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

[Tennis]

So you would support a ban on birth control and abortions?

You should use birth control. Don't trust the woman if she says she is on the pill. Be safe.

[LilSaihah]

You should use birth control. Don't trust the woman if she says she is on the pill. Be safe.

I'm not asking for your advice. I'm asking for your position.

[Tennis]

I'm not asking for your advice. I'm asking for your position.

Why would I support a ban on birth control. It serves its purpose by preventing females from getting preggers.

[May90]

It is about both, one doesn't exclude the other.
This isn't about "males getting pregnant" but rather about "females being able to cancel responsibilities", to suggest otherwise after almost a 100 pages of this is just being obtuse.

Equal opportunities cannot be guaranteed without granting privileges to certain groups of people, which contradicts the very definition of equality. For example, in the US, if you are black, you, averagely, will have worse opportunities in life than if you are white, because you are more likely to be born in a poor family, in a nasty area, etc. How do you guarantee equal opportunities without granting them certain privileges to offset this discrepancy?

Same here. Men do not have the opportunity to give birth, while women do. Women (practically) do not have the opportunity to become the fastest runner in the world, while men do. Doesn't mean our society cannot be equal, just the equality is a bit trickier concept than it seems.

---

To clarify, I understand the concept you are promoting, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Natural inequality coming from differences in biology, among other things, leads to inequality in law. This is the only way to assure that all people get averagely equal quality of life. If you ignore these differences and try to create equality for the sake of equality, then people handicapped in any way, compared to someone else, are going to suffer for it.

[LilSaihah]

Why would I support a ban on birth control. It serves its purpose by preventing females from getting preggers.

But by copulating, they're consenting to become parents. Why should they be able to reneg on that consent by using birth control or having an abortion?

[Tennis]

But by copulating, they're consenting to become parents. Why should they be able to reneg on that consent by using birth control or having an abortion?

I'm not sure why you're linking abortion with birth control. They're two separate issues.
By copulating they know of the risks. They can try to limit the risks by using birth control.

[LilSaihah]

I'm not sure why you're linking abortion with birth control. They're two separate issues.

I don't know why you're dodging the abortion issue and focusing on birth control when abortion is the topic of the thread, but you're right.

Why should they be able to reneg on that consent by having an abortion?

[Fugus]

Yes it is. If you don't want kids then don't risk it. You grow up.

I know this has been talked about already, but this is what I am responding to exactly.

The only way that logic holds up is if you are also completely against abortion as well in which case your view is consistent. Otherwise, it is biased and frankly hypocritical.

If the woman doesn't want to risk getting pregnant, she should take steps to avoid it. If she gets pregnant anyways, she knew the risk and so on, same as the man.

If the woman gets to physically abort the child to dodge her responsibilities for getting pregnant, the man should have the same option. And if the man exercises his option, he still had to do so early enough that the woman still has to make her choice knowing full well the consequences since he will not be around. It still puts the situation in the woman's favor as she is still ultimately the one who decides if the baby is born or not meaning the man gets no say so and she can kill the child even if he wants to keep it. It just means she can't force him to take care of the baby (And by extension her a great many times) brought along by her choice if he decided before hand that he didn't want a child.

[Skayth]

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

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Yes ridiculous that you believe men should not be able to, when a man who wants a child has no right to stop her from aborting. Fair is fair. Equal rights and that is a step towards it.

[Tennis]

Yes ridiculous that you believe men should not be able to, when a man who wants a child has no right to stop her from aborting. Fair is fair. Equal rights and that is a step towards it.

The man should have you know? Married the woman first and made sure he knew what he was getting into. Duh.

[Deleted]

Equal opportunities cannot be guaranteed without granting privileges to certain groups of people, which contradicts the very definition of equality. For example, in the US, if you are black, you, averagely, will have worse opportunities in life than if you are white, because you are more likely to be born in a poor family, in a nasty area, etc. How do you guarantee equal opportunities without granting them certain privileges to offset this discrepancy?

Same here. Men do not have the opportunity to give birth, while women do. Women (practically) do not have the opportunity to become the fastest runner in the world, while men do. Doesn't mean our society cannot be equal, just the equality is a bit trickier concept than it seems.

