Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility, Swedish political group says

[Deleted]

It's pretty clear what I'm saying. Stop strawmanning.

So, it is you being sexist again, having sex is not the same as consenting to parenthood.
So only having sex with woman that don't want to become parent is a silly thing to say.

[Deleted]

So, it is you being sexist again, having sex is not the same as consenting to parenthood.
So only having sex with woman that don't want to become parent is a silly thing to say.

There's nothing sexist about telling people to not have sex with people whom they don't trust.

[willtron]

No, you don't get to push the child support costs onto the tax payers just because you want to fuck around without any precautions or any hint of being able to take some responsibility for what your actions results in.

Just as much the woman's fault if she gets pregnant. So stop acting like it's mens fault in all of this.

And where did I say this would be pushed on to taxpayers? Please quote me on that. She can pay for it herself. Using your logic, why would she keep the baby unless she can provide an adequate home and pay for it herself. Why would she get knocked up if she could provide all those things herself?

[Deleted]

And where did I say this would be pushed on to taxpayers?

You really have no clue of how the world works, do you?

[Deleted]

There's nothing sexist about telling people to not have sex with people whom they don't trust.

Except, its okay for a woman to change her mind, and the guy should pay for trusting her. That is sexist, you do not set the same standards for females.

[willtron]

You really have no clue of how the world works, do you?

Answer my previous questions.

[Mehrunes]

A woman being forced to go through pregnancy or abortion will suffer damage she may not recover from. Both physically and mentally.

Or, since it's not 17th century anymore, she can suffer damage, with the chances of that happening being low. Pain != damage. That's the physical part. As for mental aspect, I'd assume that the thought of a child of yours being out there somewhere that you can not have ties to even if you changed your mind could be taxing on some of the men that would choose such a thing.

[Deleted]

Except, its okay for a woman to change her mind, and the guy should pay for trusting her. That is sexist, you do not set the same standards for females.

There is still nothing sexist about telling people that they shouldn't have sex with people whom they don't trust, what's so hard for you to understand?

If someone claims to be free of STDs without anything to prove they are and wants to have sex without a condom, should I just take their word for it? Fuck no, I'll refrain from having sex with them under those circumstances, because I don't trust them.

[padie]

Except, its okay for a woman to change her mind, and the guy should pay for trusting her. That is sexist, you do not set the same standards for females.

on a side note: It may have happened ones, maybe two times that trust has been abused.

[negawonka]

UK=/=Sweden

The topic is about Sweden, but I wouldn't want to discuss it if it was about the UK either. The UK can do whatever they want too .

[Halyon]

If the man doesn't want the child, and the woman does, thats demonstrated shes made that choice on her own, why should the man be forced to financially commit? I think it's more than fair he can 'abort'

Likewise, if the man wants to keep the child, and the woman wants rid, the man is SOL.

To an extent I agree, but were do you draw the line that isn't entirely stupid or unneccessarily complicated etc...

[Wayne25uk]

If you're prepared to stick it in you better be prepared for what comes out. It's called responsibility some of you need to grow a pair and grow up.

3 kids no regrets!

[Mehrunes]

It's equally his, but his say isn't equal purely on biology. The woman is the only one affected with the pregnancy, she carries it, she feels the effects of it in her body alone. She's the one who has to adapt and allow the fetus to make use of her body and grow, the man does not, therefore he doesn't get a say on weather the woman should keep doing that or not.

And under such law, the man would still have no say on the abortion itself, because that's still up to mother. Even if he wanted it and she did not. The women still have overall more of a say.

I have a simple solution: Don't have sex with women whom you don't trust to get an abortion if there's an accidental pregnancy.

Because the women you do actually trust can't change their minds when confronted with the actual situation, because who the fuck knows why. Also, yay for anti-abortion rhetoric.

[willtron]

To an extent I agree, but were do you draw the line that isn't entirely stupid or unneccessarily complicated etc...

