The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal Party has proposed that men should have the right to “legal abortion.” The idea is that the father could give up his parental rights and responsibilities of the child, up to the 18th week of the pregnancy. That’s the same time that women in Sweden have to decide if they want an abortion.
But feminists are not happy. They want men to take responsibility for their own children. They still think it’s fine for women to have abortions, though.
The Young Turks like it
Marcus Nilsen.
“The motion came from a group of girls and LUF Väst (the youth wing) endorses the proposal. It is important to discuss the man’s role in pregnancies,” says chairman Marcus Nilsen, who thinks that some men don’t dare to say that they don’t want to be involved when their partner becomes pregnant.
A man who went through a “legal abortion” wouldn’t have the right to see his child in the future, neither would he be able to reverse the decision. But he would also be relieved of any financial responsibility to support the kid. This controversial proposal is not backed by the Liberals’ mother party.
News of the male abortion proponents has spread worldwide, and even The Young Turks made a video about it. Both Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian agrees that it’s a good idea to let the man have a choice. Cenk, a firm supporter of abortion, says “People have to own up to their decisions, right? Yes, they have to own up to the original act that led to the kid in the first place. But then you do have a decision to make at 18 weeks or whichever, you know, time period you want to put it at.”
Resistance from feminists
“Oh hell no.”
But others aren’t so happy about this. One woman at an Australian news site finds it “utterly ridiculous” to compare a woman’s physical abortion to a man signing a legal document. If men could get pregnant, that would be one thing. “But sadly, at present only women can carry a baby.”
A female abortion (aka a ‘real, actual abortion’) isn’t a legal decision. A pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant can’t just make her pregnancy disappear by signing a form. She must find a doctor, have tests, and undertake a medical procedure.
A woman from a different Swedish liberal party says legal abortion for men is not acceptable. According to her, it would break the rules of the UNs convention on children’s rights—that a child has the right to know who his or her parents are and to see them regularly. She also thinks men have an obligation to take care of their children.
All men (or those with male genitals) who have intercourse with a woman (or someone with a womb) are fully aware of the of the possibility of pregnancy.
No contraceptive is 100 percent safe, and if you do not want to become a parent, you have a choice not to have intercourse leading to ejaculation in the vagina.
A feminist at the leftist site Politism of course doesn’t like this idea either. A woman getting an abortion and a man renouncing the responsibility of his child are two TOTALLY different things, according to her.
But what the right to have an abortion is really about is the right to decide over your own body—to decide whether it will carry out a pregnancy or carry out an abortion. That right obviously belongs to that person—and only that person—whose body it concerns. Men who become pregnant have the exact same right.
I love it because feminists hate it
There’s a part of me that really wants men to have the right to a kind of legal abortion. It would give men the same right as women have to not become a parent at a time when it’s not convenient. I’m certain that some men out there are very unhappy about having to take care of kids they never wished for.
Another reason why I like this proposal is that feminists hate it so much. They can’t stand it when men talk about men’s issues and demand to have the same opportunities as women. Their hypocrisy is blatant when they tell men to bite the bullet and “take responsibility,” while also fervently insisting that women should be able to opt out of their pregnancy at any time. It’s an example of how men are treated as adults, expected to make sacrifices. Women, on the other hand, are treated as victimized children with no agency of their own.
Having said that, I still don’t think men should have the option of legal abortion. It would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise, as I’m against physical abortion as well. I believe that the little creature in the womb is a life and that it deserves protection and care from both of its parents. If you don’t want that kind of responsibility on your shoulders, be sure to use proper protection.
I ultimately find myself on the same side as that Australian woman mentioned earlier, although I disagree with many things she says. She thinks a woman can’t just sign a form and then have her pregnancy terminated. But that’s exactly what it’s like in Sweden. We have abortion on demand and doctors aren’t allowed to question why a woman wants that procedure done. A woman can kill her unborn child, no questions asked, and about 35,000 kids die that way every year. The father has no say in it.
What matters is that every single child born into the world has the right to financial, social and emotional support. And if the parents are financially, socially and emotionally capable of providing that support—no matter what the circumstances of the child’s birth—they should be required to do so.
The Australian woman is right about that. Parents have an obligation to care for their children. That goes for both fathers and mothers.
Read More: Why Abortion Shouldn’t Be Taken Lightly
Eh, this is no good and serves no purpose long term. Absolving women from what little responsibilities they did have with hormonal birth control and abortions was not a good thing. Absolving men from this particular responsibility won’t be either.
Of course, getting rid of legal abortion and birth control would be extremely difficult, to say the least. So what can we really do
Are you blind? It means women won’t have Carte Blanche to a mans wallet through pregnancy.
That’s far from the only thing it would mean.
It would solve nothing. Women would behave no differently. Men would just behave more recklessly.
” So what can we really do”
Level the playing field by granting men the right to legal abortion. That’s the only thing that’s left to do given the discovery of female abortion 100+ years ago. Men should have as much “right” to an abortion as women do, simple as that.
This would also serve to stop the breeding in the lower classes somewhat. “Ooops” babies would become a thing of the past.
However, all that said, I’m much more in favor of legalizing male birth control (testosterone) rather than abortion (legal or otherwise). Giving men the power of hormonal birth control would be a much more disruptive option for the power dynamic between men and women and, of course, remove all trauma for possible children involved.
Male birth control is the endgame for feminism. “Reverse oops” will become the new law of the land. Birth rates will fucking plummet. And the government will have to do something (restore male rights, perhaps?) to correct the slide. It’s the way to destroy the feminists, which is why I parrot/harp on it so much.
Unfortunately societies which are polluted to the core by modern feminism and which are already experiencing these problems will not apply the remedies you suggest. They’ll just double down on bad social policy.
Japan is a prime example of this.
It wouldn’t level the playing field. The playing field can’t be leveled. Women will always be more biologically valuable than men. There is no changing that fact, no matter what we do. It will always color our interactions.
Women shouldn’t have a right to abortion at all. Giving it to them and removing their responsibility was foolish and destructive (as was giving them the right to vote and making hormonal contraceptives readily available to all of them). Doing the same for men would only hasten societal collapse (which at this point would not be such a terrible thing, in my opinion).
“And the government will have to do something (restore male rights, perhaps?) to correct the slide. It’s the way to destroy the feminists, which is why I parrot/harp on it so much.”
They’re already doing something to correct low birth rates. See Europe.
Also, as someone else said later in the comments, male “abortion” would just lead to increasing taxes. So that now you aren’t just paying child support for your 1 child. You’re paying for every child in the state with taxes.
Someone’s got to pay for the children, and if you think women are going to pay up all by themselves, you got another thing coming.
But Feminism is about equality for both women and…. TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Couldn’t even finish that sentence. Gender dimorphism when it suits them, faux equality when they want something. Pathetic whiney children.
Your just a sexist.
and you don’t understand that its their body and has nothing remotely to do with you even if its your child.
uhhh…
Always look to see how many comments somebody has when they post. It is a good indicator.
With the internet, one can never tell for sure.
I am pretty sure this oxygen thief (faggot male or feminist hiding behind a male name) IS being serious.
As a New Zealander, I would guess he’s a troll. ‘Jake the Muss’ is a character from a very well known film down here, ‘Once Were Warriors’.
The character is a macho, alcoholic, wife-beater.
To my eyes, seeing someone called ‘JakeTheMuss’ saying “your just a sexist” seems too incongruous.
That being said, perhaps some feminist deliberately chose that handle for ROK, reckoning that we’re all just a bunch of macho wife-beaters round here.
(Pardon the following unrelated tangent, but perhaps you’ll be interested)
It is a fantastic film, by the way. It is about a Maori family in Auckland, and deals with the problems within the Maori community – poverty, violence, sexual abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, gang culture, and loss of cultural identity and self-respect.
And best of all, it does NOT do it from a PC “woe is me!” perspective. It was originally a book by Alan Duff, which caused a shitstorm when it was released for not toeing the PC “colonialism is the fault of everything” line, and being very blunt and honest in it’s style.
Feminists can make the central issue domestic violence, which is indeed a central issue. But something that really got me when I watched the film was the loss of identity among the Maori, and how a return to traditional male authority was shown as a way to fight gang culture among so many lost and directionless men and boys.
Quote from film (and novel):
““Our people once were warriors. But unlike you, Jake, they were people with mana, pride; people with spirit.” (That may be in a Maori context, but that speaks to me as a European – our people too were once warriors and explorers, people with pride and spirit, honour and courage!)
Quotes from the author Alan Duff:
“I despise left-wing people. Despise them. They are contemptible because they’re dangerous – they want to put a lid on everybody’s ambitions, to punish people for working hard and making a success of their lives. They want a level playing field because they can’t compete otherwise. They’re filth. Left-wing welfare … destroys people. I do however admire business people. Most of my friends are self-employed, probably 98 per cent. They take a risk, are generally more dynamic, more interesting and more interested in the world. They’re always pushing into new areas. I’m like that. I’m learning how to fly a plane, then I’ll learn to fly choppers; I want to learn how to play golf properly, I want to do everything, I’m just greedy … greedy for experience, for knowledge.”
“My work deals with universal problems – they not just Maori or New Zealand problems, but Australian, American …. it’s a male problem.”
“Love, and lovelessness, are at the heart of all my books. I know what happens when people grow up in a loveless background. It’s just the end, the effective end. It’s particularly so among Maori – it shouldn’t be but it is. As a society, they all fucked up. Their concepts are never a maturing thing, they stay fixed. If you’re a non-reading, non-consciously advancing people, it will inevitably be the same tomorrow as it is today.”
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~waldrenm/duff.html
http://quoteunquotenz.blogspot.co.nz/2010/07/carroll-du-chateau-on-alan-duff.html
I have read all three novels by Allan duff, as well as seen both movies.
i just happen to be a fan of the actor temuera morrison that plays jake. hence the name.
i am not a feminist, just enjoy making sarcastic comments.
Presuming you’re a Kiwi, what part of the country are you from?
It wasn`t PC right up until the author chickened out and made Jakes mate a rapist.The author caved,as they all do.
How is that PC? I mean sure, it could fit a PC narrative if you wanted it to, but just as much it wasn’t PC because it displayed the sexual abuse that genuinely exists within Maori communities, which people hadn’t been openly discussing for fear of being called racist.
Alan Duff is half Maori though, so he got a pass.
It`s PC because they shouldn`t have done it.You should be able to work this out for yourself.
But they want a claim over the man’s life for 18 years.
Remember, “It’s not a baby, It’s a choice.” until it’s a man’s responsibility.
make me some fucking eggs!
When a man faces 2 decades of wage garnishment to support the child … it has something — remotely — to do with him.
No clown, you almost certainly have literally no idea what you are talking about. Trust me.
Sexist, racist, misogynist, ableist, fat-hating, trans-hating, gay-bashing shitlord here – and yes – I do parties
“…has nothing remotely to do with you even if its your child.”
Lol. Top notch.
Now get yer arse off the the internet and “Cook the man some fuckin’ eggs!”
sh* up and give me your money
Exactly.
Women and guberments choke on a dose of their own medicine when there is a real attempt to level the playing field between men and women in matters that would otherwise benefit women financially and enslave men to the system of forced taxation in support of womens’ irresponsibility.
