Swedish Liberals propose “legal abortion” for men.

ancapailldorcha

The youth wing of Sweden’s liberal party (LUF Vast) has proposed that men should be able to legally waive their rights and responsibilities in the event of a pregnancy up to the 18th week, the final point where a woman can have an abortion (Source).

'Men should have an equal right to choose whether or not to become a parent, says Marcus Nilsen, chairman of the Swedish Liberal youth wing West told Aftonbladet. Nilsen also stated that the idea had originated from female members of the party.

Personally, I am glad that the role of men in pregnancy is being discussed. I would be in favour of something like this though there are ethical caveats which must be considered. Firstly, there is the disparity between men and women in this scenario. A woman who aborts a child ends its life or the life the foetus would have had. A man who avails of this “legal equivalent” does not. The child could potentially track down this man who could, despite absolving himself of his former rights and responsibilities enjoy a relationship with the child. There is also the psychological impact of being “aborted” for the child growing up. However, there is another element to consider. Men who have sex without being able to consent for whatever reason now have the ability to opt out.

The Daily Mail, Russia Today and the Washington Post have also covered this story.

One eyed Jack

The "male equivalent" of an abortion is nonsense. If a man does not want the responsibility of becoming a father, they are free to make that choice for themselves already. If a child is born though, then they, and not the State, should bear the responsibility of financially supporting that child.

I don't see how allowing men to abandon this responsibility is in any way beneficial to society as a whole.

eviltwin

Yeah I agree with one eye. It doesn't exactly teach responsibility does it if one can legally remove themselves from the equation. I know a woman can have an abortion but it's a very difficult choice and not the same as there is no option to change ones mind. Children also have a right to know who their father is and have his name on their birth certificate. They need the right to approach their biological parents when they come of age. I'm trying to teach my kids sexual responsibility, I don't want my son to think he can have sex, father children and have the state pick up the tab. As a parent paying tax I struggle to pay for my own kids, I don't want to pay for anyone who can't be bothered to have any role in that child's life.

Dial Hard

I'm almost sure there was a thread on this before.

So only one party bears any consequence to sex resulting in a pregnancy? Totally fair.

That'll teach responsibility to future generations of boys. Doesn't matter how feckless they are, the girls will bear the brunt of all or any consequences.

Just like the old days.

RDM_83 again

Candie wrote: »

So only one party bears any consequence to sex resulting in a pregnancy? Totally fair.

That'll teach responsibility to future generations of boys. Doesn't matter how feckless they are, the girls will bear the brunt of all or any consequences.

Just like the old days.

If they don't want children they should keep their pants on and use contraception.
=Outrage=

Oh wait we're talking about men
=Carry on=

As many states allow abortion do to future life impacts on a woman or her current family not immediate health risks I can't see how its ethical to state that these same conditions aren't equally applicable too men who want to be fathers.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If they don't want children they should keep their pants on and use contraception.
=Outrage=

Oh wait we're talking about men
=Carry on=

That "argument" for what it's worth though, could be equally applied to men, but it's a bit late to apply it to either men or women when a pregnancy only affects women (as far as I'm aware, men are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, or maintaining a pregnancy).

As many states allow abortion do to future life impacts on a woman or her current family not immediate health risks I can't see how its ethical to state that these same conditions aren't equally applicable too men who want to be fathers.

The argument doesn't apply to men simply because they do not become fathers and are not held responsible for a child until a child exists that they are then equally responsible for as the mother. There simply isn't a "male equivalent" of an abortion, largely because we don't have wombs, and when a child is born, both parents are responsible for the welfare of that child.

The fact that there is a child in the equation means that neither party has had an abortion, so what we would be asked to legislate for is child abandonment, not abortion. I don't think there would be any popular support for it in society, especially when people want fathers to have more rights, which can only happen if men are willing to take more responsibility for their children.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If they don't want children they should keep their pants on and use contraception.
=Outrage=

Oh wait we're talking about men
=Carry on=

As many states allow abortion do to future life impacts on a woman or her current family not immediate health risks I can't see how its ethical to state that these same conditions aren't equally applicable too men who want to be fathers.