If I knew that, I'd be a lawyer

I guess it's a case by case standard, because right now, it heavily favours the woman. An opt out by default, so by not doing anything, the man has to pay. I actually agree the man should pay something, but there are definitely scenarios where the man should be able to abort.

[Deleted]

There is still nothing sexist about telling people that they shouldn't have sex with people whom they don't trust, what's so hard for you to understand?

If someone claims to be free of STDs without anything to prove they are and wants to have sex without a condom, should I just take their word for it? Fuck no, I'll refrain from having sex with them under those circumstances, because I don't trust them.

Is it really that hard to understand that it is already something to sue over, if someone knows they have an STD they are supposed to tell you. We have been over this, and now you are going to ignore the word "know" again.
If an agreement was made then it should be only logical to follow it, but you can't force someone to have an abortion. And im not saying that we should be able to force anyone. So the only thing left is the thing that is been brought up, a financial abortion.

[Deleted]

Also, yay for anti-abortion rhetoric.

What "anti-abortion rhetoric" are you refering to?

[Halyon]

Or, since it's not 17th century anymore, she can suffer damage, with the chances of that happening being low. Pain != damage. That's the physical part. As for mental aspect, I'd assume that the thought of a child of yours being out there somewhere that you can not have ties to even if you changed your mind could be taxing on some of the men that would choose such a thing.

I mean mental damage. The physical is only one part of it. Pregnancy whacks out hormones and shit in the womans body, so being forced to go through that, or being forced to abort a pregnancy against their will, can have severe mental effects on the woman.

It isn't close to the same to force someone to give up money... Of course the man can have attachment to the fetus (child to them, affectionate value), and it'll hurt if it gets aborted, but he isn't on the pregnancy cocktail, nor does he have to experience the other physical parts of it, so it's lessened for his part.

And under such law, the man would still have no say on the abortion itself, because that's still up to mother. Even if he wanted it and she did not. The women still have overall more of a say.

Yes, and that's because pregnancy is inherently unfair. We can only strive to make it as fair as possible, but given the situation, that's immensely difficult, as no matter what, something will be negative.

I guess it's a case by case standard, because right now, it heavily favours the woman. An opt out by default, so by not doing anything, the man has to pay. I actually agree the man should pay something, but there are definitely scenarios where the man should be able to abort.

I agree. I have very little faith in a smoothly running government system though... Clogged up, slow-moving dying snail pace. And given then sensitive nature of it, the man would have to at least be required to inform the mother like 5 weeks in advance of abortion deadline, if he chooses to abandon ship, in case she wants to change her mind as well, as abortion processes aren't just a one-day thing... And additionally, depending on the area you live in, said deadline would be pretty tight... Around here I think it's either only 12-week (might be 16) limit for free abortion... That ain't a lot.

[Mehrunes]

No, you don't get to push the child support costs onto the tax payers just because you want to fuck around without any precautions or any hint of being able to take some responsibility for what your actions results in.

Again, if that's your concern, why aren't you against subsidized abortion? And to preemptively address your "but it's cheaper", the cost itself is not a part of the premise that "shifting costs of you not wanting to take responsibility on the tax payers is evulz". You'd have to extend the premise first and try to dictate what costs one can shift and what are the brackets. In which case, hello double standards.

[padie]

What "anti-abortion rhetoric" are you refering to?

its easy:
you say don't have sex with someone you can't trust
but you can never trust someone 100%, or they can change their minds.

conclusion : don't have sex unless its to have kids.
welcome back to the middle ages.

[willtron]

If you're prepared to stick it in you better be prepared for what comes out. It's called responsibility some of you need to grow a pair and grow up.

3 kids no regrets!

Contraceptive. That's responsibility. Both partners can use it at the same time. Still a chance there.

Quick example. Monogamous couple. Father isn't ready for kids. Both contraceptives fail. (physical intimacy is important for a long term relationship.) Responsible adults. For whatever reason they get into an argument about it, split up - father is SOL.