However, this proposed legislation is not enough. It not enough for a man to legally “abort” his rights and responsibilities under the law. The man should be afforded the legal right to compel the female to undergo an abortion and prevent the birth all together. Don’t take this as my support for abortion. I’m just making the intellectual argument that if the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy, then so should the man. That’s equality, yes? Besides, men should have the right not only to legally abort paternity, but to prevent these illegitimate children to grow up, and search out for bio father in the future, much in the way females routinely abort their “accidents” to preserve some shot at a landing a good man and traditional family after riding the carousel.
I feel the impending indictment of thought crimes against feminism.
Of course, the mere thought of law enforcement arresting a non-compliant female and dragging here to the abortion clinic in a court-ordered Writ of Execution (no pun intended) would raise cries of rape against their bodies against her will to carry a child to term. However, there is already precedent for such extreme action in sentences against men, as men found guilty of certain sexual crimes and repeat sexual offenders are court-ordered to be chemically and surgically castrated to prevent both future sexual intercourse and reproduction.
Women are the first to throw their support against such barbaric treatment of men’s bodies. So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Imagine a woman being sentenced to forced abortion because she’s a repeat offender of getting knocked up by men who are not her husband. Court-ordered abortions of sluts! This what women are asking for in Sweden? Of course it’s not! There mere notion is absurd. However, feminists stand on a slippery slope.
So how can a equality-believing feminist argue against court-ordered evacuation of a non-human fetus — since they like to draw lines on a calendar at 12 weeks or so separating mere biological function from human rights. Women really have zero logical argument to defend the status quo here. But we all know that women posses about as much logic and reason as I have boobs.
So this is a very interesting case in the petri of virulent feminists ideologies, Sweden. If the Swedish guerment continues to allow these feminists to dictate public policy (or insanity in many cases), then I for one am in support of this movement and others feminist ideals codified into law. We can then point to Sweden and her case studies of failed laws and policies, and how in the end wacko ideologies are terribly harmful to humans when they fly against fundamental laws of nature and human evolution.
Alright Sweden! You go girl!
You can’t compel another persons health choices. That would be immoral.
I”m not saying that it’s right or should be done. I’m just making the argument for equality — the cornerstone of the feminist dogma. Perhaps you missed the section on compelled castration for male sexual offenders. Compelling people’s health choice is happening and has been happening for a long time. Did you read the section on forced male mutilation as a sentence for sexual crimes? Or, have you considered something as benign as health choices people, including myself, are forced into as a result of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a Obamacare. Where are you drawing lines?
However, people are compelled into all kinds of actions and behaviors for the sake of one ideologies, even some posing as morality. It’s not limited to health choices, but extends into all areas of human life. Whether some are moral or immoral is a matter of philosophies and ideologies that we collectively ascribe to as a civilization, or more specifically as a culture.
What about when women impregnate themselves with the left-over sperm of their lovers without the man’s consent? Or lie about being on the pill so they get pregnant and the man has to pay child support? I my mind, that is almost equivalent to rape, except it last 18 years. http://uptownmagazine.com/2014/02/woman-used-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-get-child-support/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html
It’s also responsible for some HUGE percentage of births in this country. Of my circle of friends, at least 1/2 of them have been “oopsed” (often by their wives). “She was on BC, but we still got pregnant”. No, dumb fuck, she wasn’t. BC for women is near 100% effective. If she’s pregnant, it’s because she stopped taking them and wanted to be pregnant. It’s a fucking travesty, about 50% of kids in this country are “unplanned/unwanted”. Of the remaining 50%, a large proportion of them have to be “oops” babies. That would mean that the male “preferred” birth rate is somewhere below 1 child per couple. That’s a fucking stunning statement; that would indicate that most men don’t want to have any children at all.
The thing is, IMHO, those men are “right”. Bringing children into this fucking hellhole isn’t a really good idea today. And men think rationally; “will my kid live a good life”, not “will he/she be cute”.
Its really hard to know how many deliberate oops babies there are. I bet there is a fair % too. I dont think too many women would admit to it, though I have heard a few confessions years later from BFFs.
I’ve definitely noticed a higher amount of them with non career women compared to career women and you don’t need a university education to figure out contraception. With more women doing the AF/BB form of fun/relationships, I’d say a few would go for it with the AFs hoping to snag them, with the fallback of child support/govt and a BB down the line
How long does it take for your seed to die?? From the mouth into a test tube and then shot into her box…so sickening
If I remember my high school health class correctly, it takes twenty four hours or so.
On a related note I found one of my old special snowflake awards for
“academic excellence” in health class while going through my old papers. Gives me a chuckle every time I look at it.
A considerable proportion of young men get tied down in marriage because their girlfriends decide to get pregnant without the guys knowing about it or agreeing to it. Then, usually, the girl’s family makes a big mess out of it and often manages to persuade (sometimes even force) a guy to marry her. Unplanned marriage, with no real emotions in it, and especially when you feel forced into it, is a disaster. A ticking bomb.
If after just a few months of dating, a girl constantly tries to persuade you to quit condoms because she wants to take the pill so that you can “feel better with no condom”, you are in trouble. Be very, very careful, especially if you are well situated. She wants complete control. This happened to me twice. Both times I ended the relationship shortly after such proposals. Never regretted it.
I have seen this happen to a couple of great guys who only wanted to get laid and didn’t spend much time picking the girl or making sure she was sane and honest. Now they are locked down in bad marriages, and all sides are unhappy with this arrangement.
This kind of a law would at least give us a decent chance to protect ourselves from such set-ups.
I’ve read in a few sources that guys in general are using condoms less and less, with the concomitant problems resulting. For the life of me I will never understand why any guy would ever dream of (literally) screwing himself over by not using every birth control option available to us.
One more thing, although a somewhat different topic: all these birth control pills many young women take nowadays really mess up their hormones. Some of them become infertile. Completely infertile.
So, even if I feel like I could completely relax with a girl, I would, for her own sake, use condoms. With these new thin ones, there is almost no difference in the feel, and her health is not endangered.
Some of us can’t use them unfortunately
Latex free condoms can be bought from specialty retailers.
That’s not why I can’t use em lmao
The mother and her child/children may be better served by the state than by relying upon a recalcitrant and bitter father’s mean-spirited and grudgingly supplied financial support. Still, hell to the no. Why should taxpayers have to pick up the tab?
A minor issue compared to how much taxpayers are forced to fund, but mothers aren’t owed anything, if they or their kids die from privation so be it.
My dad was soundly dissed when he refused to contribute to a pregnant Filipina’s stork fund. The baby daddy had pulled strings and been transferred stateside after he’d been apprised of the forthcoming blessed event. My dad’s argument was no play, no pay, though his language was coarser and cruder “I didn’t fuck her!” I was raised during an era when men were expected to assume financial responsibility for their spawn. Is this wrong? Does this unjustly suborn men’s freedom and financially subjugate them? Valid points these are.
I was raised during an era when people weren’t supposed to f*&^ around until they got married. If they did, they were expected to deal with the consequences- both mother and father, not the taxpayer and not by killing the kid for the convenience of the mother.
The middle-ages colloquialism “go for a roll in the hay” springs to mind.
Taxpayers are already on the hook for women’s choices. If, as is often said, the goal of society is equality, then taxpayers should be on the hook for men’s choices too.
If women are allowed to make the final decision as to whether she wants a child or not, then what this simply goes to show you is the very fact that there is no such concept as “gender equality.” In order to achieve gender equality, then the rights and civil liberties of both partners must be taken into account. However, the reality is that men are swept to the side and as always, a woman is given preferential treatment in regards to having a child.
You always hear women scream about how they are so “independent” yet they are always relying on the intervention of the state in order to make their way in this world. That is not genuine progress and what it shows is that in reality, they are screaming for special privelages and entitlements. You hear them yelling “my body, my choice” yet somehow it is always the man who has to pay up. When men are forced to become fathers against their own will, it will always lead to disasterous results in which there is no healthy relationship that exists for the child.
The number of countless men who have been screwed over and had their lives ruined by the decision of a woman who decides to have a child, has become a growing epidemic around the world. Here are the honest facts of life:
1) There are already an estimated 2-7 billion people on the planet with not enough resources to accomodate the growing population. Do we really need another person to be added to that growing number?
2) The cost of raising a child has surpassed over $300,000
3) Life is becoming more difficult for the average person where even aquiring the basic necessities of life is becoming more and more problematic.
However in the mind of the average feminist or woman, these facts will simply not compute for them, as they are biologically programmed to reproduce and simply would choose to rely on their instincts over their intellect. For a man, most are practical and pragmatic in their approach in life. But that being said, the state will force men into providing for a child they did not want to have and ultimately, the power will remain in the hands of the female who chooses to have the child. Therefore, it is now a very wise decision for men to consider having a vasectomy. It will protect you from women who simply want to extort money from you in the form of child support as well as ensuring that your freedom remains intact.
“However in the mind of the average feminist or woman, these facts will simply not compute for them, as they are biologically programmed to reproduce and simply would choose to rely on their instincts over their intellect. For a man, most are practical and pragmatic in their approach in life. ”
Excellent comment, this is pretty much what I’ve said above (put better by you). Men think to themselves “will my kid live a good life” and, by and large, the answer to that is “no, they won’t”. So they don’t have them/want them.
Women, on the other hand, don’t give a fuck. They are more like men with sex; if we can get it, even if it’s from a less attractive woman, our drive will push us to do it. Male birth control is a fucking nightmare for women; they know it, which is why they do everything to prevent it from coming to market.
It’s more equivalent to women’s ability to surrender their kids to the state with no obligation and no questions asked. Laws are not being equally applied, and locking men up for not being able to pay the mother is clearly unjust. Bringing up infanticide, which is perhaps the only right modern society recognizes, is more effective as a strategy than an argument.
ha…bet so many gold diggers wouldn’t come up pregnant by pro athletes and entertainers all of a sudden
A lotta those guys probably already have some kinda non disclosure form.
the smart ones do I bet…but you still have alot of them that fall in the traps.
check out this article from ex porn star lisa ann talking about how most of these chicks make a living basically blackmailing and extorting nba players.
http://www.complex.com/sports/2016/03/lisa-ann-ways-nba-players-can-avoid-being-hustled?_ga=1.268788465.188208800.1446411353
There is absolutely no legal document that you can sign today in the US that will remove your responsibilities for an unborn child. You can’t “sign away” rights to child support, it’s the decision of the court, not the mother. The only loophole that I know of is adoption and lying to the court (“I don’t know who the father is”) which, of course, women can “undo” at any time and claim years of back CS.
Male abortion is horse shit. Female abortion is horse shit. Never sign papers with the state regarding any matters regarding personal private family matters. The state is the devil. The state is Babylon. Call ye pregnant woman to the wagon and flee Babylon. Bring your sharpened axe and have ye women sew a flag during the journey. Plant ye flag in your new promised land. Gather ye chickens and flee Babylon.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d6/f8/91/d6f89195773493e02ca2e007e9fd361d.jpg
“Never sign papers with the state regarding any matters regarding
personal private family matters. The state is the devil. The state is
Babylon. Call ye pregnant woman to the wagon and flee Babylon. Bring
your sharpened axe and have ye women sew a flag during the journey.
Plant ye flag in your new promised land. Gather ye chickens and flee
Babylon.”
Where would this promised land be again? Your words are easy to say, almost impossible to do. Did you write this on some trip back into town from your off grid log cabin in middle of a federal park?
