first to admit I haven't researched the whole thing, so feel free to tell me I'm totally off.

[Rocky Balboa]

On the surface it makes sense to me.  But I can just imagine all the ways this can be abused.

 

 

[AriGold]

Crazyness..

 

If you stick it in without a condom then you take all the responsibilities that are associated with it.

 

[Aircool]

33 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said:

Sure, I'm not saying that kids have to grow up with a mother figure or a father figure or one or the other, they can still turn out fine.

 

It has the potential for abuse because isn't there now the mindset that "Hey I can have unprotected sex now, without worry of having to provide financially for this kid or the mother they impregnated"

 

I'll be the first to admit I haven't researched the whole thing, so feel free to tell me I'm totally off.

Well the thing is a woman has the right to say no to any form of sex they don't want to partake in. If they don't want to get pregnant and aren't using the pill or any other means of contraceptive and say yes to sex without a condom, they run a risk of pregnancy which they could have prevented. Now the reality is that people get pressured into these situations sometimes  (although its not always the man pressuring but in some cases it definitely will be), so there is some potential for abuse in a way. EDIT: The point is that you can't just ditch the whole responsibility for a woman being pregnant on a man. Its in every way 50/50.

 

The reality is, if a man tells a woman he gets pregnant that he isn't ready for a kid, and if that woman decides she wants the kid anyway, this man has no way to forego any financial responsibilities to the kid. Kids are expensive, and having one at the wrong time in your life can have severe financial effects. So in many ways you'd like to have the ability to remove yourself from that responsibility via some legal avenue. However, this definitely has potential for abuse...

 

The reality is, the issue pretty much comes down to whether a man should have a say in a woman's abortion. Currently, men do not have such a say. This will never change, and while you could make some very valid reasons it should, nobody could ever refute the reasons that it shouldn't. Namely, the psychological damage abortion can potentially have for some women, the physical risks of any medical procedure, and the current political situation around abortion. The last one isn't a reason why it shouldn't change, but its a reality that will prevent it from ever changing even if people wanted it to... Just no way such laws would ever pass.

[RUPERTKBD]

11 minutes ago, AriGold said:

Crazyness..

 

If you stick it in without a condom then you take all the responsibilities that are associated with it.

 

Yep. If you don't want the responsibility of raising a child, then you need to take responsibility before conception.

[Aircool]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yep. If you don't want the responsibility of raising a child, then you need to take responsibility before conception.

I think we will struggle to find someone who disagrees with this, although I think the reality of unprotected sex is more complicated than we are simplifying it to be. BUT, if you are a man, and you aren't ready for a child, you have the ability to "protect" yourself from that reality. 

 

I'm sure there is some sort of "regret" joke that I'm just too impotent to formulate atm.

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, Aircool said:

I think we will struggle to find someone who disagrees with this, although I think the reality of unprotected sex is more complicated than we are simplifying it to be. BUT, if you are a man, and you aren't ready for a child, you have the ability to "protect" yourself from that reality. 

 

I'm sure there is some sort of "regret" joke that I'm just too impotent to formulate atm.

Normally I wouldn't share such information, but in this case it just might help a few people with perspective.

 

I have three daughters, the oldest of which was the result of a one night stand. (both her mother and I had probably had too much to drink) When I first found out about her (after she was born) my first instinct was to distance myself, as I suppose a lot of guys would. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was my responsibility, so I worked out a monthly maintenance schedule with her mom and sent extras for birthdays and Christmas, etc.

 

Once she was a bit older, she started making regular trips to stay with us (that first conversation with the wife was a bit awkward) and ended up becoming part of the family and big sister to my two other girls.

 

She is now 22 years old and looking at her now, I don't regret a single thing.

[Gurn]

I'm not sure about being able to opt out, but I would support the idea of the mother having to carry to term, barring abnormal medical risk, and the child then being solely the responsibility of the dad; in cases where the mom would have otherwise aborted against dad's wishes.

 

Very tricky, reproductive rights and responsibilities, would need a LARGE amount of consultation, probably a referendum question.

[TOOMUCHINTERNET]

Interesting read!

[Aircool]

40 minutes ago, TOOMUCHINTERNET said:

Any who keep it civil, and know that I am a feminist. (Though I do find that terminology confusing and would prefer equalist or some terminology more equal seeming to properly call to attention that all rights are to be fought for. Though I do agree that women, especially in other places of the world need more protecting than men. )

Yeah you aren't lying about the term feminist being a confusing term. The word isn't worth anything any more, its been totally ruined by radicals. I'd say that while I'm pro-equality, I'm definitely anti-feminism at this point. Because objectivity, facts, and rationality are no longer a part of the feminist movement.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Normally I wouldn't share such information, but in this case it just might help a few people with perspective.

 

I have three daughters, the oldest of which was the result of a one night stand. (both her mother and I had probably had too much to drink) When I first found out about her (after she was born) my first instinct was to distance myself, as I suppose a lot of guys would. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was my responsibility, so I worked out a monthly maintenance schedule with her mom and sent extras for birthdays and Christmas, etc.

 

Once she was a bit older, she started making regular trips to stay with us (that first conversation with the wife was a bit awkward) and ended up becoming part of the family and big sister to my two other girls.

 

She is now 22 years old and looking at her now, I don't regret a single thing.

