When it comes to abortion, it might be argued that men have far too great an influence over what women do with their bodies.
To start with, abortion is technically illegal in many parts of Australia – a law established by generations of predominantly male politicians. Public discussion in Australia and elsewhere has also been unduly dominated by men, where abortion has become a political plaything to debate, along with the economy, infrastructure, and similarly deeply personal issues.
Abortion is a crucial political issue in the US at the moment, with presidential candidate Donald Trump arguing that women who have abortions should be punished.
You see, historically men really haven’t had enough of a say over women’s lives, so they feel they really need to weigh in on whether women deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy – a decision, by the way, that a man will never have to face.
And just recently, a political group in Sweden proposed that fathers should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn baby up until the 18th week of pregnancy.
Marcus Nilson, the chairman of the youth wing of Sweden’s Liberal party told the Aftonbladet newspaper, “Men should have an equal right to opt out of parenting and choose whether or not to become a parent.”
“There are endless examples of men who can’t even say whether they want to be involved in parenthood or how involved they want to be,” he continued. “It is important that men remain honest with themselves and their intentions.”
The policy would allow men who don’t want to be fathers to abandon all parental rights and responsibilities, legally relinquishing their paternity, as long as it’s feasible for the woman to have an abortion.
Should the woman decide to keep the baby, the father would effectively renounce his rights to see his child, and all financial responsibilities towards them.
Luckily, at this stage the policy has been rejected by the wider Liberal party. (I wonder why?) But perhaps the most perplexing part of the whole proposal is the fact that the party insisted ‘male abortion’ was a feminist policy.
They argued that ‘male abortion’ would provide equality for men and women. Having a man decide to ‘legally abort’ gives a woman the opportunity to know whether the father of her child wants to be involved or not.
Oh my gosh, stop it! We’re blushing! How lovely of you to consider a woman wanting to know whether her unborn child will be supported by it’s father. What a world…
It seems almost condescending to begin to dissect what’s wrong with the concept of ‘male abortion’. To start with, it’s just…not a real abortion. Men don’t have uteruses, they can’t get pregnant, and they can’t have babies. So men can’t have abortions, legal or otherwise.
It’s also significantly easier to ‘sign away’ your rights and responsibilities towards a child, than it is to abort it. Oh, and YOU DON’T GET TO JUST SIGN AWAY YOUR CHILD if it’s going to be born. You don’t get to do that. Especially considering the very real and unfair pressure a man’s choice to ‘abort’ would place on a woman’s already difficult decision.
And once a baby is born, and its mother has chosen to keep it, it doesn’t matter whether you wanted it. Every baby is entitled to financial and social support from its parents. You don’t get to ‘opt out’ of that.
Sweden’s political conversation has essentially highlighted the absurdity that comes with men leading the discussion around abortion. They arrive at bizarre conclusions, and entirely discount the deeply emotional and personal experience of a woman who is faced with the decision of terminating her pregnancy. Perhaps it should be women, not men, leading policy change around issues that affect women’s bodies.
And perhaps we should leave abortion off the table as a political plaything.
Top Comments
I'm all for men being allowed to sign away their parental rights if this was an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, but to call it an abortion (legal or not) is pretty stupid.
There a perfectly good reasons why a woman would choose an abortion. The many reasons why a woman or a man is not ready to become a parent are fairly equal. Here are some reasons why women might select not to be a parent.
We’ve always wanted a say in the number of children we have and when we have them.
Our ability to control our fertility and decide if and when we have a baby is being wound back and in some cases, taken away entirely.
Isn’t it a basic tenet of civilisation that a woman must be able to control her fertility if she’s going to be an active participant in her own life?
.... you’d be aghast at the thought of having no choice about when, if and how many times you have babies
.... it could mean financial destitution
Seeing those two blue lines on the stick can constrict your heart when you know you cannot give a baby what it needs. Not at that point in time. Maybe not ever.
Not everyone is capable of giving a child the physical, emotional and financial security they need. Some women are barely able to look after themselves and they know it.
They might be addicted to drugs. They might be in a violent or abusive relationship. Or they might just be stretched to their absolute limit in any number of ways.
The increased number of women with mental illnesses? The increased number of suicides and incidents of self harm? The increased number of neglected, troubled kids who grow up to be damaged adults?
Because that is precisely what occurs when you try to stop women from being able to decide if, when and how many times she gives birth.
Source: Mia Freedman, January 2012.
It does not take a stretch of the imagination to see that these very same reasons apply to men as well when it comes to being a parent. Why is this proposal being dismissed out of hand when the same reasons are used for actual abortion?
http://www.mamamia.com.au/s...
Well, for one thing, if a man "aborts" his child, the child will still actually exist. And that child has certain requirements that both parents are responsible for.
No, the child does not exist at this point of the decision making process.
Ultimately, the potential mother decides whether to carry through with the birth based on her circumstances whatever they may be which is exactly the same situation as it currently stands when it comes to the future care of the potential child. This proposal gives both parents the same rights.
One question for you. The list Mia provided above which shows why some women may justifiably choose not to be a parent which is their right. Why do you think men are not in a similar situation or is it simply it does not matter?
Apologies for the delay in replying, I have been away.
My point is that while this proposal may give men and women equal rights, it does not consider the best interests of the child. If a woman aborts, there is no child to care for. If a man "aborts", there will still be a child that needs to be provided for. That's not even considering the emotional trauma of that child having to grow up knowing that their father would have preferred they never existed.
I completely agree that men may have the same reasons as a woman for not wanting a child. However, I honestly can't see a "fair" solution that doesn't also harm the child. I really do believe it's a sucky situation for men, but ultimately if they feel they can't cope with a child, they need to take extra precautions during sex -where they do get the opportunity to make that decision. After all, no one is forcing them to create a child in the first place