Yeah you’re probably right about the last free and open frontiers being impossible to find, but I still stick by my words that abortion both male and female is complete horse shit. An aborted fetus can’t swing an axe even if it had to. An aborted fetus can’t teach its son how to rebuild a big block chevy much less have a son. An aborted fetus can’t study scripture so as to go to heaven or hell or anywhere for that matter. An aborted fetus can’t operate a reloader or improvise any way to pump lead, rocks and whatever else goes OUCH into marauding hellforce thugs so as to secure a homeland of liberty for one’s descendants. No, an aborted fetus can’t do any of those wonderous things folks. Abortion is the BITCH choice. Don’t be a bitch. Don’t abort.
America was the last bastion of hope and freedom. There is nowhere else to run.
Abortion is bad for society.
This is like gay marriage in a way. Homos said “why can’t we get married, it’s not like we’re ruining marriage, it’s already ruined, look at the divorce rates!”
Men are saying, “Why can’t we have an abortion, look at women, they already kill their kids whenever it pleases them.”
A vital, critical, dying social institution needs to be saved, not kicked while it’s down! Unless you really don’t give a rip about civilization. Either men need to get “abortion rights” or women need to have their “abortion rights” revoked. Men getting abortion rights only speeds civil decay. Women losing their “right” to kill their unborn child would, ironically, only make them equal to men, since men don’t have that right to kill an unborn child.
Well said.
You people around here are suffering from a messiah complex, and are historically ignorant. Dying civilizations are never saved.
Anyone who states that you have a duty to save civilization is using you. They want your money, or your time, or your submission to their leadership.
Dont be a sheep; live for yourself
We need to hasten the fall of Western civilization because the fall is irreversible. The sooner it dies, the sooner sanity can return.
Indeed. Abortion has replaced responsible behavior.
Women’s equality is bad for society. Fixed it for you.
I think calling it “Male Abortion” is inappropriate…a better term would be “Parental Renunciation” — quite literally making “Pump & dump” a legal device. 😉
Yes, I agree with the idea in concept, but thought this was going to be an article describing how only the man (ie father if unmarried or husband if married) has the right to determine whether a foetus should be allowed to develop into a child.
brilliant
Men will wind up paying for it anyway, through higher taxes to pay for the poor single mothers’ benefits.
Give me a call when the police will be happy to arrest a slut trying to trap me with a brat that’s probably not mine to begin with, march her to the abortionist and have the thing vacuumed out with the blessed mother under heavy sedation.
Better yet, let’s get to work on the artificial womb and making women unnecessary even for reproduction, so we can finally send the cunts to the knacker’s yard along with horses, another animal undone by progress, and not have to hear another word about a woman’s blessed right to choose.
You’re just bitter. Nothing you propose will rebuild a functional society.
There will never be an artificial womb
Sorely enough thats not the case. http://www.disclose.tv/news/The_Artificial_Womb_Is_Born_Welcome_To_The_WORLD_Of_The_MATRIX/114199
We are even able to create artificial eggs and sperm now.
I hate to be the one to bust your bubble, but it is better to be prepared.
“march her to the abortionist and have the thing vacuumed out with the blessed mother under heavy sedation” You’re as bad as any feminist- selfish, self-righteous and willing to shut your eyes to the horror that is abortion. You people are such additions to the sum of humanity on this planet, aren’t you.
we’re all going to be reproductively redundant down the line if present trends continue. Men should have a right to choose. So should women. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive
Neither should be. If it is any kind of being with a chance of living a life, then it is its own being. To take that away is murder even if it was from rape, incest or whatever.
By no means should be murdered for convenience sake.
I have sympathy with that position, but it seems a bit too cut and dried. If you come at the issue from a religious point of view every sperm (and presumably) egg is sacred too on account of the potential for creating life. Maybe life begins at the moment of conception, but still: do you consider a cluster of a few cells to be equivalent to an (almost) mature fetus? I wouldn’t, the degree to which it’s unconscionable or murder increases with time. Personally I believe abortion on a limited basis is something which should remain a limited right, but one which for the reasons you give above women should be strongly discouraged from exercising (and men if they have a say) , owing to the immense consequences of the decision. The problem today as I see it is that abortion is taken as a right, and treated lightly as merely a women’s rights issue, which immediately places the mother in conflict with the child (and possibly) the father. But this is a failure of responsbility and adulthood more than it is an inadequacy in the law. I’m against abortion, but not against the legal right per se
Let me tell you the clear difference between killing and simply “letting sperm die”. One is a being with a chance of living a fulfilled life when it receives the help to do so, the other needs “help” to even get a chance at it.
To argue that it is okay to kill even the most undeveloped form of the process of human life, is to argue wether or not a person in grave danger or need should be helped.
Obvously as a sperm cell that process hasnt started yet.
My opinion on your other point is that when you have iniiated something you have to take full responsibility.
The act of ending anything, as a copout from responsibility, should always be shamed and in regard to a human life never be given.
I’m not arguing that abortion is the same as spilling one’s seed. I think the current state of affairs reflects a lack of respect for human life, whether in potential, in the process of development, or fully grown. I just don’t think that respect for life necessarily comes from the state banning something from happening.
For the record I don’t consider a cluster of cells to be equivalent to a fully grown human being, but at the same time I do consider that a potential for human life should be taken into account even prior to sentience / consciousness. An adult for instance may arguably be more “conscious” (and therefore recognisably human) than a new born baby, yet the baby has the greater potential for life than the adult for obvious reasons. I was reading today how an Irish family perished today when their car drove off a pier drowning the entire family with the exception of a baby who someone had the presence of mind to pass out the window before the car sank. That might not have been a measured action or a ‘free choice’ but perhaps it says something about how people measure life instinctively when push comes to shove.
So I agree with you to an extent. But you talk about responsibility, and there’s where I disagree. My feeling is that while people should take responsibility for their own actions, this is less rather than more likely to happen if the state enforces that responsibility. Where people are compelled to act in some way they are not really taking responsibility for themselves as an adult does, but are taking responsibility as a child does – obeying rules, without necessarily understanding them or believing in them. I’d also note that the baby who was passed out of the window of the sinking car did not live because the law of the state required it.
My opinion is that anything that is already in the process of having a chance at living a fulfilled life is a fully to be protected human. I will not argue about that.
The feeling of being responisble for something does not come out of thin air.
When you would be shamed for dropping your responsibility towards something you will automatically feel personally involved, which always produces responsibility.
For that to work the act of dropping responsibility has obviously to be seen as wrong from a public perspective. To ensure that, especially with cases regarding other humans, it should be made a crime.
“I’d also note that the baby who was passed out of the window of the sinking car did not live because the law of the state required it.”
There is a difference between saving a life and taking it.
All you sickos getting all gleeful about murdering children. Yay now I too have the right to help mass murder and depopulation. The fact we are even discussing it for men or women means we live in a degenerate bizzaro world. We need a new government to be honest.
I see it more as a way to de-incentivise women from getting pregnant by a man not interested in being a father. Leveling the playing field back towards the old patriarchy where folks waited until both man and woman wanted a child and the responsibility of raising it together.
Women don’t want that because it would actually force them to be “strong and independent”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t believe in any form of financial child or spousal support in the event of a divorce, but the men who want a legal “abortion” and absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actions are just as whacked as the feminists who want to kill their own unborn child.
What a sick society we’ve become.
But three rights make a left.
it would reduce the number of unwanted children in the world arguably
Abortion should be reserved for emergency situations, or when the child will have undue hardship (severe incurable defects.) What the feminists want is to have abortion available for general practice, according to their emotional state. I believe this is linked to the same crazy chemical in a woman’s body that causes regret after sex.
All of this is degenerate bandages. Basically by playing into the argument that men should absolve themselves of responsibility to the level of the child like mentality of women is a further degradation of the male spirit. Let the prolonged childhood of the Western adult continue into his 30s and 40s?
The real issue here is that abortion is a disgusting practice that is only good for curbing the populations of unwanted racial elements and the afflicted, who are burdens on white society. It should be limited to that.
Also, no surprise this heinous idea comes from the suicidal nation of Sweden.
Looks like we’ve got a fucking eugenicist on our hands.
Sadly this will only serve to increase abortion rates, as women would no longer have the ability to trap a man financially with an unplanned child.
Or perhaps it would incentivize women to attract a man via means other than sexual intercourse. Maybe blowjob rates would radically increase, or women would show more of an interest in learning to cook, or just be more pleasant generally. The last woman that roused my interest didn’t have to fuck me, she just had to be an fun conversationalist as we ate the apple pie that she baked for the both of us.
“she just had to be an fun conversationalist as we ate the apple pie that she baked for the both of us” So true, the whole emphasis on screwing has made us all so sordid.
game probably won’t evolve into a variant of courtly love, but it will probably need to become less direct down the line
Just as likely to lower the abortion rate as women couldn’t count on trapping men with pregnancy. She’d now have just as much incentive as the man to ensure no pregnancy resulted until both parties wanted a child.
Perfect example of evidence for the mental disease liberals suffer from:
“No contraceptive is 100 percent safe, and if you do not want to become a parent, you have a choice not to have intercourse leading to ejaculation in the vagina.”
Exactly. Women have the choice to abstain from “intercourse leading to ejaculation in the vagina”. They choose to take that chance and become pregnant. After that choice is made they have to deal with the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy and unplanned motherhood. Infanticide is not a choice in the matter it is murder.
The problem is, the main demographic group producing illegitimate children have neither the intelligence or self-control to discontinue their hyper sexuality and/or use contraception.
And if they were denied their welfare payments, food stamps, etc., the resulting civil unrest and rising crime rates would be horrible. The feds and politicians know this, and would sooner cut off old white retirees from their social security than cut off money to the the knuckle-draggers and hold them accountable.
Unfortunately, you are correct in large part. Therein lies our conumdrum.
Only for the short term, and only in big cities where few people not in that particular group you describe live. Also don’t forget that there are far more armed citizens now than ever before.
Besides, most inner cities are already war zones. If seeing such places “get worse” is the cost of cutting back welfare I say go for it.
“No contraceptive is 100 percent safe, and if you do not want to become a parent, you have a choice not to have intercourse leading to ejaculation in the vagina.”
How many girlfriends or FWBs are going to be happy to support her man’s fear of an unplanned pregnancy and just be happy with BJs and anal sex but no PIV sex. Not a big % I’d wager. As much as they throw it back on the man choosing to take the chance, as you say they also take the same chance for their pleasure too, except they can over-ride the man’s wishes if there is a genuine oops baby or a deliberate oops baby.
I love this idea and have for years. Bitch doesn’t want a child, she can pay attention to her BC. It would have zero effect on a moral person anyway.
Feminists, don’t you want equality??? Or do you expect man to pay everything?
Main problem: Any Gold-digging Feminist with 2 brain cells to rub together (can’t be too many of those, but I’m sure there’s a few out there) who wants court-ordered access to her Simp’s wallet will just ‘forget’ to tell the father that she’s pregnant till after those 18 weeks were up. If challenged about this, she’ll concoct some story about how she didn’t know she was pregnant. Ever seen one of those articles in trashy magazines on women who claim they didn’t know they were pregnant till they went to hospital for severe stomach cramps and came out with a newborn? Yeah, probably going to see a lot more of those if this law ever passes …
it would be very difficult to enforce. I am sure there would be cases like that
While this idea is intriguing in that it undermines most of the rhetoric around why women should be allowed an abortion, it has quite a few pitfalls: none the least being that a woman could simply hide the fact that she is pregnant for the first 18 weeks, until it is too late for the male to exercise this option. (This may be difficult to do in some cases, but hardly impossible.)