---

To clarify, I understand the concept you are promoting, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Natural inequality coming from differences in biology, among other things, leads to inequality in law. This is the only way to assure that all people get averagely equal quality of life. If you ignore these differences and try to create equality for the sake of equality, then people handicapped in any way, compared to someone else, are going to suffer for it.

So you are saying that affirmative action isn't a thing? You are saying that there should not be a 100 meter dash for woman, or woman tennis should not be a thing? There are allot of things like this that have had their rules change because of unfairness like this, there is no reason what so ever as to why this should not be a thing when it comes to reproductive rights.

That the females are the one carrying the children is something that is done by nature, this is something you can not change. But, what you can change are the rules concerning this. Right now it is the males that have no rights what so ever in this process, while the females hold all the rights. Changing this won't effect the rights females have, but it will change their responsibility.

To clarify, inequality coming from differences in sex is called "sexism in law" and treating someone different because of their sex is bad.

[Deleted]

emmm how are men forced to be the legitimate father of the child ? isnt running a good tactic ?

[May90]

So you are saying that affirmative action isn't a thing? You are saying that there should not be a 100 meter dash for woman, or woman tennis should not be a thing? There are allot of things like this that have had their rules change because of unfairness like this, there is no reason what so ever as to why this should not be a thing when it comes to reproductive rights.

That the females are the one carrying the children is something that is done by nature, this is something you can not change. But, what you can change are the rules concerning this. Right now it is the males that have no rights what so ever in this process, while the females hold all the rights. Changing this won't effect the rights females have, but it will change their responsibility.

To clarify, inequality coming from differences in sex is called "sexism in law" and treating someone different because of their sex is bad.

No, but there is a reason women do not compete with men (in general) professionally in tennis or in 100 meter runs. If they did, if "woman tennis" wasn't a thing, but, rather, there was just "tennis" - then women would have no chance whatsoever to even get close to the top. The difference is recognized by the world, rather than ignored for the sake of false equality.

Now, with regards to the discussion, it is the woman's body we are talking about. No law should allow the man to have any say in what the woman does with her body, and if such a law was implemented, it would be sexist, since it would mean that men have certain control over women's bodies, while women have no control over men's bodies. However, once the child has been born - that is when both the man and the woman have equal ability to raise this child, and if one of them decides to walk away, they should compensate for it monetarily. This is equality.

Yes, as a man, this obvious discrepancy might be frustrating at times. I am a man, and you bet I wouldn't be happy if my wife (if I had one, that is) chose to make the decision contrary to my desire. But, knowing how much this decision impacts my wife's life (way more than it does mine), I would accept her decision, whatever it would be. And people who have sex with someone they don't really care about, that gets them into trouble... I have little sympathy to them, to be honest. If someone impregnates a woman who is against abortions and then complains that he has to pay for the child support - well, you knew what you were getting into, buddy. And if you think that you are the only one who suffers for the careless sex and the woman does not - think about the effort she will have to put in raising her child in the next 18 years. All you have to do is pay a cut off your income, while she very well might say goodbye to her career for good, if she is to be a truly devoted mother. Who has it harder here is not as obvious as it would seem.

[Deleted]

No, but there is a reason women do not compete with men (in general) professionally in tennis or in 100 meter runs. If they did, if "woman tennis" wasn't a thing, but, rather, there was just "tennis" - then women would have no chance whatsoever to even get close to the top. The difference is recognized by the world, rather than ignored for the sake of false equality.

Now, with regards to the discussion, it is the woman's body we are talking about. No law should allow the man to have any say in what the woman does with her body, and if such a law was implemented, it would be sexist, since it would mean that men have certain control over women's bodies, while women have no control over men's bodies. However, once the child has been born - that is when both the man and the woman have equal ability to raise this child, and if one of them decides to walk away, they should compensate for it monetarily. This is equality.

Yes, as a man, this obvious discrepancy might be frustrating at times. I am a man, and you bet I wouldn't be happy if my wife (if I had one, that is) chose to make the decision contrary to my desire. But, knowing how much this decision impacts my wife's life (way more than it does mine), I would accept her decision, whatever it would be. And people who have sex with someone they don't really care about, that gets them into trouble... I have little sympathy to them, to be honest. If someone impregnates a woman who is against abortions and then complains that he has to pay for the child support - well, you knew what you were getting into, buddy. And if you think that you are the only one who suffers for the careless sex and the woman does not - think about the effort she will have to put in raising her child in the next 18 years. All you have to do is pay a cut off your income, while she very well might say goodbye to her career for good, if she is to be a truly devoted mother. Who has it harder here is not as obvious as it would seem.