Two people have sex, two people create a pregnancy, but one gets the option to say 'Sorry luv, you're on yer own' and walk away. Leaving the woman to abort or raise a kid that she supports alone, both of which are extremely difficult things to do.

The present situation is far from ideal but I don't see how less unjust this proposal is. It just changes the main players.

What it might do is encourage a certain kind of feckless young man, of which there are quite a few as it is, to take no responsibility at all for the consequences of sex. Why bother wearing a condom when you can walk away from the pregnancy?

Of course there's also the difference between an aborted embryo or fetus and the child who is raised knowing it's worth nothing to one half of his creators.

I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the downsides of this. Like I said the present situation is not ideal, but this is hardly the road to a fair and equitable Utopia either.

eviltwin

Its also at odds with a society that recognises that people need to know their origins. People are fighting to get more information for adoptees about their birth parents. This would completely contradict that. And how would it work, if a child asks it's family who it's dad is are they allowed to give identifying information? What happens if a relationship develops in the future or he changes his mind or his family want to be involved with the child? Would he be obliged to tell his future partners and children? I can't see how it could ever work.

Imnotthehulk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Men who have sex without being able to consent for whatever reason now have the ability to opt out.

I do think that when two consenting adults have sex, and a baby results the male certainly bares some responsibility.

However if the male is non consenting in some way (whether he has essentially been date raped, is below the age of consent when she is above, or some other way) then yes, there should be a legal way to divulge him of those responsibilities.

One eyed Jack

Imnotthehulk wrote: »

I do think that when two consenting adults have sex, and a baby results the male certainly bares some responsibility.

However if the male is non consenting in some way (whether he has essentially been date raped, is below the age of consent when she is above, or some other way) then yes, there should be a legal way to divulge him of those responsibilities.

A man would not be held legally responsible for any children born under those circumstances anyway so the question doesn't arise in relation to what we're talking about here which would be legislating for voluntary child abandonment - completely different set of circumstances which neither men nor women are currently legally entitled to avail of.

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Imnotthehulk wrote:

However if the male is non consenting in some way (whether he has essentially been date raped, is below the age of consent when she is above, or some other way) then yes, there should be a legal way to divulge him of those responsibilities.[/I]

A man would not be held legally responsible for any children born under those circumstances anyway

I've heard of cases where males have been held responsible e.g. http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

I've heard of cases where males have been held responsible e.g. http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

Heard of them, or you just googled them?

Regardless, I was speaking in the context of the law in this country. I'm well aware of bizarre stories from around the web of some batshìt crazy decisions.

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm well aware of bizarre stories from around the web of some batshìt crazy decisions.

If you are well aware of such stories, I recommend you don't make such definite statements as

One eyed Jack wrote:

A man would not be held legally responsible for any children born under those circumstances anyway

If you are not aware of what courts have ruled on the issue in the past, I would also recommend not making such definite statements

One eyed Jack wrote:

A man would not be held legally responsible for any children born under those circumstances anyway

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

If you are well aware of such stories, I recommend you don't make such definite statements as

If you are not aware of what courts have ruled on the issue in the past, I would also recommend not making such definite statements

With regard to the scenarios put forward by that poster, I can say with absolute certainty then, that they wouldn't happen under current Irish law.

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With regard to the scenarios put forward by that poster, I can say with absolute certainty then, that they wouldn't happen under current Irish law.

Well, given rulings elsewhere, I don't share your certainty.
And given the rulings elsewhere, I think it is an issue worth exploring.

Pawwed Rig

Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it couldn't happen. US is a common law jurisdiction after all.
I never thought I would see a stat rape case where 2 teenagers had consensual sex either but it is happening in Ireland now.

Earthhorse

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm almost sure there was a thread on this before.

There was and in this very forum too. Here's what I said on it at the time:

It's pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that it is something that could impact on her for the rest of her life then a man should similarly be able to remove himself from any sort of involvement in the child's life because it's something that could impact on him for the rest of his life. This means he signs away any right to be involved in the child's life; no visitation rights, no gaurdianship claims - with no responsibilities comes no rights. Upon reaching the age of majority if the child decides they wish to know their father and involve them in their life that is a decision for both parties to come to terms with.

