GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Should Men Have the Same “Reproductive Rights” as Women?

by

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s

By the way, this same group of Swedish Progressives is pushing for legalized necrophilia and sibling incest. Hey, whatever, “Love is Love.”

Comments

  1. They’re as batmerdercrazy as the progressives/libertarians in the USA regarding the limitations on abortion. If one cannot make a decision within the first trimester/human spontaneous abortion, one should be spade or neutered due to their irresponsible behavior.

  2. With rights come responsibilities. Full reproductive rights should have full reproductive responsibilities. Watch the unwed mother population drop once the ATM connection is severed.

  3. I’ve proposed a man’s abortion several times, which included such things as donating two pints of blood, to make up for the blood loss in a female abortion, paying for all the prenatal care and birth of the child, and no further (the woman can use the money however she likes, however), a retroative abortion, for men who were unaware they fathered a child until after birth, in lieu of a paternity suit.

    There are, of course, a LOT of problems with the idea, but it is a natural outgrowth of the abortion on demand argument.

  4. The Liberal Party in Sweden has taken up arms against feminists in the United States and they may not know it.

    The Liberal Party Swedes see the unborn child as jointly owned property by the egg provider and the sperm donor.

    The feminists in the United States insist that the one with the internal incubator has sole dominion over the property within.

    Both the Liberal Party Swedes and the feminist Americans agree that the mess of cells hanging out in the womb is chattel property which can be trashed or saved on the merest of whims. But the Liberal Party Swedes are proposing that the sperm donor has an equal chattel right and can order the killing of the life in the womb of another person who is merely the recipient of a sperm spewing.

    Frankly, this bit of moral irrelevancy is too delicious not to savor.

    Why, in the name of Social Justice, shouldn’t the state have the power to order the abortion in the name of saving an endless stream of state encounters of socialistic intervention in order to raise the outcome of copulation that results in an unwanted mass of cells that will inevitably become a human life?

    The clear Social Justice solution for Sweden is to cut this developing fetus out and raise it for stem cells or cosmetic ingredients or body parts or slavery. Make the little sucker state property when a property right dispute arises between the biological parents.

    In fact, why not cut to the chase and just let the Czar of Life be able to order the creation of life, the usurpation of life or the ending of life according to the needs of the state. From each womb according to its productivity and to each womb the sanction from molestation according to the whims of the state.