"Legal Abortion"--A man's right to choose not to be a father

[LiveYourDream]

http://www.thelocal.se/20160304/let-men-have-legal-abortions

"Men should have the same right as women to decide not be parents, according to a controversial new proposal from the Liberal Party’s youth wing in western Sweden (LUF Väst).

Men who don’t want to become fathers should be permitted to have a “legal abortion” up to the 18th week of a woman’s pregnancy, say the young liberals.

The cut-off date coincides with the last week in which a woman can terminate a pregnancy in Sweden.

“This means a man would renounce the duties and rights of parenthood,” LUF Väst chairman Marcus Nilsen told The Local.

By signing up for a “legal abortion” then, a man would not have to pay maintenance for his child, but neither would he have any right to meet the child.

The group believes “legal abortion” for men would promote equality between the sexes in the early stages of a pregnancy, giving men a chance to opt out. Women would also benefit if they knew from the get-go whether a man was willing to commit to parenthood, the young liberals say. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think men will love this idea. If they could vote it into place right now, I think they would.

 

[AttackFormation]

I can't believe it.

The suggestion happened at all?
It happened in SWEDEN?
AND, it was a suggestion by women?!

Of course I see it positively but I'm personally most concerned about what will happen to the children. They will still be growing up without a father. This law prevents women from conning men, but children will still have to suffer for the womens' selfish whims because it's not an abortion and they don't give a sh!t about the kid's future so they won't have a problem with the father not being in the picture.

 

[mrRuckus]

The men of that country need to concern themselves with returning to their Viking roots and throwing out the invader roaving gangs of rapists from their new 3rd world country.

 

[Sprayarc]

I've argued this many times. Fair is fair. Equality and fairness doesn't equate to morality. Of course morals are a social construct that have been used to manipulate men especially in our post modern society.

It's funny that when I argue a point like this most people revert to arguments based on emotional appeal and that how women only get to do it because it's growing in their body.

**** that noise. Your body, your choice, your problem.

If being a single mother wasn't such an accepted thing and they didn't have so many security nets women might choose to be More responsible with their bodies.

 

[YawataNoKami]

 

[user43770]

All this will lead to is more welfare babies. Fvcking socialist morons.

 

[Sprayarc]

All this will lead to is more welfare babies. Fvcking socialist morons.

not if we change that. At least make the women work for their welfare. They should work but the money goes to the government who decides how they can spend it. If they can't be responsible with their own bodies they clearly can't handle money either.

Women who get child support should also be monitored how they spend their money also, this might deter women from being irresponsible with their bodies.

Also their should be a cap on how much child support and or alimony they can get. It shouldn't only be a percentage of his income, unless he is poor. If he's wealthy he shouldn't have to pay way more, women can and do abuse this. It's wrong.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The article makes it sound like the only way this could happen is if the action were initiated by the man. But what if the woman could initiate the same action against the man? Imagine a girl you knocked up suing you under this new law. When you get to court, she says, "judge, my rich parents are going to raise the kid with me. We don't need this loser's money, and we don't want him around our child. He has nothing to offer this child."

And then the judge turns to you and asks why he should let you be a part of the kid's life. What are you going to say, that children need fathers? Good luck with that argument in a liberal European court.

 

[LiveYourDream]

SOME seem to be misunderstanding...

The Swedish debate is NOT about physical abortion. It is about what they termed "legal abortion." A man choosing a "legal abortion" is NOT choosing to end a pregnancy. A man choosing a "legal abortion" is choosing to waive all legal rights to the child (including the right to meet the child). Through this "legal abortion" a man will NEVER be financially responsible for child in anyway, as legally it then is not his.

If a man has a "Legal Abortion" that does not imply whether or not the woman will then choose to have a physical abortion or continue the pregnancy and have the child on her own.

Knowing the father of the child has already chosen a "Legal Abortion" and will not in any way be involved with child, on any level, would likely deeply impact the mother's decision making, on whether she chooses to physically abort or have the child, on her own. If a man chooses a "legal abortion," any unrealistic hopes, dreams, or fantasies the woman has about parenting the child together, will be ended, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is the debate at hand, not physical abortion. The requirement in this debate is that the man has the "legal abortion" before 18 weeks, (the time frame allowed for a physical abortion there, I believe).

On a personal note, the comment I made above, "I think men will love this idea. If they could vote it into place right now, I think they would," was a reactionary response, to men who express their upset at the legal obligation to pay child support, if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy when he would prefer a physical abortion. I apologize. I wish I would have left it out. I realize now, the insensitive nature of the comment to all men. I am sorry.