***

I haven't changed my mind. Arguments about "teaching responsibility" are sort of beside the point as that is not the responsibility of the law.

One eyed Jack

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it couldn't happen. US is a common law jurisdiction after all.
I never thought I would see a stat rape case where 2 teenagers had consensual sex either but it is happening in Ireland now.

But the scenario that the poster presented couldn't happen under current Irish law. But sure, in saying that, anything could be possible in the future... except men having abortions, seeing as they can't get pregnant.

(for the love of... don't go googling "pregnant man", the 'man' in that case was a post-op transgender man).

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With regard to the scenarios put forward by that poster, I can say with absolute certainty then, that they wouldn't happen under current Irish law.

Neither does abortion to all intents and purposes happen under Irish law. Under Irish law both parts of this are redundant.

One eyed Jack

tritium wrote: »

Neither does abortion to all intents and purposes happen under Irish law. Under Irish law both parts of this are redundant.

Abortion is permissible under Irish law in certain circumstances, but I take your point. This sort of nonsense though was criticised by their own senior liberal party in Sweden who claimed the youth party were more interested in publicity than politics.

As barmy as some of the stuff I hear coming from other countries is, I don't think we need ever have to worry about a referendum legislating for child abandonment for parents (I wouldn't want a law that suggests either parent be granted the right to abandon their child / children), let alone extending laws regarding abortion and the termination of a pregnancy, to include men.

Pawwed Rig

There are already procedures in place which allow a mother to (essentially) abandon a live child by way of adoption though.
How about where one half of the parent want to put up for adoption and the other doesn't?

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abortion is permissible under Irish law in certain circumstances, but I take your point. This sort of nonsense though was criticised by their own senior liberal party in Sweden who claimed the youth party were more interested in publicity than politics.

As barmy as some of the stuff I hear coming from other countries is, I don't think we need ever have to worry about a referendum legislating for child abandonment for parents (I wouldn't want a law that suggests either parent be granted the right to abandon their child / children), let alone extending laws regarding abortion and the termination of a pregnancy, to include men.

While I think you're probably right I can see where a lot if this stuff is coming from. On the one hand were told lack of abortion amounts to treating women as little more than breeding machines. On the other hand the role of men as fathers in a first world context is often one that has limited rights, and a huge amount of generalised critical assumptions. The comment by one poster earlier about lots of feckless fathers was a good example - there may well be but the same logic applies to feckless mothers and potential mother's. Yet only one of these statements is generally acceptable in polite society. David Cameron made a similar statement on father's day a few years ago and was roundly applauded byvthe gob****e brigade until father's started telling him to cop the hell on.

In essence, if women not having abortion rights reduces them to cattle, what are men reduced to by the current position of fathers rights in the first world?

One eyed Jack

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There are already procedures in place which allow a mother to (essentially) abandon a live child by way of adoption though.

Even between adoption and abandonment there are numerous differences. The sole purpose of the proposal seems to be to alleviate men of any responsibility towards any children they... sire (I'm sure there's a less medieval term, but I can't think of it now), as long as they commit themselves legally to having nothing whatsoever to do with the child's upbringing.

That still doesn't stop a child being born, so calling it a "legal abortion for men" is at best quite possibly the most misguided use of the english language I've heard in a while (even among Swedes who have a word for androgyny, "hen", it's raised eyebrows, with one of their own liberal party calling them idiots!).

Adoption isn't the same thing at all. Adoptions nowadays require that every effort is made to have the father's consent (IN IRELAND, fingers off google there ibpta!), and they normally take place within families. Essentially very different things.

eviltwin

I hope this idea never gets traction here. It would harm fathers. The laws here are terrible regarding fathers rights. It won't help that cause to have fathers looking to have no responsibility for their children enshrined in law.

Pawwed Rig

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Adoption isn't the same thing at all. Adoptions nowadays require that every effort is made to have the father's consent (IN IRELAND, fingers off google there ibpta!), and they normally take place within families. Essentially very different things.