That's totally beautiful.  Thank you for sharing.  Love does conquer all.

 

[D-Money]

...Then who pays for the kid? The money has to come from somewhere.

 

I think the last thing the world needs right now is opportunities for males to assume less responsibility.

 

 

[VanGnome]

Here's the thing, and speaking from a purely legal and objective point of view, there's actually nothing wrong with this idea.

 

1. Women have the right to an abortion to not have the pregnancy.

2. It takes two to procreate, putting it all on the man simply because a condom wasn't worn is unfair.

3. The woman should be held equally responsible for the pregnancy having occurred... there's no pregnancy without a fertile egg.

4. Women who choose to abort even when the man is willing to be there and be a part of the child's life is unfair to that man.

5. If a man chooses to not bear the burden of responsibility for legally raising that child, yet the woman pursues with the pregnancy that is her decision.

6. If the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy with knowledge that the man will not bear any responsibility, then the woman still has choices. She can choose to keep the child and raise it assuming she has the means, or she can offer the child for adoption.

7. Adoption depending on the terms of the contract can still allow access to the child by the biological mother.

In essence, what this proposed legislation would do would level the playing field (women want equality right? well, this is equality), so that people have a clear understanding of the potential circumstances that could arise if a pregnancy occurs. My hope is, this might actually spur people to make better decisions, instead of letting consequences be damned and seeing where the chips fall.

 

This is coming from someone who has a now almost two year old daughter who was completely unplanned. Personally, for me there was no choice but to man up and do what was right; not everyone is the same, and some people simply aren't capable of handling such responsibilities, even as little as providing financial support.

Tethering the responsibility of raising a child or simply providing financial support for that child to the act of creating that child from a purely legal point of view is not really all that efficient.

 

In my case,

 

1. I fully knew the potential consequences of my actions

2. The unplanned happened

3. Not only did I choose to support my daughter, I chose to actively raise her together with my girlfriend, now fiancee.

 

These are all choices, and what is the law if not a set of rules by which to make choices? I'm not advocating this legislation from a moral or societal point of view, that's a completely mixed bag of whothe****knows. Could someone be within their legal right to choose to do this? Sure, but in my opinion they're still weak and pathetic for doing so, but that's the thing about law. Law doesn't govern moral efficacy, it deals with absolutes, yes and no, right and wrong.

[Fateless]

32 minutes ago, D-Money said:

...Then who pays for the kid? The money has to come from somewhere.

 

I think the last thing the world needs right now is opportunities for males to assume less responsibility.

 

 

I think you've missed the point of the original post. The point is that we're in a society promoting equality but the way abortion and child support laws work - men get no choice in the situation. The woman gets all the choice: the woman can choose to abort the child without consent from the father, or the woman can choose to birth the child again without consent from the father. In the first circumstance, the man loses a chance at being father to the baby despite his wishes and intentions. In the second example the father is forced to make years of financial payments over a decision he may have wanted no part of the first place. The problem is the guy gets no choice in the decision while the female can make them all. 

 

Unfortunately legalizing abortion in the way the government has (not requiring consent from the father) has created a power imbalance where men can be essentially enslaved to making payments despite HIS desire to not have a child. I think this legislation is going to be laughed out of the system, but it does raise the issue which is men have no say in whether or not they raise a child post-conception where women do.

[D-Money]

1 minute ago, Fateless said:

I think you've missed the point of the original post. The point is that we're in a society promoting equality but the way abortion and child support laws work - men get no choice in the situation. The woman gets all the choice: the woman can choose to abort the child without consent from the father, or the woman can choose to birth the child again without consent from the father. In the first circumstance, the man loses a chance at being father to the baby despite his wishes and intentions. In the second example the father is forced to make years of financial payments over a decision he may have wanted no part of the first place. The problem is the guy gets no choice in the decision while the female can make them all. 

 

Unfortunately legalizing abortion in the way the government has (not requiring consent from the father) has created a power imbalance where men can be essentially enslaved to making payments despite HIS desire to not have a child. I think this legislation is going to be laughed out of the system, but it does raise the issue which is men have no say in whether or not they raise a child post-conception where women do.

No, I get it completely. Legally, yes, it makes some sense. But as for real-world implications on society, particularly its most vulnerable members, it would be a clusterf*** of epic proportions.

 

And as for expressions like "the woman gets all the choice", "the guy gets no choice", and "men have no say"...that's deliberately misleading. A man's sperm is in his body, and he has full control over where it goes. Once he gives it to a woman, well, then it's in her body, isn't it. If you don't want a kid, don't deliver your half of it to where they are made.

 

The essence of the matter, which has the greatest impact on society, is when a child is born, who pays for it? It only makes sense that the ones who chose to produce it, and who share DNA with it, are primarily responsible. Only when there is a 3rd party that is willing to take over that responsibility (i.e. adoption) should we provide abdication for either parent.

[Toews]

53 minutes ago, D-Money said:

And as for expressions like "the woman gets all the choice", "the guy gets no choice", and "men have no say"...that's deliberately misleading. A man's sperm is in his body, and he has full control over where it goes. Once he gives it to a woman, well, then it's in her body, isn't it. If you don't want a kid, don't deliver your half of it to where they are made.

Would you still say the same if contraception is used but fails or if the man is led to believe that contraception was used but it wasn't?