Damn, you posted the same point I made below at the same time – saw this post when my page refreshed from doing my post. Anyway, I don’t see any cases where it would be difficult to hide a pregnancy for 18 weeks – that’s only 4 or 5 months; even women who were planning their pregnancy with their husband and are eager to give their families the good news usually wait till they’re at least 3 months gone to minimise the chances of ‘jinxing it’ – that is, having a spontaneous miscarriage following the announcement.
Hell, I have a cousin who turned up with her month-old son to my family’s Christmas Gathering – I’d seen her just 3 months before at another cousin’s wedding and never guessed that she was pregnant even though she must have been 6 or 7 months gone at the time of the wedding. And it wasn’t because she was such a landwhale that a bit of an extra belly made little difference – she’s average weight (to me – on the slim side by today’s society’s standards). So I don’t see how any woman would be unable to hide a pregnancy for just 4 months.
SImple fix in the law– for a woman to be able to claim child support she must notify the man within 5 days or by the 8th week of pregnancy (whichever is earlier) of finding out she’s pregnant or she and the child can not claim support.
Simple loophole: “I didn’t know I was pregnant!”
Not if the law is written so that isn’t a loophole. If she doesn’t notify him by the end of the 8th week, he’s under no obligation to provide support. Onus was on her – stretch it to 10 weeks if you like, but ‘ I didn’t know’ wouldn’t be an out from the requirement. Note, the goal of the law is to notify him as soon as possible after she knows, but no later than a certain point of time after intercourse occurred.
Well, I was reading the proposed law as a positive declaration that the father has to make (“I hereby rescind all my rights and responsibilities with regards to my biological child which Ms. X is currently pregnant with.”) Which would require the father to know about the pregnancy in the first place. A better law might instead presume that the father wanted nothing to do with the child until such time as either he says that he wants to be involved in the child’s life UNLESS the mother can prove that he knew about the pregnancy in plenty of time to make up his mind but he procrastinated, dilly-dallied and equivocated regarding his position on the matter for so long that the abortion time limit came and went, in which case he would be liable for all the rights and responsibilities.
However, a sly gold digger could fake his receiving notice by sending a recorded delivery letter to him with contents which appeared innocuous; the father-to-be then discards the letter and then months later the mother presents the receipt for the postage of the recorded delivery letter to the court claiming that its contents were notifying the father of her pregnancy and that he failed to respond, thereby making him liable to pay child support.
I think in most countries women have the right to have or not have an abortion and the father has no say at all. Yet if the woman keeps the child the man has to pay whether he likes it or not.
If men had the right to say ‘I don’t want this child’ and waived all legal rights to see the child and all financial responsibility then that would be fair. I don’t see it happening in a million years though.
In the US, minor males who were statutorily raped still have to pay child support once they hit 18 if the rape resulted in a pregnancy.
which of course everybody without exception – even feminists I imagine – would consider to be wrong. It’s the case because there’s a principle involved – the one this proposal could undermine – that the father is always responsible.
I bet Mel Gibson wishes he had this option now that his baby mama is demanding he cough up more money. She makes $20000 a month already, but now wants $100000. Plus, the Daily Mail cites that she gets 2500 pounds per month from another fellow. Now I’m not aware of how much that quantity translates into dollars, but at risk of being wrong, it’s probably around 3500 dollars. That’s still a decent amount of money. That’s probably what the average American man makes a month.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3500139/Mel-Gibson-s-ex-Oksana-Grigorieva-planning-new-legal-bid-100-000-MONTH-child-support.html
The only woman I intend to “raw dog” will be my future wife. Some guys take ridiculous risks with these psychotic whores just to feel more alpha I guess. If you ever joke with a chick who you bang wrapped about doing it without a condom she’ll get really excited because deep down inside the thought of getting pregnant intrigues her.
I remember reading Swoop the World’s article about knocking up a Dominican chick right before I traveled to DR. Definitely changed my perspective on the whole thing.
The problem lies with the way we have made it so that people can make stupid choices and not pay dearly for it like it was in the past. Women are stupidly riding the cock-carousel, and men are stupid enough to believe women who they just met are on the pill. Or they just don’t care. Men end up being forced by the state to take responsibility, while women simply get to cash the check, whether it be the child support check or the welfare check. So why would women ever be responsible?
If there were no safety net for a woman to fall back on, would she continue to risk disaster by riding that cock-carousel and not using protection? Let us suppose the law was changed so that in order for her to have legal claim upon the father she must be legally married to him at the time of conception. As this requires marriage PRIOR to conception, this would preclude any coerced, shotgun marriages. Would any sane woman then even consider sleeping with a man if she was not married to that man?
Requiring that the mother be married to the father prior to conception to have any legal claim upon him would put a pretty big dent in our out-of-wedlock birthrate, I would think. It is about 40% right now, isn’t it? If we also got rid of all the welfare for unwed mothers that would help even more.
Men feel it’s their God given right to female sexuality…
Women feel it’s their God given right to mens’ labour…
Here women could lose the guaranteed funding of men, and men gain another form of birth control.
This is technically a step towards equality, where both parties are given equal control over whether they choose to take on the responsibility of a child.
And feminists fucking hate it.
Feminists fucking hate equality.
This is rational, logical, reasonable and gives men an equal say in parenthood (at least according to the hedonist post-modern morality).
Naturally, it will never happen.
Absolutely love the cognitive dissonance of feminists-
“All men (or those with male genitals) who have intercourse with a woman (or someone with a womb) are fully aware of the of the possibility of pregnancy.”
They do realize that you can say the same thing about women-
“All women (or those with female genitals) who have intercourse with a man (or someone with male genitals) are fully aware of the possibility of pregnancy.”
So, if you want to make the argument that if you don’t want pregnancy to occur you should abstain from sex, it cuts both ways.
This idea may not be as good as it seems. If fathers refuse to support their children, and the mothers have the child, all they’re going to do is petition the state for child support. So the unintended consequence of this is that Daddy Government is flooded with requests for child support. And who’s going to pay for this? All the rest of society. Basically, all that would be happening is that the problem of child support is outsourced to everyone else.
There is no substitute for a return to the traditional morality, where the traditional family is embraced, promoted, and rewarded by the state. Everything else has been tried and doesn’t work.
The phrase “fight fire with fire” springs to mind.
A fever must get worse before it gets better. The sooner people realize how their purported utopian system will never work, the better.
It’s a nightmare that men and women have become opposing political parties.
It’s just nice to see feminists’ own short-sighted rhetoric backfiring on them for once.
Bingo. Man vs woman. Classic divide n conquer
a lot of liberals got up in arms about the idea that that’s already kind of happened, with respect to men voting for Trump and women for Clinton. It might not be quite like that yet, but it get that way.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/men-vs-women-andrea-tantaros-fantasizes-about-massive-gender-war-after-trump-become-nominee/comments/#disqus
I thought the “Men who become pregnant have the exact same right,” comment was hilarious. I seem to remember before the supreme court legalized gay marriage in all the land, many anti-gay marriage advocates said, “Gays have the exact same right to be married as straight people. They just need to find a person of the opposite sex, like straight people do, and marry them.”
So here we are, leftists fighting against one argument at one time, and then using the same argument to their advantage when it suites them. The kicker is that the anti-gay marriage argument was in fact logical as it is possible in reality for a gay man or women to enter into a heterosexual marriage, but the abortion equivalent of the argument isn’t even possible since…. men can’t have babies. Oh well.
Exactly, I was thinking the same.
The next logical step in the feminine imperative is to relief men to be responsible of their children individually and make us responsible collectively. Enforcing child support through the state.
That way, women can maximize the alpha fucks beta bucks strategy, having not only the fucks but also all the children they want from alphas without having to care anymore about beta’s support.
As always the problem of all collective solutions is how to the incentives will work individually. Women will not need the betas indirectily, but the state will.
You and old fashioned both brought up great points. Thanks because I hadn’t even noticed to move towards collectivism.
Good. Let society go bankrupt paying for all of our “rights”.
Up until 1973, (when SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional to discriminate against illegitimate children), the bastardy acts generally denied child support claims against men when the child was born out of wedlock. Those men weren’t forced to “pay for their children,” both because pre-DNA it would have been impossible to determine such a thing with any degree of certainty, as well as for a very realistic policy decision to make women fear destitution if they birthed a child while unmarried.
Yes, legal abortion and the welfare state have shifted that balance, to where even if this policy were reversed, women would now either abort, or go to the state for support. But the idea of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate is not one which I think we, on our side, ought to let go of. It’s too important of a distinction to deem no longer applicable. I think we would regret having done so in the future.
This is an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of, the legitimate vs illegitimate child aspect.
I recently heard that in Japan they still very much have it, and if the man is unwilling to marry the woman and also sign up as the father, he has no obligations towards either child or woman.
Also DNA tests are not admissible in court and even if they were biological paternity is legally irrelevant there.
We should look very seriously at bringing something like this back to the western world I think.
It must coincide with the rolling back of the welfare and entitlement state, but that won’t happen….ever.
“There is no substitute for a return to the traditional morality, where the traditional family is embraced, promoted, and rewarded by the state. Everything else has been tried and doesn’t work.”
This is why it must all burn to the ground before sanity can return.
You couldn’t have a more appropriate internet name and profile pic.
While I wholly support this proposition for the perspective of equality and men’s rights, this is the downside, the state steps in to help support the child & mother. In olden days the parents would do their best to help support their daughter & child for the early years or the baby would be given up for adoption if she could not support herself or she would be encouraged to terminate the pregnancy. I actually read somewhere recently that there was a high level of infanticide in past centuries if a family/woman was not able to support another mouth to feed.
There are plenty of cases out there of a man’s girlfriend promising him she wont have children with him or no intention until x number of years time, yet when there is an oops pregnancy, she changes her mind. Its too bad for the guy if he had no intention of being involved in a serious LTR with this woman or too bad if having children did not fit in with his life’s plans for the near future. Of course women will defend the pregnant woman and say ‘its her body its her choice’, but that hackneyed phrase totally ignores the fact that there is a very high chance she is going to put her hand out for $ from him for the next 18 yrs. Its also his time and money and life plans. Its huge life changing event that gets taken away from his control.
This ability to walk away for sure would encourage lots of men to forgo using condoms. Lots of no hopers will knock up women and then just sign the the abortion declaration and move on to the next women. This still happens today but there is currently ability of govt to try garnish their pay.
The fair way would be to have a tax levy on a man for every abortion declaration he signed. Its fair on the other taxpayers in society but still not fair when compared to the one off fee for an abortion by the woman.
I’d actually like to see Sweden be a test case for this new proposal, though if it pisses of feminists it wont get the numbers in their pro feminism parliament.
Don’t forget the threat of imprisonment if the guy can’t make the CS payments. This isn’t just an economic freedom issue for men but an actual physical freedom issue. You lose your job you go to jail if some bitch oopsed you.
True too. Women wont have that threat hanging over his head anymore with this proposal. I would wager too that there will be less oops pregnancies with it as there would not be the leverage of that ability to try trap the guy in an on going relationship or the ability to count on regular money from him.
If you did not sign the document at the time of birth and decided you would give it a go with the mother, then it would be too late if the relationship turned bad in the next couple of years (which often happens) then then you would be liable for CS and prosecution if you defaulted. I don’t think this proposal would destroy relationships/nuclear families anymore than they have already been damaged with changes over the past 30 yrs. Pregnancies in a marriage would not be effected by this, and I think the same % of men who are not sticking around within the first couple of yrs with the mother are the ones most likely to sign and walk off earlier.