It is essentially the same thing we are talking about though. Where a woman gets pregnant she can choose to have the baby or not. When the baby is born she can choose whether to keep the baby or not. Where she chooses the 'not' in either of these options she has absolved herself of any responsibility for the childs upbringing both emotionally and financially.
The father has none of these options. Whether he wants to or not he is deemed to be financially responsible for any children the mother chooses to keep with zero say in how the child should be raised. Furthermore he is admonished as a low life if he chooses not to have involvement in the childs life.
Hardly a level playing field.

Agreed that the use of the word abortion is not really appropriate here.

ancapailldorcha

I object to the idea that vast swathes of men would just sign this without a second thought as well. There are posts here saying that this wouldn't warrant a second thought from any man considering this. Obviously, this doesn't carry the same weight as an actual abortion but it's not something most men would sign without a second thought.

tritium

eviltwin wrote: »

I hope this idea never gets traction here. It would harm fathers. The laws here are terrible regarding fathers rights. It won't help that cause to have fathers looking to have no responsibility for their children enshrined in law.

I'm not sure how much more it would harm some aspects of father's rights than the damage already being done from the men and fathers are disposable attitude pervading parts of society tbh.

Generally I see movements like this similarly to how some of the extreme fringes of more established groups work over the years- yes they're unlikely to get what they want, but they'll create enough headlines to make sure they wider questions of rights of father's won't just get conviently sidelined. If that means a move away from the "men should keep their pants zipped" view of single fathers then it's to be welcomed

Dirty Dingus McGee

Seems like a fair and equitable situation.If a woman can absolve herself of responsibility for a child by having and abortion/adoption why should the father not be entitled to do the same.

Sure any man that would want to abandon their child would probably be a fairly lousy individual but the option should still be available.

ceecee14

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:

Sure any man that would want to abandon their child would probably be a fairly lousy individual but the option should still be available.

Lousy individual if the father abandons, but if the mother does it (abortion/adoption) we should feel sorry for her..

RDM_83 again

Candie wrote: »

Two people have sex, two people create a pregnancy, but one gets the option to say 'Sorry luv, you're on yer own' and walk away. Leaving the woman to abort or raise a kid that she supports alone, both of which are extremely difficult things to do.

She could also opt for giving birth and putting the child up for adoption, in a situation like this there is never any winners. Also the idea that abortion has to be an extremely difficult thing to do is an assumption, now its an assumption I agree with but if you posted that view on a forum with a more progressive or feminist slant it would be lambasted, earlier today I happened upon a thread on reddit where the consensus was that a mandatory three day waiting period/cooling off period before an abortion in the USA was basically the worst thing in the world ever (we have a 28 cooling off period for contracts for example), we receive grossly different messages about this subject from participants that all claim the progressive mantle

Candie wrote: »

The present situation is far from ideal but I don't see how less unjust this proposal is. It just changes the main players.

It doesn't change the main players, how are the rights of the woman or her child damaged, if you are able to justify abortion on the grounds of possible future impact there just isn't a way you can argue that allowing "paper abortion" for men is unethical. Either the fact that acting as a parent in the future may be detrimental to you is a justifiable reason to terminate a pregnancy or give a child up for adoption or its not. If it is why restrict concerns about those impacts to only one partner

Candie wrote: »

Of course there's also the difference between an aborted embryo or fetus and the child who is raised knowing it's worth nothing to one half of his creators.

I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the downsides of this. Like I said the present situation is not ideal, but this is hardly the road to a fair and equitable Utopia either.

All these things can be said about adoption too.

RDM_83 again

Actually I find topics like this and the responses to them are interesting because they essentially put paid to the idea of a functional "patriarchy" that acts in the interest of male rights (but not Kyriarchy) or the idea that rights are absolute and not bound by societal needs.

Support for proposals like this would be how feminism would actually demonstrate that its a movement focused on gender equality rather than a "trade union for women", as they would be advocating for an increase in "gender equality" even though its likely to be a negative impact to many women.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

I hope this idea never gets traction here. It would harm fathers. The laws here are terrible regarding fathers rights. It won't help that cause to have fathers looking to have no responsibility for their children enshrined in law.

