• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Male abortion rights

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,367
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A pro-incest political group from Sweden has proposed giving men the right to a ‘legal abortion’ that would allow them to opt out of parenthood.

The Liberal People Party’s youth wing branch in western Sweden (LUF Väst) say men should be able to decide against being a father up to the 18-week cut-off for abortions, meaning in practice if a woman continues with the pregnancy, the man would have no legal responsibility for the child.

LUF Väst chairman Marcus Nilsen said the idea had been put forward by female members of the group and would increase equality between the sexes as well as allowing women to know whether men were committed to having children early on in pregnancy, The Local reported.
Click to expand...

Sweden's pro-incest youth wing of the Liberal People's Party suggests giving men right to 'legal abortions' | Europe | News | The Independent

Bizarre and dangerous.
 
I have a problem with the time limit idea. Sometimes men don't know due to certain circumstances they are going to be father. The fact is that unless the guy is around and involved with the woman he likely won't know until the woman informs him of the fact, and she might not do this until after the time period to opt-out is over.

I also have a problem with the idea of "opt-in" rights on general principle. People shouldn't need to opt-out of government aggression or have to opt-in to have the ability to practice their rights.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
Sweden's pro-incest youth wing of the Liberal People's Party suggests giving men right to 'legal abortions' | Europe | News | The Independent

Bizarre and dangerous.
Click to expand...

I mean they shouldn't call it that, because it's stupid, but yes, as long as women can abdicate their parental responsibilities (through the needless violence of abortion), not allowing men to abdicate their responsibilities - the legal status quo - is undeniably misandrist.


I certainly don't support either parent being able to simply abandon these responsibilities, but anyone who supports keeping things as is doesn't just hate the unborn, they also clearly want men discriminated against too.
 
Bucky said:
Sweden's pro-incest youth wing of the Liberal People's Party suggests giving men right to 'legal abortions' | Europe | News | The Independent

Bizarre and dangerous.
Click to expand...

The "pro-incest" thing is bizarre for sure.

But what is "dangerous" about the guy having the option to walk away from all responsibility during the same time period a woman can decide to abort with or without his consent?

Sounds about how the world has operated since the dawn of time. At least from the guy being able to walk away perspective.
 
Dragonfly said:
The "pro-incest" thing is bizarre for sure.

But what is "dangerous" about the guy having the option to walk away from all responsibility during the same time period a woman can decide to abort with or without his consent?

Sounds about how the world has operated since the dawn of time. At least from the guy being able to walk away perspective.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. This makes it so the man has to opt-in to his rights within a certain time frame. In order to be really equal between the parties neither one should be required to have government permission.
 
I quit reading the article with the opening line... "pro-incest political group from Sweden."

What the ****** is going on over there?
 
JayDubya said:
I mean they shouldn't call it that, because it's stupid, but yes, as long as women can abdicate their parental responsibilities (through the needless violence of abortion), not allowing men to abdicate their responsibilities - the legal status quo - is undeniably misandrist.


I certainly don't support either parent being able to simply abandon these responsibilities, but anyone who supports keeping things as is doesn't just hate the unborn, they also clearly want men discriminated against too.
Click to expand...

the men have the abortion option every time they have a zygote in their womb
as to pregnant women, their opportunity to opt out (or in) was that time prior to their insemination
 
OrphanSlug said:
I quit reading the article with the opening line... "pro-incest political group from Sweden."

What the ****** is going on over there?
Click to expand...

I have been to Sweden and can tell you if this presidency thing does not work out for Sanders, he would make a wonderful president there.
 
On another forum a fella wrote a long rant about pregnancy and birth and abortion and It came off more as a I hate women thing even though he made some good points.

Hers the gist, Women decide whether they will have sex with a man or not, if he decides and she disagrees its rape. The women decides whether to have the child or not, the only thing the man has the right to do is decide what they gender the baby will be.

Some flaws, first he could wear a condom if he doesnt want her pregnant, not fool proof works 99% of the time. If he makes that decision all the others are moot.
 
JayDubya said:
I mean they shouldn't call it that, because it's stupid, but yes, as long as women can abdicate their parental responsibilities (through the needless violence of abortion), not allowing men to abdicate their responsibilities - the legal status quo - is undeniably misandrist.
Click to expand...
Only if you wrongly presume that the situations are entirely equal in the first place.

I think it’s best explained by identifying the three roles involved in a pregnancy; the father, the mother and the pregnant person. The mother and father should (and generally do) have exactly the same rights and responsibilities. The pregnant person has a different and separate set of rights and responsibilities. The fact that in most cases the mother and the pregnant person is the same individual, combining both sets of rights and responsibilities is what complicates matters. That’s why when this isn’t the case (e.g. surrogacy or IVF pre-impregnation), the mother has no more (or less) right than the father regarding any question of termination.
 
lpast said:
On another forum a fella wrote a long rant about pregnancy and birth and abortion and It came off more as a I hate women thing even though he made some good points.

