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

[Tennis]

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.

What's wrong with anti abortion exactly?

[Deleted]

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.

Telling someone to not engage in sex with someone they don't trust is by no means anti-abortion rhetoric, you know.

[padie]

Telling someone to not engage in sex with someone they don't trust is by no means anti-abortion rhetoric, you know.

as i said: you can't trust someone 100% , so yes it very much is.

[Mehrunes]

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

"Just don't have sex" part.

[Azadina]

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.

Pregnancy is unfair by nature indeed.

But then, men can have hundreds of children per year, while woman can only have few if she's lucky. Why don't I see people complaining about that unfairness too?

What's wrong with anti abortion exactly?

Something to do with human rights, that hardline conservatives want to deny people.

[Deleted]

as i said: you can't trust someone 100% , so yes it very much is.

"Just don't have sex" part.

There's nothing that's anti-abortion rhetoric about that.

[Halyon]

Pregnancy is unfair by nature indeed.

But then, men can have hundreds of children per year, while woman can only have few if she's lucky. Why don't I see people complaining about that unfairness too?

We socially condemn cheaters if they're found out, and flipping that one, I don't really have much sympathy for a man who ends up having 5 children on the way, and even less when it then goes off tax payers because he was irresponsible, and forcing women into abortion is cruelty.

It's a difficult topic to...'get right'.

[padie]

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.

1. you can't have sex with 0% to get pregnant.
2. you can't trust someone 100%

so only 2 options are left

have sex and make kids
don't have sex.


abortion isn't an option because you can't trust someone 100%
having sex isn't possible, you might get pregnant.

[Mehrunes]

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.

Ah, the "both physically and mentally" part referred to the "recovering from" part and not the types of damage? Well, if you phrase it that way, I don't see how one has a chance of not recovering, since the hormones will get back in order.

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.

I meant the other way around, a case where such law is a thing. Knowing that you abandoned your child may be mentally taxing on some of the men who'd choose it, and they may come to regret it. And some women may very well suffer mentally less than that, at least in case of early abortion. That's kinda subjective and depending on an individual. Though I suppose on average the mental aspect would affect women more.

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.

And in my opinion, the proposal makes it less unfair. But given how the post I was responding to said women should have more of a say because of that inherent unfairness, as I said, it would still favor women more.

[Deleted]

1. you can't have sex with 0% to get pregnant.
2. you can't trust someone 100%

so only 2 options are left

have sex and make kids
don't have sex.


abortion isn't an option because you can't trust someone 100%
having sex isn't possible, you might get pregnant.

If you can't trust someone, then that's you choosing bad partners or you're paranoid. Pick one or maybe both.

[Pann]

right, woman should not have the right to an abortion. Stop repeating that sexist crap.

It is bizarre world you live in when you think not getting your own way means that no-one else should.

[padie]

If you can't trust someone, then that's you choosing bad partners or you're paranoid. Pick one or maybe both.

yes no one ever has changed his/her mind... you seem very naive.

[Mehrunes]

Telling someone to not engage in sex with someone they don't trust is by no means anti-abortion rhetoric, you know.

Or you could, like, read the whole posts. Women you do trust may still change their mind when confronted with actually being pregnant. As such, your wonderful point boils down to "don't have sex". Which is an idiotic premise all around, and is an anti-abortion rhetoric.

[Deleted]

Or you could, like, read the whole posts. Women you do trust may still change their mind when confronted with actually being pregnant. As such, your wonderful point boils down to "don't have sex". Which is an idiotic premise all around, and is an anti-abortion rhetoric.

No, it's not "anti-abortion rhetoric". Telling men to not have sex with partners whom they don't trust doesn't mean you think abortion should be banned.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-group-says/

Make it so.

It takes away the necessity of a candlestick to the gut, which is a real time saver.

[Deleted]

Make it so.

Youth wing of a Right-wing fringe party that has like no influence? Yeah, not going to happen, really.

[Mehrunes]

There's nothing that's anti-abortion rhetoric about that.

Seriously, you've never seen "just don't have sex" used as an argument against abortion (and pro-choice side saying how that's an unreasonable expectation)? I find it hard to believe.

[Jotaux]

No, it's not "anti-abortion rhetoric". Telling men to not have sex with partners whom they don't trust doesn't mean you think abortion should be banned.

Its the same argument brought up in regards to women getting abortion. You are just using it now because it fits your own views.

[Deleted]

Seriously, you've never seen "just don't have sex" used as an argument against abortion (and pro-choice side saying how that's an unreasonable expectation)? I find it hard to believe.

Telling men to not have sex if they don't trust their partner isn't the same as thinking abortion should be banned. Abortion in case of an accidental pregnancy is taking responsibility for an unwanted situation.

[padie]

No, it's not "anti-abortion rhetoric". Telling men to not have sex with partners whom they don't trust doesn't mean you think abortion should be banned.

I'm gonna have to stop saying the same things over and over...
You can't ever trust someone 100% when it comes to something this life-changing (and creating) .