That first bit is exactly the point, just like woman cant compete in sports men can't compete with childbirth. Therefore the playing field should be leveled, just like it was done in sports.

As i have said, a men won't get to have any say what so ever about if she should keep it or abort. That would still be totally up to her, no rights she has will be diminished in any way. But that isn't to say that she can't get more responsibilities because of the actions she has made. This isn't about "men getting control over a womans body" but rather "woman having to be responsible for their own actions".

You keep on implying that somehow the choice the female made to have the child wasn't a choice, she choose to have this child. If you did not want to have an abortion, for whatever reason, then you choose to have that child. So there is no situation where a woman has to raise a child against her wishes. So yea, i do think that only men suffer from this, as it is only the males who have no voice into their own reproductive rights.

If abortions weren't a thing then this discussion would have been moot. Then you could say that two people had sex, a child is coming because of that, and the two of them have to deal with it. But, because of abortion being an option available to one sex that removes any and all responsibility for this, we have made the playing field unequal. This isn't arguing against nature, as abortion is not natural, and abortion is the thing that is discussed, not the pregnancy.

[May90]

That first bit is exactly the point, just like woman cant compete in sports men can't compete with childbirth. Therefore the playing field should be leveled, just like it was done in sports.

As i have said, a men won't get to have any say what so ever about if she should keep it or abort. That would still be totally up to her, no rights she has will be diminished in any way. But that isn't to say that she can't get more responsibilities because of the actions she has made. This isn't about "men getting control over a womans body" but rather "woman having to be responsible for their own actions".

You keep on implying that somehow the choice the female made to have the child wasn't a choice, she choose to have this child. If you did not want to have an abortion, for whatever reason, then you choose to have that child. So there is no situation where a woman has to raise a child against her wishes. So yea, i do think that only men suffer from this, as it is only the males who have no voice into their own reproductive rights.

If abortions weren't a thing then this discussion would have been moot. Then you could say that two people had sex, a child is coming because of that, and the two of them have to deal with it. But, because of abortion being an option available to one sex that removes any and all responsibility for this, we have made the playing field unequal. This isn't arguing against nature, as abortion is not natural, and abortion is the thing that is discussed, not the pregnancy.

I understand your point, and, I admit, it makes a lot of sense. There are two major problems, however.

1. Abortions still cause a lot of controversy in the society. There are people who consider an abortion a murder. As long as this holds true, considering abortion as a viable option for every single woman would be questionable, at best.
2. The impact of the choice on the life of the woman is much greater than that on the life of the man. If the woman chooses an abortion, then the man is just free to go, while the woman has to go through the procedures. If the woman chooses a childbirth, then, again, the man literally doesn't have to do anything until the child is born, while it is quite different for the woman; and after that, if the man chooses to walk away and the woman is left to raise the child alone, apparently, the impact of this on her life is much greater than on his. Requiring him to pay for child support is just a way to offset this difference.

I do not see what is proposed in the OP as viable, as it would make men not taking sex seriously have to deal with much less significant consequences than women. It might be equality by law, but it wouldn't result in equality in practice. The current system isn't perfect either, but at least it addresses these issues, to some extent.

---

Honestly, all these issues make me take a more serious look on the proposals of "sexual contracts". Before a pair has sex, they would sign a contract in which they agree on the conditions of what happens in case of unwanted or wanted pregnancy. As much as it sounds inconvenient and Orwellian, it would help avoid all these debates, and a pair interested in having sex together shouldn't have any problem reaching a quick agreement. If the agreement has not been reached, then both sides carry equal responsibility for the result, as proposed in the OP.

[Deleted]

I understand your point, and, I admit, it makes a lot of sense. There are two major problems, however.