I agree, Quintus. But then… what if the avalanche of welfare requests from stubborn and short sighted ‘womyn’ is what it takes for them to stop acting like sluts when the government runs itself to ruin trying to support them, in which case we have our chance to build a better society. Perhaps even the government (gasp) will tighten its belt and start slut shaming, which is a win for us, too. Plus, with this legislation enacted, you’ll have fewer depressed and/or suicidal men having their lives ruined.
Maybe we need to break it before we can remake it.
I agree with you that if such a policy were put into place, the outcome would be as you describe.
As long as welfare programs and other financial incentives to conceive bastards exist, there won’t be any real incentive to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
I am against the proposal but I am glad it is being made. I like the fact that it pisses off feminists and makes them sweat. Kind of like the kangaroo courts do college men.
Equality bitch !!!
Actually, this was the normal state of affairs. The whole concept of marriage is taht the man ia signing on to the responsibilities for the child. Giving the child “his name” as it were.
Not only am I OK with this, it should actually be default that if you father a child oitside of marriage, yiu have no responsibilities for either the child or the mother.
In any case this isnt “abortion” which by definition is terminating the life of a child. If the father chooses not to accept responsibility at some arbitrarily assigned point, the child is still breathing.
A similar sort of thing would be to allow the mother to give the child up for adoption, which is what is already done.
Cenk Uygur is a liberal but he’s my kinda liberal…a contrarian & a ‘lets hear both sides of the issue’ kinda guy…he doesn’t take part in the ‘lets blame whitey’ politics of the majority of the Left.
I don’t watch the Young Turks YouTube channel as much as I used to, but it’s one of the more smart and analytical shows out there, even when I disagree with them.
“But sadly, at present only women can carry a baby.”
Said the feminist, revealing to the world the transhuman fantasies they have for our male arses. How equal it would be if men carried children as well (instead of) women
Maybe her point was tongue in cheek, but feminists aren’t exactly known for their sense of humour.
As for the idea of a right to ‘legal abortion’, the author’s position is admirably conscientious, but as far as I understand this would be a right – limited to 18 weeks – to decide not to be the father of the child conceived – rather than anything that actually requires an abortion.
The implications though would certainly increase the likelihood of the woman deciding on an abortion (a social evil), but would it increase the incidence of abortion overall? This is an immensely complex issue that should be looked at carefully by both those who support abortion and those who don’t. What this would work against is the idea that a woman can automatically expect support from a male even if she has no intention to include him in a family.
Most people regardless of whether they think abortions should or shouldn’t be legal, regard them as a regrettable thing, something to be avoided (although there are certainly those who don’t as well). Supporting a right like this might well result in specific abortions, but might not automatically result in an increase in the rate of abortions. What it might do is help focus the minds of women and men (in that order) on whether they want to have sex, start a family etc, i.e. pretty much what should be happening anyway.
The single parent family is a social evil. Men do not become good fathers because they are forced to take legal responsibility because a condom broke. Couples should take proper precautions and ideally plan families. Something like the right of a male to a legal abortion could become an important way towards making two-parent families more likely.
“Said the feminist, revealing to the world the transhuman fantasies they have for our male arses. How equal it would be if men carried children as well (instead of) women”
What they don’t realize is that the goal of this type of research is not to get men to carry babies. It’s to make it so nobody carries babies (test tube baby with an artificial womb). Sounds great until feminists realize that removing their womb’s value removes most of their value to society. Add in sex robots/toys that are better than grade A pussy, and you’re going to have a whole bunch of women who have 0 value to offer to most men in a relationship.
I, for one, say bring it on.
I think we’re being upgraded, at least in part. Think of men and women having sex with each other to have babies as say windows 7, and men and women outsourcing such things as gestation as windows 10. Once that happens or rather to the extent that that happens, there isn’t really any “men and women” left: the distinction will continue to blur until we are a single sex. That isn’t inevitable, but I think some feminists, transhumanists etc would have it that way. Most feminists of course aren’t thinking beyond immediate self-interest though of course
This is conjecture, as you’d have to collect results, but I believe this would increase abortion. Here’s the scenario: Woman gets pregnant, wants to keep the child; man says “I want a legal abortion”, woman aborts child after the doc signing as she is not willing to raise the child on her wherewithal alone.
Tell me I’m wrong…
it would have massive implications, but then the abortion act had massive implications; no-fault divorce had massive implications etc etc. I don’t want for their to be more abortions than there already are, but aren’t scenarios like the above (i.e. where the woman effectively tries to force the man to start a family) more likely to result in single parent families down the line.
There might in other words be a danger of increasing the number of abortions in the short term but it would help shape behaviour towards greater responsibility on the part of both parents. Surely its better if two parents end up making an informed, adult decision to have a child, rather than one – the male – being forced into a situation where he stays because he’s going to be financially liable anyway, or simply becomes a source of financial support
One could only hope it would enforce some responsible behavior.
It could if done correctly. It wouldn’t certainly change the dynamics, probably for better and worse
I actually liked an earlier suggestion that the only “legally enforceable” childbirth is from married couples. Not married? All bets are off.
that would probably help marriage as an institution, although it would mean a lot of people would marry because they were insecure. I can’t see it happening anytime soon either
Agreed. The more consequences for stupid behavior we remove, the worse it’s going to get.
This brought up a thought that I can’t get rid of until I put it on paper. Taxes.
The IRS is already bloated but here goes: Why not separate taxes paid by all the current divisions such as sex and race? A percentage goes into a general fund for things like infrastructure; roads and such.
The remainder goes towards programs for your race or sex. What women put in can be spent to benefit women. What men put in goes to support male only benefits. Grants to black or white causes? Depends on what you put in. Homosexual benefits? What did you pay? State funded transgenderism? Pay me now, not later.
Men should be wary of taking the easy and irresponsible route that feminism advocates for women. If you haven’t already noticed, it causes mental illness. Owning up to our responsibilities and taking care of them is what separates men from women and children.
On the one hand there’s a certain pleasure in playing a tit for tat game and shoving the concept of “equality” down women’s throats. Of course it’s stupid to claim that “no woman should be forced to become a parent against her will” while saying that “men CAN be forced to become parents against their will” while claiming to be all about equality. It’s that kind of cognitive dissonance that causes over a quarter of North American women to be on medication. They know it’s a rigged game in their favour and they are still not winning. I’d be miserable too.
It is a great time. Every low IQ idiot should have 50 children, so the average person cannot afford to have a single one because they have to pay for the idiots.
On second thought this is already happening. Evolution backwards.
Not caring for your own child or even killing your own child is the most evil thing a human being is able to do.
Losing a baby no matter how small is a horrible experience. People who have an abortion or a “legal abortion” should be sterilized. They do not deserve the privilege to have a child.
Considering they don’t want the child to begin with, sterilizing them would be doing them a favor.
They should have their genitals mutilated.
They may not want the child at that particular time in their life (maybe she is first year at university) or maybe the guy they got pregnant with was some sleazebag she banged after meeting him at a bar half drunk a few hours prior and wont ever see again or maybe they got pregnant to one of her FWB alpha fucks and knows he wont have any intention of becoming a happy family with her, and she would rather raise a child in a family than as a struggling single mom.
You might say then they should not be fucking men that are not good longterm candidates, but that’s just not going to happen these days. Her circumstances in life change and her desire to have a child changes at a particular point in time changes too.
I think men and women alike should be responsible about their sexual partners. I would be disgusted to sleep with an “alpha fuck”, who doesn´t give two shits about me. (And men who sleep with “sluts” and “whores” shouldn´t be surprised, if she lies about being on bc.)
So if a women isn´t happy about her circumstances, it is ok to kill the child? And if her husband dies and the happy family breaks apart? Should she be allowed to kill the already born child?
I mean… you can kill a five year old quick and without any pain. The child wouldn´t even notice, so it is ok after all?
Life is life. You cannot just draw a random line and say: “To this day it is not murder and the next day it is!” This is a dangerous concept.
“You cannot just draw a random line and say…”
Well in many countries they do draw a line at a certain point during the pregnancy at which an embryo is then considered a baby. Its clear where you stand on this but many other people don’t consider life begins at conception and make distinction between an embryo, fetus and child. I don’t want to get involved in a pro-life debate on this though.
This proposal would lessen the pregnant woman’s power over the outcome as now the guy can totally walk away form any rights/obligations. I don’t necessarily think it will result in a big increase in single mothers though, as the same guys that really didn’t want to stick around for the long haul are walking off now anyway but pay CS payments and maybe share custody (which is better for the child than this new proposal would be).
Will it result in more abortions or more illegitimate children…I think it would result in more abortions as some women will realize early on the guy intends to sign away his rights and so can’t rely on any support or financial input from him, and wont be happy with what the govt pays for child support so she will reconsider having a baby then. It actually might drop the number the babies born out of wedlock and will make Swedish women push for marriage more rather then just shacking up with a guy to offset these proposed new rights for the man.
I support sterilization of low IQ people who have dozens of kids, there should also be parental licence, this licence should only be given to only responsible adults who are capable of having children.
I’ve had fourteen children in my life. I don’t believe in abortion or protection.
Why doesn’t anyone care about how this is going to affect Jerry Springer?
I forget which roast it was, but Greg Giraldo called Springer a “cultural sodomite”. He was one of the best roasters of all time…
“A pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant can’t just make her pregnancy disappear by signing a form. She must find a doctor, have tests, and undertake a medical procedure.”
Ummmmm, didn’t she just describe in the second sentence how she *can* make her pregnancy disappear by signing a form? You go to planned parenthood, use whatever PC language is currently acceptable for asking them to chop up your kid inside the womb, then you’re absolved of your responsibility and they can sell the parts for phat cash. Everybody wins! Oh, except the dad, he gets no choice in it. And the kid, because fuck if the woman wants to get burdened by THAT thing always wanting love and attention and not understanding anything else.
Hilarious.
Won’t this absolutely destroy the foundation of marriage if abortion rates are already so high as it is, and men no longer have to retain responsibility for the children?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what women would CHOOSE to be a single mother? Even less kids will be born, especially because the man could only abort legal responsibility in time for the woman to abort the actual kid…and the idiot women who DO choose to go it alone will be dependent on social assistance / government hand outs.
This law would effectively change baby-making from a privately funded enterprise to one which the government will have to pay for should the men forego responsibility.
As if tax payers aren’t already paying for your abortions.
Plenty of women choose to be single mothers. If not directly her decision, then her actions cause her to be single.
Get lost. You make no sense, like any other woman.
The article specifies men and makes no mention of their marital status.
Yeah, I wonder how that would factor in. What if they’re married and he doesn’t want to have to pay or have rights to see the kid? Weird
All for it.
Anything that prevents women from trapping men financially forces them to be better women. All for it
It seems quite fair that if you don’t want the child as a man you can forfeit legal responsibility for it.
A feminist agreed with me that abortion should be prevented. She said that she thought that women should have the right to abort, but that in the first place they should prevent themselves to become pregnant. Then she asked me how women can prevent abortion.
I said:
Follow the Bible teachings: have sex only after wedding, only with your husband, then you will never have to concern about that. Happiness requires contentment. Your pussy don’t need to be penetrated for a lot of cocks, you just need one.
Of course, she laughed at my face. She thought that I was kidding. I wasn’t.