Hers the gist, Women decide whether they will have sex with a man or not, if he decides and she disagrees its rape. The women decides whether to have the child or not, the only thing the man has the right to do is decide what they gender the baby will be.

Some flaws, first he could wear a condom if he doesnt want her pregnant, not fool proof works 99% of the time. If he makes that decision all the others are moot.
Click to expand...

There are other issues though as well, which complicate this.
Adoption being one.

My wife and I were going to adopt this little girl, whom the mother had 3 previous children, all of which were given up to the state.
Why is that allowed, with no obligation of support, but a male cannot do the same?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are other issues though as well, which complicate this.
Adoption being one.

My wife and I were going to adopt this little girl, whom the mother had 3 previous children, all of which were given up to the state.
Why is that allowed, with no obligation of support, but a male cannot do the same?
Click to expand...

if the father is identified on the birth certificate, does he not have a standing about a pending adoption going forward or not
 
justabubba said:
if the father is identified on the birth certificate, does he not have a standing about a pending adoption going forward or not
Click to expand...

Sure he can, if he's on the bc and they been able to make contact.
I understand that the way things are, are meant to protect children, but it's often abused/misused by the primary parent/caregiver, which is usually the mother.

Another example, true story.
My former neighbor had custody of her granddaughter, because both mother and father were locked up for meth.
Bad for the kid already.

Then grandma got hooked on meth and gave granddaughter up to the state.
No fuss, no muss.

They essentially "aborted" their parental rights, which no expectation of support.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure he can, if he's on the bc and they been able to make contact.
I understand that the way things are, are meant to protect children, but it's often abused/misused by the primary parent/caregiver, which is usually the mother.

Another example, true story.
My former neighbor had custody of her granddaughter, because both mother and father were locked up for meth.
Bad for the kid already.

Then grandma got hooked on meth and gave granddaughter up to the state.
No fuss, no muss.

They essentially "aborted" their parental rights, which no expectation of support.
Click to expand...

then a father reflected on the birth certificate does have standing when evaluating a prospective adoption

you seem to be concerned about a 'father' who is so 'interested' in his child that he has not figured out in the course of nine months that he is about to have progeny and thus does not make arrangements to ensure he is on the birth certificate

now why is it we are supposed to feel sorry for him
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are other issues though as well, which complicate this.
Adoption being one.

My wife and I were going to adopt this little girl, whom the mother had 3 previous children, all of which were given up to the state.
Why is that allowed, with no obligation of support, but a male cannot do the same?
Click to expand...

There are alot of things male cant do by law
 
justabubba said:
then a father reflected on the birth certificate does have standing when evaluating a prospective adoption
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.
The original woman, had 3 previous children, all of which were given to the state.
No mention of who the father was with any of them or if she even knew who the father was.

Even with that though, the broader point is that we don't hold both parties equally accountable.
She can terminate her parental rights and not have to pay support.

justabubba said:
you seem to be concerned about a 'father' who is so 'interested' in his child that he has not figured out in the course of nine months that he is about to have progeny and thus does not make arrangements to ensure he is on the birth certificate
Click to expand...

I'm concerned with people who don't want to be parents, but are compelled under duress to do so.
I don't think women should be denied abortions, nor would I expect a man to support a child he never wanted.

justabubba said:
now why is it we are supposed to feel sorry for him
Click to expand...

Sometimes you should.
There are many instances of men being legally deemed fathers of children that, they never had a relationship with, nor are they even related to said children.
It's the fallout from welfare reform.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think you're missing the point.
The original woman, had 3 previous children, all of which were given to the state.
No mention of who the father was with any of them or if she even knew who the father was.

Even with that though, the broader point is that we don't hold both parties equally accountable.
She can terminate her parental rights and not have to pay support.



I'm concerned with people who don't want to be parents, but are compelled under duress to do so.
I don't think women should be denied abortions, nor would I expect a man to support a child he never wanted.



Sometimes you should.
There are many instances of men being legally deemed fathers of children that, they never had a relationship with, nor are they even related to said children.
It's the fallout from welfare reform.
Click to expand...

i agree that it is wrong to compel compulsory financial assistance of a man who is not the father of the child needing such assistance

but that was not the scenario i was addressing. that stud who failed to be around when his child was born and is not shown on the birth certificate then has no basis to complain that he was denied an opportunity to decide about an adoption
 
WCH said:
We've been told...socialism
Click to expand...

What the hell does socialism have to do with "pro-incest?" (I bet I am going to regret even asking.)
 
lpast said:
There are alot of things male cant do by law
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, would you say men can't do more things by law, or women can't do more things by law?

Which sex can do more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom