Swedish group wants to give MEN abortion rights too

[ShootSpeeders]

Hell yes. It's not fair that women presently get to decide by themselves if the fetus lives or dies. If they choose birth the man has to pay.!! That needs to change.

Swedish group wants 'legal abortions' for men

march 4 2016 Men who don’t want to become fathers should be permitted to have a “legal abortion” up to the 18th week of a woman’s pregnancy, say the young liberals.

The cut-off date coincides with the last week in which a woman can terminate a pregnancy in Sweden.

“This means a man would renounce the duties and rights of parenthood,” LUF Väst chairman Marcus Nilsen told The Local.

By signing up for a “legal abortion” then, a man would not have to pay maintenance for his child, but neither would he have any right to meet the child.

 

[EverCurious]

The time should be offset to prevent future abuse, other than that I have no issue with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Skylar]

Hell yes. It's not fair that women presently get to decide by themselves if the fetus lives or dies. If they choose birth the man has to pay.!! That needs to change.

Swedish group wants 'legal abortions' for men

march 4 2016 Men who don’t want to become fathers should be permitted to have a “legal abortion” up to the 18th week of a woman’s pregnancy, say the young liberals.

The cut-off date coincides with the last week in which a woman can terminate a pregnancy in Sweden.

“This means a man would renounce the duties and rights of parenthood,” LUF Väst chairman Marcus Nilsen told The Local.

By signing up for a “legal abortion” then, a man would not have to pay maintenance for his child, but neither would he have any right to meet the child.

Its not fair that men don't have to share the burden of carrying the child for 9 months.

And?

If the child is born *both* have to pay. If no child is born, neither do. There's no scenario where the man doesn't share the same obligations as the woman.

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, no. That's fucking stupid. And it not happening. Not in the reddest of red states. Not in the bluest of blue. And not in Sweden.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

 

[Skylar]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.
why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not. If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.
This way both are responsible equally for the pregnancy, both are equally responsible for the birth or abortion and depending on the wishes of each involved, they are equally responsible for choosing to support the child or not.

 

[Skylar]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

 

[EverCurious]

IDK man, women use pregnancy to try to trap men into relationships all the time. I wish it weren't true, but I've seen it happen way too many times - its especially common, unfortunately, at the worst possible time, when kids are just starting out in life - because neither of them are emotionally mature enough to handle the situation. Girls up to like age 26 or so don't think about the kid when they do this shit, it's all about their selfish desire to keep a man who doesn't want to be with them, and the kids certainly don't benefit from that immature mother's guidance...

Worse is what happens when the men "do the right thing" - then (and I do really hope it's not the norm but I have to wonder) you end up with relationships like my husband and his parents - his folks blame /him/ for "ruining" their life. My father-in-law has cancer and is going to die any day now, they still won't speak to each other. It's hard on the entire family too because my husband has zero intention of making it to the funeral, and his mother and father don't want him to come... It's not just my husband and them either, husband has three kids - they don't even know their grandparents, the daughter is 32 now, she lives 4 miles away and they've never even met her. All of my husband's kids are basically missing half their family anyway. It's really sad.

The reason I wonder is because when my ex and I got divorced, his father, who was always the most loving guy and treated me as family, fell off the wagon over everything. My ex /chose/ to pay child support and never had any intention of not caring for his kids, it's part of why we had two together even though we'd basically broke up after the first kido - but like I never needed child support because I've been wealthy since before my ex and I got married, but w/e my ex wanted to financially support the kidos because he felt "it was the right thing to do" and all. Not his Dad though, his dad turned into total dick and felt that since we were getting a divorce it was a) my fault and b) my ex could just wash his hands of anything to do with his kids if he wanted to. My ex actually bitched him out for it. idk what it is with that crap, since once my ex bitched them out they straightened right the fuck out and were good grandparents, but it still bothers me every once in a while; ya know, what if my ex wasn't a good man?

We like to think that blood and family somehow ties folks, but it really doesn't. What ties folks is the relationship they have, so if a woman is going to have a kid that a man doesn't want it doesn't seem to matter to the kids emotional health if the man has a relationship with them or not. There are many situations where a bad parent/child relationship can easily be worse than none at all...

 

[aris2chat]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

And if the rapist is the father? He has right to the child, and his victim.

Men are both irresponsible and responsible.