I think that most of guys here thinks the same, sex only after wedding is ridiculous. If you think so, then you’re part of the problem.
Some of this site is based around banging chicks and the best moves, day game / night game etc, so no, I don’t think the men around this site are that concerned with sex after wedding.
Well, I think that’s part of the problem. Guys tend to think they have the right to be promiscuous, but they don’t take into consideration that they help spread female promiscuity with this kind of behavior.
To me that’s a contradiction in this website, since we’re complaining about female promiscuity.
I have the impression that everyone here want to complain, but in the moment they realise the sacrifices they have to do to achieve results, they will play the Nero in Rome and just sit and watch everything burn. After all, our modern shit society is an easy path to the pussy paradise.
Complain without action. That’s a very feminine characteristic, and these guys called themselves Alpha male?
To be an alpha male means to come to womens’ rescue? Some men don’t see anything to be salvaged, some men realise it starts and stops with us. Neither has any obligation to do anything, but we can still discuss it.
I seriously doubt banging random chicks has a greater effect on sexualising them, than the media and their own sex does. The hive mind pushes them in one direction, we just capitalise.
That’s been one of my annoyances at the people on this website. One article they say something, and with another they contradict themselves.
How about we finally have a law or series of laws jn place that provides a MAN the legal opportunity to veto his female partner her perogative to “abort” (murder) his child (genetic legacy)? Men currently have zero rights and 100% responsibility in this realm, but a man should clearly have a right to abort a regretful slut’s plans to slip into Planned Parenthood and murder his precious baby. If women don’t want to risk pregnancy they should practice celibacy, go lesbian or only engage in practices that are highly unlikely to lead to pregnancy with guys (only do anal penetration, for example). All of this is so simple it defies belief.
feminist double standards: when a woman has sex with 12 y/o she doesn’t get punished like a male rapist.
http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/judge-blasts-city-in-firing-of-teacher-charged-with-raping-kid/
Yes, this point has to be driven home. The hypocrisy is out of this world.
AND the teenage male sex victims are forced to pay child support if the perpetrator becomes pregnant.
If 1 out of 2 (male/female) wants to have a child they should be allowed but have to support themselves (and child) and NEVER can legally force help from the other partner.
So if a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want the baby but he does, she has to give birth to the child and give it to the man.
This ‘my body shit’ is a fucking joke!! When im with a woman and its getting serious, i always ask her what if you fell pregnant? If she answers “ill keep the baby,” i always pack my bags the next day. If she answers “WE will talk about it,” i will continue the relationship. I HIGHY recommend every man to ask this question cause a woman can fuck up a man’s life by giving the wrong answer!
When I saw the title and that it is a story from Sweden, my first assumption was that this would be about trannies.
As in, female-to-male transgenders who are legally considered men, but still have ovaries, and want the right to abort just in case they get pregnant.
That just doesn’t sound like such an unrealistic assumption anymore.
To be fair, men can get pregnant. These Swedish feminists are transphobic shitlords. Props to TYT for their open-mindedness. ; )
I’m not against it, but then again I’m not for it. The only thing I could say is that having a child grow up without a father is not great, but then again, if a female can have the choice, so can the guy. However I’d make it so that there should be a given reason, if you understand.
Although I can understand why the feminists are comparing men signing something to women actually doing the physical part. But even if the term ‘abortion’ in the long run comes to mean something different for the sexes, then so be it.
I’m torn. I don’t think it’s right for a man to just sign away his baby like that, but also if everyone’s fighting to be equal and equal chances yadda yadda, then this is a half step forward.
Dare I say it but it seems like the feminists want something to themselves.
Yes, I am against this for the same reason as you; I’m against women being able to have abortions as well, because I believe that murdering babies for convenience is evil.
That said, there are two consistent positions, ours, and that of the people in Sweden advocating for this and TYT. Then there is the ”have your cake and eat it too”, ”one rule for me and one for you” hypocritical feminist position. It is amazing how quickly they start to talk about responsibility and of knowing about risks and of how inherently unreliable birth control is when it’s time to talk about men. Of course this same logic is never applied to women.
I do not think this will happen, you have to remember that the greatest imperative of Western civilization currently is to cater for female whims, without rhyme or reason, without fear or favour, no matter how illogical, no matter how unreasonable. Absolutely nothing must stand in the way of a woman doing whatever the hell she feels like, not even by placing the life of an innocent child on the other side of the scales from that can we make the scales move. When it comes to men though, society is perfectly happy to impose burdens and sacrifices, and fuck him and his hopes and dreams and plans.
As far as feminists are concerned, whichever way the woman decides, it is the role of the state to facilitate her decision and make it as easy as possible for her. Nobody else is a consideration, the child, and the father mean nothing and either or both may be sacrificed for the benefit of the woman.
Man, I know this site is generally comprised of “anti immigration” commenters, but you guys (Swedes) seriously do stand to benefit from a healthy dose of “Sharia, the whole Sharia and nothing but Sharia.” Islam may not be all that in some absolute sense; but compared to political movements for government subsidized tampons, and debates over “legal abortion”, it is most certainly one heck of an improvement.
Fuck off, Mohammed
Not if you lose your society and country in the process. Take a look at what has happened in the UK.
By the time you arrive at government subsidized tampons and “legal abortion”, there is truly nothing left to loose.
The refusal of feminists to allow a “financial abortion” for men is proof that feminism is not about equality between the sexes. If women have reproductive rights, then equality between the sexes means men should also have reproductive rights. Simple as that. This issue is their Achilles heel.
Below is a dialectical exchange with a feminist who claims “feminism is just about equality” where I prove that it is not.
It logically deconstructs it and shows the statement to be false, and it can easily be trotted out again and again when feminists try to make the statement.
It could be condensed into a more general form, perhaps even be given its own name, i.e. “the feminist equality fallacy.” Sounds nice to me.
However I think there is also some merit in keeping it in its dialectical form.
a) It shows the feminist flailing about trying to change the issues and refusing to address the simple proposition I put forward
b) a) above shows that feminist arguments aren’t based on reason but misinformation, ignorance and or lies.
c) it demonstrates how to stick to your guns and keep an opponent squarely within the confines of an argument that they are going to lose and not let them change the frame of the argument to one where they won’t lose.
If this comment is too long feel free to delete it, I only put it here so that others might be also able to make use of it. For instance I also posted it over here to hopefully point out to a feminist that feminism isn’t about equality.
Here it is:
You think feminism is about equality? Read this exchange I had with a feminist, (although he didn’t call himself one he definitely was), about whether feminism is about equality.
The whole argument can be found in the comment section of this blog post.
chris: “I guess I can assume you’d be OK with some gay guys putting their fingers up your asshole and jerking off on you while you’re passed out, then taking pictures of it and spreading it around to everyone you know.”
That’s not the issue he was arguing.
Equality is about men and women having the same social and legal rights and privileges.
If a group of men fondling and masturbating on an unconscious woman is rape and unacceptable, yet a group of women fondling and masturbating on an unconscious man isn’t rape and isn’t unacceptable, what do you have? Unequal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women with women having the higher social and legal rights and privileges compared to men.
The issue you brought up was about equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
The outrage a lot of men in the manosphere have I think is a product of feminists picking and choosing what legal and social rights they want to be equal with while retaining those social and legal rights were inequality favours them. What does this produce, inequality in social and legal rights in favour of women.
(Do I think a man aggravatingly raping a woman is worse than a woman aggravatingly raping a man? Yes. But that’s because I accept that men and women are different and hence granting them unequal social and legal rights and privileges is just. I am consistent in my thinking. Feminists aren’t. Feminists propound equality in theory but deliver inequality in practice because they are an evil and hypocritical ideology.)
Ratatatat: Where have feminists supposedly ever argued:
a group of women fondling and masturbating on an unconscious man isn’t rape and isn’t unacceptable
…or is that just something you made up?
chris: A person’s actions speak loudest.
Feminists NEVER address the norm in the culture above. They never advocate, agitate or proselytize against it. But they will do all that and more for the opposite situation.
Another one feminists NEVER address is reproductive rights for men. If a woman conceives, she can; abort, adopt, abandon, raise on her own or with coerced support from the biological father or community.
A man conceives he can; do whatever the woman wants.
When men have the reproductive CHOICE to determine their parental responsibilities after conception, the same as women, then you will have equality in reproductive rights. Only one feminist I know of has ever argued for this and her reasoned and consistent thinking on this issue has been shouted down and out by the gender feminists in academia.
http://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/
“Some maverick feminists agree with this view. Karen DeCrow, an attorney who served as president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, has written that “if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support … autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”
Yet, by and large, feminists and pro-choice activists have not been sympathetic to calls for men’s reproductive freedom. “If there is a birth, the man has an obligation to support the child,” says Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “The distinction with respect to abortion is the physical toll that it takes on a woman to carry a fetus to term, which doesn’t have any translation for men. Once the child is born, neither can walk away from the obligations of parenthood.” (Actually, a woman can give up the child for adoption, often without the father’s consent, and be free of any further obligation.)
Indeed, on the issue of choice for men, staunch supporters of abortion rights can sound like an eerie echo of the other side: “They have a choice — use condoms, get sterilized or keep their pants on.” “They should think about the consequences before they have sex.” (The irony is not lost on men’s choice advocates or pro-lifers.) Yes, some admit, it’s unfair that women still have a choice after conception and men don’t, but biology isn’t fair. As a male friend of mine succinctly put it, “Them’s the breaks.””
Ratatatat: When men have the reproductive CHOICE to determine their parental responsibilities after conception, the same as women, then you will have equality in reproductive rights.
I suppose that will happen when men start to carry babies as women do. Sorry, but it is the woman who carries the baby for ~9 months. She is always going to have the final say so as to what happens – as it should be. Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard. I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to the fundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical. It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.
Secondly, are you going to answer my question above or are you just trying oddly to change the subject?
chris: “I suppose that will happen when men start tocarry babies as women do. Sorry, but it is the woman who carries the baby for ~9 months. She is always going to have thefinal say so as to what happens – as it should be. Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard. I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to thefundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical. It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.”
What you are arguing here is that men and women are different and therefore should have unequal social and legal rights and privileges Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between women. This is a contradiction.
“Women are not baby making slaves to men in that regard.”
Nor should they be. Neither should men be labour-making slaves, pack mules for women and her children, children they never consented t having.
” It is like you think pregnancy affects men the same way it affects women. It differs in very pertinent and physical ways that are simply too unavoidable to ignore.”
I’m not arguing women should be forced to have children, what I’m arguing for here is men have the same CHOICE to abort their parental and financial responsibilities, the same as women do, anything less is unequal.
” I don’t think you have thought through the logic as to thefundamental reason why the law is logically asymmetrical.”
I have thought through the logic, I have clearly set it out in every post.
1) Feminism is about women and men having the same social and legal rights and privileges.
2) Women have the social and legal right to choice when and where to end their financial and parental responsibilities after conception.
3) Men don’t.
4) Thus we have an inequality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women in this instance.
5) Feminists don’t give a shit about this inequality, therefore one must infer that feminists aren’t pro-equality, they are pro-inequality in favour of women.
“Secondly, are you going to answer my question above or are you just trying oddly to change the subject?”
I did answer it, it was the first paragraph I wrote.
Now you might say, “mwraaagh!i said show proof of a feminist makignt hat exact argument other wise your prior argument is false!”
