Posted on 03/05/2016 2:57:56 PM PST by nickcarraway
Men should have the same right as women to decide not be parents, according to a controversial new proposal from the Liberal Party’s youth wing in western Sweden (LUF Väst).
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.
The group believes “legal abortion” for men would promote equality between the sexes in the early stages of a pregnancy, giving men a chance to opt out. Women would also benefit if they knew from the get-go whether a man was willing to commit to parenthood, the young liberals say.
Asked how a mother would explain to a child later in life what had happened to its father, Nilsen said:
“This situation already exists, with single women who choose to inseminate or simply don’t know who the father is.”
He added: “We wouldn’t want to make this something that was subject to secrecy. A mother could say: ‘I consider this man to be your father, but legally he is not’.”
Some social media users have welcomed the plan but many have ridiculed it and Nilsen said the group had received a flurry of threats.
“One man wrote on Facebook that all our members should be put against a wall and shot.”
Johanna Frändén, a popular sports writer, was a lot more welcoming.
“I think I’m of the view that this is actually quite sensible,” she wrote on Twitter.
Ivar Arpi, an influential leader writer with the Svenska Dagbladet daily, disagreed.
“No, men shouldn’t be able to have legal abortions. Men should take responsibility for their children. Period.”
Ivar Arpi, an influential leader writer with the Svenska Dagbladet daily, disagreed.
“No, men shouldn’t be able to have legal abortions. Men should take responsibility for their children. Period.”
Much of the criticism accused the young Liberals of misogyny, something Nilsen was quick to reject.
“This motion was actually put forward at our annual meeting by a group of girls,” he said.
Nilsen added that the group was unlikely to take the plan any further.
“It’s something we thought was worthy of debate but the reactions have been overwhelmingly conservative, with a lot of people viewing it as an attack on the nuclear family. We have other issues we're prioritizing such as housing and employment.”
The idea comes on the heels of two proposals last month that got tongues wagging: The young Liberals’ Stockholm branch said it wanted to legalize sibling incest for over-15s and to permit “consensual” necrophilia in cases where the deceased had written post-life sex requests into a will.
A senior member of the mother party, Carl B. Hamilton, called the youngsters idiots and wondered if “sex with hippos” would be next on the agenda.
Don’t think of it as a medical procedure. Think of it as a repossession.
Damn, I want your playlist. That is a damned good song. Wasn’t even aware of the group. Thanks. I am adding them to my Pandora mix.
Sensible. And if he exercises his choice, nobody gets ripped apart. Baby anchors and professional baby mamas are shut down.
The reason is that believing it means telling yourself “No” sometimes.
:-) While I am working on building it, here is one that just makes me smile. I don’t know why, but it does ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo6aw7Cf9UE
I like this idea, but not for the reason you might think.
The man would not be required to pay child support, but not prevented from VOLUNTARILY helping to support the child. Likewise, he would not have any rights toward the child, but the mom could voluntarily have him in the kid's life.
The net result is that the mother would have to motivate the father to stick around, by being nice to him.
Exactly. Peek before Poke. Even a hail Mary shot counts if it scores. Like Basketball, you dribble before you shoot so don’t play the game if you don’t plan to win.
“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.”
No way this would work here. In the US a father is looked
at being nothing more than an income stream. Now I could see
a certain buyout scheme where the father puts up a certain
amount of money where the state puts it in escrow and doles
it out as it seems fit. I wouldn’t doubt that some liberal
will come up with a mandatory “active male liability insurance” program. Where if you knock some broad up or
some broad says you knocked her up then your covered.
I won’t be happy until we can apply retroactive abortion to those who need it.
Wow! Sanity from an unexpected place!
DUDE!!! You are my brother by another mother. I just cranked that and sat back listening to that through polk monitor 7B’s stacked on 10A’s and it was sweet. Going to go listen to it on my NHT’s next, but I don’t think their bottoms will do the growl justice. Made me happy. God I love the rougher sounding acoustic stuff. Man music. A little ugly and hairy. Send me a list if you ever get your play list done. It is whiskey music by a camp fire while cleaning your gun. Sublime.
I think this article wins some kind of award for that final sentence
This means opting out of child support (and parental rights) not that they can force the woman to have an abortion.
Sounds fair to me.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Equal rights means equal rights, yes?
You might enjoy this essay on Kipling and The Gods of the Copybook Headings. I was surprised it’s by a dentist, but it’s quite good.
http://doctorspiller.com/Rudyard_Kipling.htm
Thanks ... I don’t believe I’ve seen that one before.
Good step in the rent direction. It is even easier than this though. The women and women alone is responsible for any out-of-wedlock children. If she is incapable of unwilling to raise the children and no family member will step in then the children go to orphanages.
Unfair? Yes. But a women can chose whether or not she becomes pregnant. The idea that the man must pay has become anyone but the mother must pay and that means Uncle Sugar (me aund you) should pay when Daddy cannot which is most of the time.
Yeah, right.....a man should be able to demand that a woman have major surgery so that he wouldn’t become a daddy....which he could have prevented in the first place. That will never happen, but there could be an asinine law passed that he would be stripped of all responsibility and rights to the child.
Walgreens is across the street, putting a piece of paper between your knees and holding it tight is always available, the word no is effective in most cases and if you NEED a free condom from planned parenthood VS buying one for a buck or so at the drugstore, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX...watch T.V., if you have one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