Another way of looking at it would be that the fathers who don't avail of it have shown more commitment to take on the responsibility of being a father and consequently should be more entitled to rights as well.

Having rights to adoption or abortion doesn't take away from the rights of women who keep their children.

boundlessSea

The argument that a man should have the right to a 'legal abortion' because a women can have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption is very adult centered, individualistic and against long held social and legal norms, a women might feel she morally can't do either, in any case a child has a natural right to both parents support, it is against natural justice for a father to deny his child's right to his support, and to shift his responsibilities to the mother and the state. It is not "fair" that a man does not have as much reproductive control as women, but a child's rights supercede this, hopefully there will be a reliable male pill in the near future which will ensure that no man will have to have children he does not want. I empathize with a man becoming a father when he does not want to be, a child should be wanted by both parents, but he still has responsibilities towards the child, it would be horrible for a child to know his father "legally aborted him".

Lemming

boundlessSea wrote: »

it would be horrible for a child to know his father "legally aborted him".

I'm on the fence regards the whole notion, but the above is no different to a child knowing that their mother "legally aborted" put them up for adoption. There is no difference when you get down to it other than it's a sh1tty scenario either way for the child to learn about; i.e. their natural parent(s) didn't want them.

eviltwin

Lemming wrote: »

I'm on the fence regards the whole notion, but the above is no different to a child knowing that their mother "legally aborted" put them up for adoption. There is no difference when you get down to it other than it's a sh1tty scenario either way for the child to learn about; i.e. their natural parent(s) didn't want them.

Adoption is usually done in the best interests of the child. A father who does this will probably be thinking only of himself.

Lemming

eviltwin wrote: »

Adoption is usually done in the best interests of the child. A father who does this will probably be thinking only of himself.

That's quite the assumption on the motives of the natural parents.

How many adoptions - most certainly in earlier times - were down to religious dogma or abortion simply being not available as a medical procedure be it practically, legally, or financially? Hell, having just written that list of exclusions I wonder how many are carried out today because of the above?

Pat Mustard

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is essentially the same thing we are talking about though. Where a woman gets pregnant she can choose to have the baby or not. When the baby is born she can choose whether to keep the baby or not. Where she chooses the 'not' in either of these options she has absolved herself of any responsibility for the childs upbringing both emotionally and financially.
The father has none of these options. Whether he wants to or not he is deemed to be financially responsible for any children the mother chooses to keep with zero say in how the child should be raised. Furthermore he is admonished as a low life if he chooses not to have involvement in the childs life.
Hardly a level playing field.

It's not possible to have a level playing field in every respect.

In my view, it's a woman's right to have an abortion. I dislike the idea of abortion very much but I cannot get away from the woman's right to choose. I cannot see any other right getting in the way of that. It is a woman's right to control her her own body, a right which comes from the right to bodily integrity.

But from where does the right of a man to walk away from his child come?

Of course the case may be made that a man should pay for his child. But to say that he has the right to walk away from his child without supporting him or her? Why should he have that right? Why should he not have to support his own child?

I just can't see it at all. In my view, a man should support his child.

The right of a woman to abort a child cannot be equated with the right of a father to walk away from his financial responsibilities. The two rights are not the same. A woman has the right to bodily integrity but a man should have to support his own child, whether or not the woman has the right to an abortion.

I think that the major point has been missed because we are trying to equate the rights of men with the rights of women, while ignoring the rights of the child.

lazybones32

To add a few cents: The Party that proposed this have a history of make outrageous recommendations, so I doubt that this is anything of real consequence. This crowd also wanted to remove standing-urinals for male children - they want them to learn to pee as females do and one reason they gave was that it'd cause less spillages.
The Swedish system is quite different to ours. Here, it is nearly better for a woman to not name the father of the child, so she will be entitled to more help for the child and herself. Over there, the authorities really pressure the woman to give a name, so that he can pay something towards the maintenance of the child - the basic rate is about 200 euro per month, which isn't a lot in their scale. If he doesn't pay, a date in Court is likely. If the woman really doesn't want the Father's name on their version of a birth cert, she has to lie.