1. Abortions still cause a lot of controversy in the society. There are people who consider an abortion a murder. As long as this holds true, considering abortion as a viable option for every single woman would be questionable, at best.
2. The impact of the choice on the life of the woman is much greater than that on the life of the man. If the woman chooses an abortion, then the man is just free to go, while the woman has to go through the procedures. If the woman chooses a childbirth, then, again, the man literally doesn't have to do anything until the child is born, while it is quite different for the woman; and after that, if the man chooses to walk away and the woman is left to raise the child alone, apparently, the impact of this on her life is much greater than on his. Requiring him to pay for child support is just a way to offset this difference.

I do not see what is proposed in the OP as viable, as it would make men not taking sex seriously have to deal with much less significant consequences than women. It might be equality by law, but it wouldn't result in equality in practice. The current system isn't perfect either, but at least it addresses these issues, to some extent.

---

Honestly, all these issues make me take a more serious look on the proposals of "sexual contracts". Before a pair has sex, they would sign a contract in which they agree on the conditions of what happens in case of unwanted or wanted pregnancy. As much as it sounds inconvenient and Orwellian, it would help avoid all these debates, and a pair interested in having sex together shouldn't have any problem reaching a quick agreement. If the agreement has not been reached, then both sides carry equal responsibility for the result, as proposed in the OP.

Your point one is effectively a religious point, and therefore kind of moot. Because if you do not want an abortion because of religious convictions then you will force your religious believes on the man involved. And last i have checked, this is a no no. And being religious still doesn't take away the choice that is abortion.

Your second point is arguing against nature, yes females are the ones that get pregnant, but there is no reason to punish males for this. Multiple times it has been stated in this tread that the males would get the same period of time that the females would get. And that you just can't walk away if you planned a child or anything like that.

Claiming that men won't take sex serious is just dishonest imo, it would be the same as me claiming that all pregnancies are just done so they can have males pay up. It just isn't true. Sure every system can be abused, but that doesn't mean that every male now all off a sudden doesnt care about their offspring.

A contact won't ever work, because the situation that is discussed most often occurs from casual sex or that the female changes her mind and wants to keep the child. And if there is a contract that states that she will abort, but she changes her mind, then the male could have a say in what she has to do, she has to abort then. And this is something we want to avoid, at least, i would very much like to avoid situations like that.

[May90]

Your point one is effectively a religious point, and therefore kind of moot. Because if you do not want an abortion because of religious convictions then you will force your religious believes on the man involved. And last i have checked, this is a no no. And being religious still doesn't take away the choice that is abortion.

Your second point is arguing against nature, yes females are the ones that get pregnant, but there is no reason to punish males for this. Multiple times it has been stated in this tread that the males would get the same period of time that the females would get. And that you just can't walk away if you planned a child or anything like that.

Claiming that men won't take sex serious is just dishonest imo, it would be the same as me claiming that all pregnancies are just done so they can have males pay up. It just isn't true. Sure every system can be abused, but that doesn't mean that every male now all off a sudden doesnt care about their offspring.

A contact won't ever work, because the situation that is discussed most often occurs from casual sex or that the female changes her mind and wants to keep the child. And if there is a contract that states that she will abort, but she changes her mind, then the male could have a say in what she has to do, she has to abort then. And this is something we want to avoid, at least, i would very much like to avoid situations like that.

I don't think you understood my point. I've never said anything about punishment, or that all men don't take sex serious. I simply said that women have to deal with much more significant consequences in case of pregnancy than men, so equality of choice would mean inequality of consequences. Pretty much like treating people with a bit of cold and people with a brain tumor in hospitals equally would result in the latter having a much harder life than the former.

As for religion - no, not only religious people are against abortions (although I see their points on the matter kind of dull, most of the time). We as a society haven't reached the conclusion on the moral questions behind abortion yet, and, since the laws are made by the society as well, it makes sense to not proclaim officially such a controversial thing as abortion a viable choice. This choice is up to every person, but the government should respect people refusing to consider this choice, I think.

---

Contract could be done more intelligently. Like, a woman promises to abort the child. If she changes her mind, then the contract is violated, and she takes full responsibility for it; the man is free to walk away, and she has to pay for child support on her own. As long as both sides follow the contract, everybody's happy; if one of them violates the conditions of the contract, then the other is not responsible for the consequences. Isn't it what we want to happen in any case?