There are times when he shouldn't know, either way.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

As soon as you're able to carry a child for 9 months, you too, will be able to make that decision for yourself.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

As soon as you're able to carry a child for 9 months, you too, will be able to make that decision for yourself.

as soon as women learn to keep their drunk legs closed, that decision wont have to be made.
and if she wasnt drunk then she needs to learn about ways to avoid pregnancy too.

 

[EverCurious]

Pre-birth custody battles.... An interesting thought.

I've always felt that guys should have at least some say in abortion decisions; I'm not entirely sure how much or little, but some for sure.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Pre-birth custody battles.... An interesting thought.

I've always felt that guys should have at least some say in abortion decisions; I'm not entirely sure how much or little, but some for sure.

they should certainly have a say in paying for 18 years or not, if they object in time for an abortion to be performed. This is not taking any control away from the woman or can it be considered having someone else dictate what she can do with her own body.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

As soon as you're able to carry a child for 9 months, you too, will be able to make that decision for yourself.

as soon as women learn to keep their drunk legs closed, that decision wont have to be made.
and if she wasnt drunk then she needs to learn about ways to avoid pregnancy too.

You're too ignorant and juvenile to have this conversation.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

As soon as you're able to carry a child for 9 months, you too, will be able to make that decision for yourself.

as soon as women learn to keep their drunk legs closed, that decision wont have to be made.
and if she wasnt drunk then she needs to learn about ways to avoid pregnancy too.

You're too ignorant and juvenile to have this conversation.

why because I think women should share the blame as well as the responsibility?

 

[EverCurious]

There is something to MP's rather blunt and rude wording. Despite the feminist movement there is still this idk stereotype that women are frail and innocent and need protecting and support.

If a woman gets pregnant and decides to have the kido despite the father not wanting a kid, then she should be prepared to support said child on her own - even with the laws as they are now, it's not like the guy can't disappear and avoid child support fairly easily. It happens all the time...

 

[aris2chat]

You're insisting that a woman should be responsible for any child she bears. But a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Don't use the word "never". The father is responsible too if he doesn't disavow the kid within 18 weeks. THINK

Its never going to happen, Speed. As a parent's obligation is to their child. Not each other. THINK.

Your favored proposal penalizes the child, robbing it of half of its support. All so you can create unequal obligations and relieve a father of having to take responsibility for any child he fathers.

That's layers of stupidly wrong. And its never going to happen. Not in this country. And not in Sweden. Its just a fantasy that you long for to punish women for having control over their own bodies. And you're more than happy, even eager, to punish children to do it.

Get used to disappointment. As there's nothing you can do about.

Ive saying that this needs to be done for years.

And for years you've been laughably wrong.Its not going to happen because its a stupid idea. It creates unequal obligations, punishes women for having children and obsolves a father of all responsibility for any child he fathers. All while punishing his children.

Um, no.

why does the woman have all say in the male paying for 18 years or not.

Because the man refuses to be fair and carry the child for half of the pregnancy. How unreasonable is that?

If the male does not want to pay, and wants the woman to abort and she refuses, its only fair that he should not have to pay.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. If the child is born, they both pay. If the child isn't born, neither do. Their obligations are always equal. That's completely fair.

You're insisting that their obligations be unequal......so a father can punish his child by robbing it of half of its support. Um, no. There's nothing 'fair' about that. Not in terms of their obligation. Not in terms of the child being supported. And its never going to happen. A father is responsible to support every child he fathers.

Get used to the idea. There's nothing you can do about it either.

and if that father is against abortion and he decides he wants the child, the woman should then have to have the child, give it to the father to raise and be responsible for support for 18 years.
You have a skewed idea of what equal is.

It would still require her body, which she controls.
There are men who make great dads, but there are some that truly should be sterilized.

Without a court order, they can't have her fluids checked.
She could travel and he would never know.

Man doesn't use protection he could be in the poor house with all those potential lives..............

Sorry they can't freeze it, if it was not artificially created in a perti dish, to implant in someone else at the right time for them to create "life".

Women can manipulate their decision when to have a child and yet when she decides she is not ready or BC failed it becomes a "sin".

OK, who failed to send a check to care for all those 16 million kids without homes?

 

[EverCurious]

The child support enforcement division is one of the most sexist hateful places I've ever been in. My ex /chose/ to pay child support and they /still/ tried to run him through the ringer to get more money out of him - I had to go in there personally and tell them to knock it the fuck off cause I didn't even want his money in the first place - he insisted, and when I didn't cash the checks he gave me he put it into CSED so it'd go straight into my damn account (the asshole.) They are absolutely horrible to men, by far the worst gov. body I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with.