Swedish Liberals propose “legal abortion” for men.

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?

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

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

I think giving a child up after 9 months pregnancy to two loving parents who want him/her is different from signing a piece a paper that instantly resolves you of any responsibility to a child you had a hand in creating. It's not fair, but I don't think the two are the same.

Pawwed Rig

Why though?

Can a Father not want to give up a child to two loving parents who want him/her? Or is that the sole remit of the Mother? Both would be signing a piece a paper instantly absolving them of any responsibility to a child they had a hand in creating.

The only difference is a sexist attitude that some have forwarded here that the Mother does it for the good of the child whereas the Father would be doing it for selfish reasons.

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

:rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

Seems odd to me that men who would consider this are automatically branded feckless and selfish while women aren't, speaking specifically of the posts in this thread, not the world outside of course! I am aware that abortion is a medical procedure and that it's usually not entered into lightly but it's also one of the safest around. Another thing I've noticed is that men in this situation are often told that they should have kept it in their pants, another thing women don't usually get told but then, they have a way out.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why though?

Can a Father not want to give up a child to two loving parents who want him/her? Or is that the sole remit of the Mother? Both would be signing a piece a paper instantly absolving them of any responsibility to a child they had a hand in creating.

The only difference is a sexist attitude that some have forwarded here that the Mother does it for the good of the child whereas the Father would be doing it for selfish reasons.

:rolleyes:

I think it's safe to say if you go through 9 months pregnancy and labour prior to giving up the child then you're not acting for selfish reasons. So both signing a piece of paper under entirely different circumstances. Getting an abortion might be a closer comparison, but still not the same.

Lemming

newport2 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say if you go through 9 months pregnancy and labour prior to giving up the child then you're not acting for selfish reasons. So both signing a piece of paper under entirely different circumstances. Getting an abortion might be a closer comparison, but still not the same.

Unless of course religion has told you that abortion is a sin, or you believe abortion to be murder for whatever moral viewpoint, so you're carrying to term for your own conscience. Very selfless indeed.

I'm not going to stand in judgement of anyone who chooses the above - or any other course of action - because it's not my place to do so. But I wont assume it's some noble act of sacrifice either on behalf of all women ever who surrender for adoption ever.

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

Unless of course religion has told you that abortion is a sin, or you believe abortion to be murder for whatever moral viewpoint, so you're carrying to term for your own conscience. Very selfless indeed.

So one possible scenario of many. Doing something you don't want because your conscience tells you it's the right thing to do is not selfish anyway IMO.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I don't believe father's should be able to sign away all responsibilities of supporting their children, so let's agree to disagree.

Lu Tze

newport2 wrote: »

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I don't believe father's should be able to sign away all responsibilities of supporting their children, so let's agree to disagree.

But mother should be able to.

ancapailldorcha

While I acknowledge that parity between parental rights regarding pregnancy and abortion is a fantasy it would be nice to see men have some control over the process. This is just one idea and it's unlikely ever to be policy for better or worse. I'm not saying that fathers should have autonomy over women's bodies or anything but they should have some degree over control. Aside from this idea, I've no idea what that could be.

newport2

Lu Tze wrote: »

But mother should be able to.

How? If you mean adaption, then I don't think going through 9 months pregnancy, labour and then a process where the child ends up with a family that want him/her is the same as absolving yourself of all financial responsibility to your own child before they're born.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

While I acknowledge that parity between parental rights regarding pregnancy and abortion is a fantasy it would be nice to see men have some control over the process. This is just one idea and it's unlikely ever to be policy for better or worse. I'm not saying that fathers should have autonomy over women's bodies or anything but they should have some degree over control. Aside from this idea, I've no idea what that could be.

I would agree with this. If there was some way of doing it, I'd be all for men having a say in whether they become a father, or whether the child would be adapted or not. Should the father be given first preference if the mother wants the child put up for adaption for instance?