Well first off, my prior argument was that feminists argue for the condition of inequality in favour of women, that condition will be satisfied if feminists only agitate in favour of removing inequalities that disadvantage women and never in favour of inequalities that advantage women, which is the general case.
Furthermore, your reasoning used in your above post, arguing for unequal social and legal rights and privileges is in itself evidence of that general case.
Ratatatat: I did answer it, it was the first paragraph I wrote.
No. That is not an acceptable response. You are merely trying to argue that because “feminists” argue for asymmetrical legal consideration towards pregnancy, then they must think the exact same way about “a group of women fondling and masturbating on an unconscious man isn’t rape and isn’t unacceptable”. You have done nothing at all to support that ridiculous argument.
chris: FFS Post Dammit
My original assertion was that feminism wasn’t about equality, which I think I have proved in argument.
I did provide an example of inequality about rape, but I declined to follow up on establishing the truth value of that example since the effort expended to establish such truth was rather high. Thus I switched to the example of reproductive rights as the effort expended to establish the truth value of that example was much lower.
The fact that I switched which examples I went on to prove in the bigger picture doesn’t really matter.
If my argument retained soley to the rape examples than yes, my decision not to establish it’s truth value would be problematic, but that was not my argument. The rape example was merely used to attempt to elucidate my initial argument that feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women. Due to the fact that this argument is a universal claim to equality the mere fact that I choose not to prove the truth value of one counter-example to it doesn’t matter as long as I can come up with another counter-example which I do prove. Which I did with the reproductive rights example.
Ratatatat: I’m not arguing women should be forced to have children, what I’m arguing for here is men have the same CHOICE to abort their parental and financial responsibilities, the same as women do, anything less is unequal.
If that were the case, would you ever use protection during casual sex? Responsibility has to start somewhere. Right? You can’t just get a girl pregnant and then say – oops. Ma bad. And then walk away with her left to raise the baby or abort it (maybe you throw her some cash), simply because you are on record against the live birth.
Logically leaving the ultimate choice to the woman is a way to make sure men who do not want babies are more responsible at trying to take reasonable measures to prevent conception in the first place.
And before you say the woman has responsibility, that is a given – as she will be the one who has to go through the birth or abortion, which has its own costs – mental and physical.
If men were able to have the final say on whether an abortion occurs, then men would be absolved of every consequence to their action while the woman goes through all of the trouble. There has to be some give and take to the law.
chris: “If that were the case, would you ever
use protection during casual sex? Responsibility has to start somewhere. Right? You can’t just get a girl pregnant and then say – oops. Ma bad. And then walk away with her left to raise the baby or abort it (maybe you throw her some cash), simply because you are on record against the live birth.
Logically leaving the ultimate choice to the woman is a way to make sure men who do not want babies are more responsible at trying to take reasonable measures to prevent conception in the first place.
And before you say the woman has responsibility, that is a given – as she will be the one who has to go through the birth or abortion, which has its own costs – mental and physical.
If men were able to have the final say on whether an abortion occurs, then men would be absolved of every consequence to their action while the woman goes through all of the trouble. There has to be some give and take to the law.”
Don’t you find it ironic that the exact same arguments were used against the legalisation of abortion? Read the Salon article I linked.
And all of this doesn’t change the fact that feminism isn’t about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges All you are arguing here is that such differences in legal and social rights and privileges are necessary.
Ratatatat: Not only are they necessary, but they are unavoidable. Therefore using them to demonstrate supposed inequality is futile. If the rules were the opposite, they would still be unequal (in favor of the other side) and there is no practical middle ground.
I think that is what makes the argument so pointless. For the lions share of law, gender equality is achievable and practical.
chris: So feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women?
(Just say yes….)
Ratatatat: Why don’t you ask a feminist? I think feminism is about equality. I just don’t view it as some sort of absolute.
chris: I’m asking you.
Don’t you have an opinion?
Ratatatat: I think it is about equality. I just don’t think it is absolute in the sense you are taking it. I don’t think it is presented as such either.
chris: If it is not universal, then it is not equality, because equality is binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
If it is not equality, then it is inequality.
Thus feminism is about inequality.
MY LOGIC UNASSAILABLE!!! RAWR!!!
Ratatatat: If 99% of the mission is dedicated to equality and 1% is not able to attain equality due to its nature, then you cannot claim that the entire group is about inequality. It is a blatantly false conclusion.
chris: Uhh no.
If it is not universal, then it is not equality, because equality is binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
If it is not equality, then it is inequality.
Thus feminism is about inequality.
Ratatatat: What you are arguing here is that men and women are different and therefore should have unequal social and legal rights and privileges Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between women. This is a contradiction.
I think you are being a bit naive. Nobody – feminist or otherwise is arguing that there is no physical/biological difference between men and women. The law should apply equally – except where these notable distinctions take place and are germane to the laws at hand. It would be ridiculous for a man or a woman to argue that men should have the final say as to a fairly common biological function that goes on in a woman’s body – that is specific to being a woman. You are looking for some kind of contradiction that nobody who has any basic logical sense would argue against.
chris: “I think you are being a bit naive. Nobody – feminist or otherwise is arguing that there is no physical/biological difference between men and women.”
But they still argue for equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
“The law should apply equally – except where these notable distinctions take place and are germane to the laws at hand.”
Hence men and women should have unequal social rights and privileges in some instances. Hence contradicting the earlier (universal) statement for equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
My, and I believe alot of people in the manospheres anger is over the fact that where such inequalities are allowed to exist in social and legal rights and privileges they are to women’s advantage and men’s disadvantage. Yet in all instances where such inequalities in the social and legal rights between men and women are to a man’s advantage they are under assault by the feminist establishment. If you start from a position of inequality, where each side has rights and privileges that the other side does not, and you only seek to remove the advantageous rights and privileges of one side, then you aren’t in favour of equality, you are in favour of inequality favouring the side of those whose unequal advantages in rights and privileges you do not remove.
“It would be ridiculous for a man or a woman to argue that men should have the final say as to a fairly common biological function that goes on in a woman’s body – that is specific to being a woman.”
I am not arguing that. Women should have the final say in abortion. Instead, what I am arguing is that equality in reproductive choice in this instance can be achieved by giving men the option to remove all financial and parental obligations and rights should they choose to do so before the continuation of the pregnancy It is called a “paper/financial abortion”.
Ratatatat: Hence men and women should have unequal social rights and privileges in some instances. Hence contradicting the earlier (universal) statement for equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
It is an exception, but not one inconsistent with logic.
chris: The logic is right there, of course it is inconsistent.
1)Universal claim.
2)Particular instance negating universal claim.
3)CONTRADICTION
Ratatatat: If I am not mistaken, the “Universal claim” is your own construction.
chris: Then you agree that feminism is not about equal social and legal rights and privileges between men and women, because the only way for such a statement to be true is for it to be universal.
Ratatatat: No. I don’t agree. I don’t think a single reasonable exception invalidates the general idea. You can’t (without reason) yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, but you still have a general right to free speech.
chris: “I don’t think a single reasonable exception invalidates the general idea.”
In logic it does.
Ratatatat: No. It doesn’t. Not if the general idea at hand is a rigid straw man of your own creation.
chris: It is basic logic, A single counter-example contradicts a universal claim.
But I have to say, I’m glad you finally agree with me that feminism isn’t about equality.
It shows great courage and intellectual character on your part. I’m proud of you.
Ratatatat: The universal claim in this instance being a straw man.
I disagree. I think feminism is about equality, but I am no feminist. I am not exactly sure what one is. I like women and I think they should have the same rights as men under the law in most instances.
chris: “I like women and I think they should have the same rights as men under the law in most instances.”
Thus in other instances they will have different rights. Hence inequality.
Ratatatat: In those instances there will always be inequality as when two people of different genders in a pregnancy dispute who may have a conflicting interest, one will win and one will lose. It is a moot distinction. There is no way to have absolute equality unless you can come up with something. Do you suggest transplanting half of a fetus into the belly of a man or something? I am open to your suggestions as to how such “equality” can be practically achieved in a way that does not bring inequality right back in.
chris: Equality of choice with respect to whether one is obligated to take up financial and parental responsibility. Men having a one off chance once being notified of the pregnancy to have a “paper/financial abortion”. This would achieve practical equality in reproductive choice between men and women.
“who may have a conflicting interest, one will win and one will lose.”
Be careful, you’re heading to the dark side here. There is no such thing as right and wrong only power! and all that stuff.
Ratatatat: So if a man doesn’t want the responsibility to be a father, he just signs a piece of paper and perhaps pays some money. What about the real and potential physical damage to the woman? What about the emotional problems/pain? The loss of work regardless of whether she decides to keep it or not? I can’t help but think you are just shifting around the inequality and possibly creating a situation that leads to many more abortions and perhaps much more bastardy.
chris: Those exact same arguments can also apply to men who have no say in whether a woman aborts his baby but they don’t seem to hold water there.
Also, she could always just adopt the kid off.
And it still doesn’t change the fact that she has choices of her autonomy that the man doesn’t, and she can legally enslave him into servitude for 18 years, something he can’t do to her.
” I can’t help but think you are just shifting around the inequality and possibly creating a situation that leads to many more abortions and perhaps much more bastardy.”
Actually I think it would lead to less abortions and bastardy.
And who says bastardy is a bad thing. As a bastard I take offence at that!
(You do realise all of your argument here also reduces down to “the end justifies the means?”)
chris: “Feminism is about the legal and social equality in rights and privileges between men and women.”
The statement is only a strawman if I misrepresent the opponents position
The only way for me to logically misrepresent the opponents position is for feminism TO NOT be a universal claim to equality about the legal and social equality in rights and privileges between men and women.
Thus proving my point.
It either is a universal claim or it isn’t.
And the thing about universal claims to equality is something can ONLY be equal or unequal.
Ratatatat: No. You have a basic misunderstanding of logic. A strawman is an argument that there is no evidence a person has made, it has nothing to do with the negation of that argument – one way or the other.
chris: I’m going to go by the definition presented in wikipedia as it’s an open source for everyone to observe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1)Person 1 has position X.
2)Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
3)Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
What I am arguing is that in order for Person 1 to have Position X, it has to be something other than Position Y (which is my initial argument).
Now Position Y is a universal claim as to equality. For Position X to be something other than Position Y it can’t be a universal claim as to equality.
Now the logical concept of equality is binary. Something is either equal or unequal. Even just a little but unequal is still unequal. And there is no such thing as a little bit equal, it’s still unequal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
Thus for Position X to be something other than Position Y, and Position Y is a universal claim to equality, then Position X must be something other than a universal claim to equality, and since logically speaking equality is binary, Position X must be a claim to (some instance of) inequality.
Which is what I’ve been arguing all along.
Thus the only way for you to prove your argument that my claim is a strawman is to demonstrate that the position I’m misrepresenting is something other than universal equality between men and women, which is what I’ve been arguing all along!
Ratatatat: Considering we have demonstrated that what you call “universal equality” is not even possible, I consider the entire point to be moot.
chris: Just say, “feminism is not about equality” and I will stop and agree with you.
chris: Or better yet say “feminism is about inequality favouring women.”
chris: Then you agree with me that feminism is not about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges.
I’m proud of you. Come here and let me hug you!
chris: “Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between women.”
Should be
Yet feminism is based on an equality of social and legal rights and privileges between men and women.