In my heart, I believe, most men would love to be a father, if the opportune scenario was available to them. (I wish with all my heart that was not challenging to have.) I also believe that this "Legal Abortion" is not as simple as it may first appear, for any man. I believe for a man to know his son or daughter walks the earth without, at the very least, the opportunity to meet them would likely be heart breaking for most. In the same way that physical abortions are never forgotten, I believe these legal abortions would likely haunt most men in a similar way. I don't have set views on this. I saw the article and felt curious what the men here would have to share in response to the idea. I still am.

 

[Colossus]

I was confused on the meaning of that as well. The graphic pictures may need to be seen by some, but are unnecessary on this forum. Keep it clean here. These threads usually get shut down.

On the surface it seems "just", but it sounds to me like another leftist way to shirk responsibility for your own choices, albeit in a more egalitarian way. Not to say I agree with women's right to terminate a life without the man having any say so whatsoever...kinda sad all around.

 

[LiveYourDream]

The graphic pictures may need to be seen by some, but are unnecessary on this forum.

I agree. As the topic here is 'legal abortion' and NOT physical abortion, to me, the pictures of physical abortions, clearly are out of place in this thread. To me, the decision to post them for their shock value and disturbing nature, is incongruous and unfortunate.

 

[TheVirtualMind]

Pics have been deleted.

 

[LiveFreeX]

To me LYD you are on this forum to cause problems and I'm not sure why others can't see this.... unless this forum is being run by women.

 

[Atom Smasher]

It is. Why, just this morning we mods were discussing our favorite cosmetics in the Mods' Corner.

 

[yuppee]

If you have any sense, you'll get a vasectomy. Later, once you are a millionaire, you can always adopt. If you can't make a million and save it, you are not fit to be a parent (in the USA). If you can only save up 1/4 mill, that will suffice handily in quite a few other countries.

 

[dasein]

God bless em, the naïve kids in the OP. They don't realize, and no one told them, that feminism was never about equality for all, but about entrenching a left wing voting bloc via Marxist/Maoist cultural destabilization.

Try this sometime with any woman, feminist or not:

"Are you for equality for all people?"
"Are you pro choice?"
"An abortion curtails all further responsibility for the fetus, correct?"
"Then since women can curtail their responsibility for a pregnancy via abortion, for equality to result, men should have a limited opt out window by which to curtail their responsibility for a pregnancy, correct?"

Sit back and watch the smoking ears and twirling gears.

 

[yuppee]

any man who worries one little whit about what women "think" is a lost soul. Might as well worry about what your dog "thinks" . Women aint rational. Once you realize that, they are much more understandable. In the same vein, once you realize that Obama is out to ruin the US in every way possible, you'll understand that everything he's done makes perfect sense.

 

[Serenity]

If I'm not mistaken it's effectively possible to do in Norway where I'm from, the man just has to refuse signing the papers stating he's the father. No responsibility and of course also no right for his children.

Kids grow up without one parent either physically or emotionally present all the time. It doesn't nescessarily do damage as long as the one's left to care actually care. Doesn't help when a lot of people assume children missing a parent will become fvcked up, it just increases the alienation and risk that it will fvck them up.

 

[LiveYourDream]

I appreciate that "legal abortion" creates an opening for a man to express that, for whatever reason, he is not ready, willing or able to be a father and therefore will not be participating in the life of a child brought to term, in any capacity, including financial, emotional, physical, and as the child's father. While a gut wrenching decision to make and share, I think it serves the man, woman, the potential child and society, that his intentions and capacity are clearly known, while a woman still has the option for a physical abortion, should she be open to that.

People naturally avoid tough conversations. I can't imagine one tougher than that would be. I think without something like "legal abortion" the ensuing shame and judgment a man would receive, as a result of being open and honest, with the best intent for all by doing so, would likely be fuel for a lifetime of unbelievable shaming and judgement directed his way. I can't imagine a greater catch-22. I see this idea of "legal abortion" as a means to facilitate such a conversation and understanding between potential parents, despite it's heartbreaking nature for everyone involved.

I believe a child is best served being raised by both of their parents for a multitude of obvious reasons. The opportunity to grow up experiencing and understanding the differences in masculine and feminine essences and the gifts of each is invaluable. When that is not going to occur, I think that it's incredibly important for the potential parents, to be able to be open, honest and clear with one another and discuss the ramifications, including no financial assistance or involvement on any level, if that is to be the case or whatever it is for them. I think insuring that neither party has false expectations serves all involved, no matter how difficult the conversation.

 

[LiveFreeX]

If I'm not mistaken it's effectively possible to do in Norway where I'm from, the man just has to refuse signing the papers stating he's the father. No responsibility and of course also no right for his children.

Kids grow up without one parent either physically or emotionally present all the time. It doesn't nescessarily do damage as long as the one's left to care actually care. Doesn't help when a lot of people assume children missing a parent will become fvcked up, it just increases the alienation and risk that it will fvck them up.

It actually does.