[Deleted]

I don't think you understood my point. I've never said anything about punishment, or that all men don't take sex serious. I simply said that women have to deal with much more significant consequences in case of pregnancy than men, so equality of choice would mean inequality of consequences. Pretty much like treating people with a bit of cold and people with a brain tumor in hospitals equally would result in the latter having a much harder life than the former.

As for religion - no, not only religious people are against abortions (although I see their points on the matter kind of dull, most of the time). We as a society haven't reached the conclusion on the moral questions behind abortion yet, and, since the laws are made by the society as well, it makes sense to not proclaim officially such a controversial thing as abortion a viable choice. This choice is up to every person, but the government should respect people refusing to consider this choice, I think.

---

Contract could be done more intelligently. Like, a woman promises to abort the child. If she changes her mind, then the contract is violated, and she takes full responsibility for it; the man is free to walk away, and she has to pay for child support on her own. As long as both sides follow the contract, everybody's happy; if one of them violates the conditions of the contract, then the other is not responsible for the consequences. Isn't it what we want to happen in any case?

You never said anything about punishing, but the rules that you would be willing to apply do punish men, that is why i said it like that.
Even with the financial abortion in place the playing field would still not be equal, the females will still have more control over their re-productivity then males will ever have. As they are the only ones that can reproduce without a willing partner. So we do not treat them the same, but that doesn't mean that we cant treat males better then they are treated now.

Even if it is not religious per se, it is still a belief, and you should not be able to force your beliefs on anyone else. And, if you flip it around, there are people that think that abortion is murder, still we are allowed to have abortions. This means that society has decided that abortion is a good thing, it is just that some people do not agree with this. Just because she believes that abortion is bad doesn't mean that this is a good reason for a guy to pay up for 18 years. Believing something is totally her choice and her responsibility, so choices made because of what ever believe are still their own responsibility.
A financial abortion would mean that it is still her decision to make, but she can't force that choice on her partner anymore.

Yea no, that would not be much of a contract, only the males would benifit from this so there is a good chance that females just won't sign it, or "forget it in the heat of the moment" and we would be right back at where we are now. Because, the contract is pretty much the same as a "financial abortion" but its just that it is made more difficult for males to obtain.
I think intention is all that should be necessary, if you are using birth control it is pretty obvious that you do not want children to happen from the sexual encounter. But a female still can become pregnant and males should never be able to force females to abort, so it is still her choice if she wants it or not. She can go to her partner and ask if he is willing to raise a child, and this should be totally up to him. And from there she can decide what to do, no one is forcing anyone, and everyone has a choice.

[Deleted]

As for religion - no, not only religious people are against abortions (although I see their points on the matter kind of dull, most of the time). We as a society haven't reached the conclusion on the moral questions behind abortion yet, and, since the laws are made by the society as well, it makes sense to not proclaim officially such a controversial thing as abortion a viable choice. This choice is up to every person, but the government should respect people refusing to consider this choice, I think.

How about changing the aspect a bit for you. What about adoption. Both in EU and america it's possible for mothers to anomously put their baby on adoption. When this is done she doesn't have to pay alimony. Yet you are putting argument in place that the father does need to pay for child alimony.

What is your view on this? Because it seems the mothers rights trump the baby's rights here.

Contract could be done more intelligently. Like, a woman promises to abort the child. If she changes her mind, then the contract is violated, and she takes full responsibility for it; the man is free to walk away, and she has to pay for child support on her own. As long as both sides follow the contract, everybody's happy; if one of them violates the conditions of the contract, then the other is not responsible for the consequences. Isn't it what we want to happen in any case?

Contract seems impractible and unrealistic. Feels kind of like having to sign a consent form before sex. Also if this is legally possible than you can also make automatic assumptions that is in place unless they were trying to get pregnant. Most sex today isnt witht he intent on children.

============================================
Personally I don't want that another party (father or state) can force if the woman should abort. Mainly because this is an autoritatian door I'm not sure i want to cross. But the more arguments against father's financial abortion I read the more it seems it's okey.
The door is already open since were forcing dads bodily and emotional autonomy, and than their is adoption system in place as well.

Logically it makes sense that either party is able to force abortion.
In the intrerest of a child it is as well, because if either party is able to prevent the child being born it increases the chance the child is brought up in a good and stimulating enviroment. Alternatively we could look at history and what systems were in place that promoted a father and mother being together with the child.