Pawwed Rig

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The right of a woman to abort a child cannot be equated with the right of a father to walk away from his financial responsibilities. The two rights are not the same. A woman has the right to bodily integrity but a man should have to support his own child, whether or not the woman has the right to an abortion.

I think that the major point has been missed because we are trying to equate the rights of men with the rights of women, while ignoring the rights of the child.

Ignoring the abortion aspect (as it is not really an abortion anyway), a woman can walk away from all responsibility if she decides to place the child for adoption. Why does the father not have an equal right?

Pat Mustard

I agree that unmarried fathers do not have proper guardianship rights in this country.

An unmarried father is not automatically the guardian of his own child in this country and the mother can simply place the child for adoption without reference to him, if he is not such a guardian. This is unfair.

At the law stands in Ireland, an unmarried father has a right to apply to court for guardianship but he has no automatic right to guardianship, as such.

However, an unmarried father who has been made guardian of his child must be consulted before his child can be placed for adoption.

I agree with you that it is unfair that an unmarried mother can place her child for adoption but that an unmarried father has no automatic right along the same lines. However, rather than introducing a right to place a child for adoption, I think that it would make more sense to introduce fair guardianship laws, with further rights for unmarried fathers.

Pawwed Rig

Yes but even where he has guardian rights and wants to place the child for adoption he cannot unless the mother agrees to it do in which case he has to financially provide and be derided for not wanting to be part of the childs life.
That is ignoring the fact that someone who is not interested in a child is unlikely to see guardianship but still he has to pay.

Pat Mustard

If guardianship rights were fair, the mother would not be able to place the child for adoption without the consent of the father.

You are correct that someone who is not interested in a child is unlikely to be granted guardianship and still has to pay but I don't see what's wrong with that if guardianship rights are corrected so the mother and the father are in the same position, essentially.

screamer

What a feckless society is being created these days. Do people really have responsibility for anything any longer? Stuff like this will just lead to generations of fecked up people.

discus

eviltwin wrote: »

Adoption is usually done in the best interests of the child. A father who does this will probably be thinking only of himself.

So, when a woman has an abortion, she's not thinking about herself? Classic.

eviltwin

discus wrote: »

So, when a woman has an abortion, she's not thinking about herself? Classic.

We are not talking about abortion. We are talking about a situation concerning a living child. To even try and connect the two is laughable.

Lisacatlover

eviltwin wrote: »

Adoption is usually done in the best interests of the child. A father who does this will probably be thinking only of himself.

You should offer your services to a pro-life group. You already know all their arguments. Less training involved.

Disgruntled Badger

Let's all take a breath now:

What the Swedes are getting at is rather interesting.

This might otherwise be called ' the right to choose' rather than 'a woman's right to choose'.

A woman, in choosing to have the baby or not in an unplanned pregnancy has unilateral control right now in Sweden. Yet the consequences in having the baby affects both their lives. Her rights supercede his, so there is inequality.

She can decide to become a mother and in doing so make him a father, even against his will. (all be it he was a willing partner in the run up)

If equal rights is your goal, the right to choose should be the same for both within the window of opportunity an abortion affords them.

To achieve true gender equality women, just as men, have to be prepared to give up any and all privilege or entitlement they enjoy on the basis of their sex.

Pat Mustard

Lisacatlover wrote: »

You should offer your services to a pro-life group. You already know all their arguments. Less training involved.

Mod:

Attack the post, not the poster.

newport2

One of these scenarios where things are not fair and there's nothing you can do about it. Circumstances are different for a potential mother and a potential father. Can't make them the same. Might seem fair to offer father the "right to choose" (and only being proposed because the mother has this right, not because it's the right thing to do), but if he chooses to opt out it's the child who pays the price, which isn't fair either.

Lemming

newport2 wrote: »

Might seem fair to offer father the "right to choose" (and only being proposed because the mother has this right, not because it's the right thing to do), but if he chooses to opt out it's the child who pays the price, which isn't fair either.

Which is different in what way to the mother opting out via adoption?