Ratatatat: Most social and legal situations have nothing to do with pregnancy. If a man litters and is punished then a woman should be held to the same standard for committing the same offense under the law, however, pregnancy by its own nature is asymmetrical in the most simple fact that men do not bear children. It would be foolish to argue as if the distinctions between men and women would not be significant in that case. I have never seen any feminist argue that woman and men are physically exactly the same and significant differences such as pregnancy should be ignored – that does not mean that a woman does not have the same Constitutional rights as any man would have. Don’t be ridiculous.
chris: But that is unequal and contradicts the statement of feminism being for the social and legal equality in rights and privileges between men and women.
Again from above;
“My, and I believe alot of people in the manospheres anger is over the fact that where such inequalities are allowed to exist in social and legal rights and privileges they are to women’s advantage and men’s disadvantage. Yet in all instances where such inequalities in the social and legal rights between men and women are to a man’s advantage they are under assault by the feminist establishment. If you start from a position of inequality, where each side has rights and privileges that the other side does not, and you only seek to remove the advantageous rights and privileges of one side, then you aren’t in favour of equality, you are in favour of inequality favouring the side of those whose unequal advantages in rights and privileges you do not remove.”
Ratatatat: Again, the “universal statement” is your own construct. I would prefer that you quote a real feminist argument instead of your own to begin with.
Secondly, the subject of pregnancy is something that cannot be treated equally as one person has to physically carry the child and the other does not. The fact that it is a reasonably exceptional case does not negate the viability of the argument that men and women should be treated equally under the law in most or perhaps every other instance.
chris: Thus you agree that feminism is not about equality between men and women in social and legal rights and privileges. Instead it is about inequality.
Ratatatat: It is unequal in one sense – as it should be – that does not invalidate the rest of it as you seem to believe.
chris: In logic it does.
Ratatatat: No it does not. By that reasoning, there would be no freedom of speech, because we cannot libel/slander someone or that all men are not created equal – because we are not all the same. These are rhetorical generalities – and I might add – your own construction.
chris: Rhetoric isn’t logic. In fact, since the time of ancient Greece, rhetoric has been maligned as the tool by which sophists mislead the masses. Glad to see you coming around to the manosphere point of view.
I’m proud of you.
Ratatatat: No. I don’t agree with you. Sorry.
chris: Look it’s not your fault.
Open up to me. Let me love you.
Ratatatat: I don’t watch random youtube videos. All of your posts appear to be an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you never backed up your apparently false assertion from my original question. Thanks for playing, but I am pretty sure it just isn’t going to happen at this point.
chris: Then you’ve never lived.
chris: My original assertion was that feminism wasn’t about equality, which I think I have proved in argument.
I did provide an example of inequality about rape, but I declined to follow up on establishing the truth value of that example since the effort expended to establish such truth was rather high. Thus I switched to the example of reproductive rights as the effort expended to establish the truth value of that example was much lower.
The fact that I switched which examples I went on to prove in the bigger picture doesn’t really matter.
If my argument retained soley to the rape examples than yes, my decision not to establish it’s truth value would be problematic, but that was not my argument. The rape example was merely used to attempt to elucidate my initial argument that feminism isn’t about equality in social and legal rights and privileges between men and women. Due to the fact that this argument is a universal claim to equality the mere fact that I choose not to prove the truth value of one counter-example to it doesn’t matter as long as I can come up with another counter-example which I do prove. Which I did with the reproductive rights example.
Ratatatat: And I am saying that you are trying to hard to point to an obvious and accepted exception to try to disprove the larger point that is apparently valid – that women should be largely treated as equally under the law as possible, paid the same amount for working the same job and not treated badly from a social perspective. I don’t think you have done anything to take away from that overall message, which I think is worthwhile and definitely about equality.
chris: I agree with all those messages. Women should be largely treated as equally under the law as possible, paid the same amount for working the same job and not treated badly from a social perspective.
(In fact, you could probably characterise me as an equity feminist.)
What I am arguing per se is that feminism is not about equality. And there are instances were feminists will push for (or not against) unequal social and legal rights and privileges that are unfair to men.
Ratatatat: I disagree. I think your proposed change to pregnancy choices would be unfair to women. There is no position in my opinion that would be completely equal to either. I should also note that fair and equal are not interchangeable words.
chris: So feminism isn’t about equality?
Ratatatat:Solely in regards that single exception, that might be a fair statement, but it would be erroneous to claim on the whole.
You’ll note that throughout the exchange, several times I got him to admit that “feminism is not about equality”, but the whole experience was like pulling teeth.
It boils down to what should and shouldn’t be the legitimate domain of the state. A man wouldn’t need/want a paper abortion if he could walk away absent fear that the state could seize his assets and/or his person for non-payment of child support. Several years back a Tennesse man was jailed for failure to pay child support for his court-recognized 32 children by 7 women. He allegedly impregnated a guard while he was in custody so I guess he still had it though his photo and history of short-term minimum wage jobs would argue otherwise. And the mothers? Dark room, double paper bag, and break the lamp bulb prototypical “low self esteem” types. Had my say.
Fucking hilarious! for once you trolled the right person.
Why do we care what a couple of Turk fucks and their token pretty face bimbo think?
It’s excruciating to see their YouTube videos. Male-shaming galore, SJW mentality, and so much more. It gives me chills, and I have to watch kitten videos to get myself back to normal. LOL
I think I’ve seen 2 videos in total from them? I can’t subject myself to the torture of watching more than that.
Yes, me too. I didn’t originally realize how they were ,until I saw a video tearing them apart (from Sargon of Akkad, or someone, the Bearing guy, or something).
I couldn’t take it for very long!
According to them, their baby that they murder isn’t a real person yet. So how can a father be said to not be taking responsibility for a child that doesn’t in their minds exist?
“Should men be allowed to have an abortion?”
Yes.
A woman can have an abortion even if the man want to keep the baby, so it would be fair for men to have a “legal abortion”.
Having spent a total of 16 years so far contending with the huge mistake I made during my beta years, I can say that I actually find myself in agreement with the premise for this argument. I have dealt extensiveley with a family court system that views me as nothing more than an ATM machine. The extent of my involvement in my child’s life extends only as far as my ability to pay, with absolutely no checks or monitoring in place as to whether or not what I am paying actually goes towards supporting my kid. As such, I bank roll the mother’s drug habits, alcohol abuse, and generally non-existent skills as a parent. When my kid does need something, I send extra money on top of the support to a trusted friend so that the mother doesn’t get her worthless hands on it. The state has absolutely zero concern over how the money I pay is spent by the mother. As long as I pay, nothing else matters. On top of that, the state views the mother’s gross incompetence, extensive involvement with child protective services, and years of neglect as an opportunity to justify their socialist programs. The mother is an “unfortunate victim of circumstance” whose problems they feel compelled to try to “fix”. If I were to post the full text of the cases I have that have been reported to CPS here, the majority of you would probably side with me in concluding that a bullet is the most appropriate fix.
I am not sure about legalizing abortion for men. If men were allowed to shirk their financial responsibilities in terms of an unwanted pregnancy then we would see the woman, already proven incapable of making the right choices when it comes to starting a family, look to dump that responsibility on the state. However, many women view getting pregnant as a meal ticket of sorts and use the system to their advantage, trapping a man in a situation he would rather not be in. If she can’t trap him in marriage or, at the very least, force him into a long term relationship, then she can still extract from him monetary resources over the next 18 years.
Taking my experience in this area into account, and in the interest of true equality, I’d say there needs to be legislation passed that establishes requirements for both custodial and non custodial parent responsibilities. The state says that financial support is required by the non custodial parent. Should the state not also require the custodial parent to maintain full time employment and meet obvious requirements of parental responsibility as well? I think removing the incentive for the mother to sit around on her ass collecting support for a child by forcing her to work and stay on the straight and narrow would give most of these money grubbing whores reason to pause and rethink their strategy of gaming the system for their own personal gain. If I have never failed to make my support payments, nor given any mercy from the state if I were to fail, then she should be held to the same standard. There is more to parenting than one party cutting a check to the other.
Feminism, like a lot things with most women, is a one way street.
Nah…to be fair, feminism is pretty much all the ways in every direction at once & simultaneously. My mom’s generation called that, “bat shit crazy.”
I aslmost thought for a second there this was masterful trolling by those guys. But then it thought, it’s fucken Sweden…
The Norse gods must be pissed…
“She also thinks men have an obligation to take care of their children.” There you have it, in a nutshell. Also can you imagine the devastating blow to feminism if this was adopted? No more pierced condom trap. No more trick pregnancies. No more men trapped into unwanted fatherhood, paying throught their asses to women who spend it all on themselves.
A male abortion as crazy as it sounds still caters to women. As it stands now women only get abortions. And rightfully so we can truthfully say that woman is a selfish and heartless killer. With male abortion that same woman can cleanse her soul with “Men get abortions too” Do not trivialize that for one second we are talking liberal feminist politics here and women in general.
No no no no. Get it right. A woman has no right to an abortion. When a man impregnates her, she becomes his property. She is in no position to be making any decision what so even! If an abortion is going to happen, and it would be a very sad thing to happen, then it is the man and the man alone who is to be the one who will make that decision.
A woman has NO right to an abortion. Only a MAN has any claim to a physical abortion of his impregnation.
It’s hilarious how far we have drifted that the debate is over whether or not a man can walk away when woman is placed in the decision making role. Decision making is masculine.
Finally, as the author says, let’s not have abortions.
I believe we should have the right to walk if a man so chooses. Why should be obligated to pay support? Worst thing that ever happened to me was becoming a parent. I am no longer angry about it I just bear the cross and hold the one responsible in a state of constant resentment. I would walk in a heartbeat and never look back. Great part is you can always have more an appropriate time of your choosing so not much is actually lost if you could freely move on. Support payments is no different than theft.
This is good in the sense that it quits treating men like 2nd class citizens. And that it pisses off feminists. This is the sort of thing that A Voice for Men would celebrate.
But it actually is a negative. It gives men more equal status in the Sodom and Gamorah ethics. And rather than elevate us all ethically, it drags us all down.Men will be equal to women in hell.
But at least, some bitch cannot lie and entrap you and then force you to pay.
There is a simple solution.Just go in the back entrance.It`s tighter and you don`t have to look at their faces.
A woman can kill her unborn child, no questions asked, and about 35,000 kids die that way every year. The father has no say in it.
Oh come on! That is not reality… most people would agree that most of all of those abortions, the father WAS apart of the decision. I dont know to many women who get an abortion when their boyfriends are begging and pleading for them to have the baby because they want to have a child. It is very rare. How can you pretend to have your panties in a bunch over someone aborting your seed…. then in the same breath say you dont want anything to do with your child when its born. Men just need to wrap it up if u dont want kids… and women need to wrap it up if they dont want a deadbeat father to their kid
The only reason why I think men should have the right the “abort” their baby is because abortions for women is never going to be banned, in fact I believe it’s going to get more and more accessible and I wouldn’t be surprised if women got the right to murder their newborn child if they realise they don’t want it, because it’s a boy for example. In that case, I’d rather be equal than have this huge double standard that can really fuck men’s life up, even if it’s going to further destroy society. Although, one has to ask oneself if this society is even worth saving…
100% support it and have supported it pretty much all my life.
If women have the “Choice” to walk away from motherhood.
Men should have the equal choice to walk away from fatherhood.
There is no counter-argument. Either it’s both or neither.
“No contraceptive is 100% effective”
So what the cunt in the article you referenced was saying is, women should have zero right to abortion, ever, no matter what? I’m down with that as well. Point being; Reproductive rights for both men and women, or for neither.