A new law in Sweden proposes that a man may opt out of being a father in the same way a woman having an abortion might do so and opt out of having a child. The man before the 18th week of gestation can vote to terminate all of his parental rights to the child and forgo any other privileges in being the mere sperm donor to that child. This is in effect the male abortion bill. The man would no longer be responsible or have any parental or legal input to the child’s life. This sounds like a fair proposal for the man, who no longer would be liable for child support, parent responsibility or even simple affection for said child, the fruit of his loon. Sounds like a win, err, no not a win-win, but more like a win-“go fuck yourself.” The woman has an absolute right to an abortion before the fetus is viable. Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person and as such abortion is universally allowed in most states and countries. This is biology. However at some point the women must either accept or prevent the pregnancy. The man has the absolute right to be responsible and wear protection before impregnating the women.  The normally resulting condition from such behavior is having babies?  The man has to prevent it before hand. Otherwise they are stuck with the bill. Except for a few things; what about the child? Where do their rights fit in? What about the child in question, produced by the act or acts of irresponsibility by the couple and then further betrayed by the state to allow for yet another act of take no responsibility? What about that child, forgotten in the shame of standing up for the male and being fair.

Many children living in poverty are there because of one parent families. Mostly, the father having absconded and forgone, child support , a duty of love and care, and just being there for the child as they grow to adulthood. The child has a right to know the other side, i.e. the father’s side, as in who they are and where did they come from. Claiming this is not fair to the man, considered an adult in such matters, the women may always abort is her slice of fairness. The man is without options under current law. This neatly forgets the man had all the freedom in the world to wear the condom in the first place. Why then is the disproportionate burden thrust upon the male to provide for an unwanted child without any say in the matter upon conception? Even if said child may be force to grow up in poverty, in an emotion desert, wondering why they were abandoned in the first place, what had they done to deserve such a fate? Who is equally thusly deprived of their father emotional support, legally, by law? Such an act by the government betrays the child in favour of irresponsibility. If a man, wishing to not be burdened by parental responsibility, they then have the sole responsibility to wear a condom.  Something rather simple to do, especially considered in light of the burden they force the child into a life time of living. For the state to pass such a law, allowing for such male abortion, then the state must ensure that there is no child poverty, unlimited access to psychological support, and generally impose an additional burden on the clearly shrinking moral, responsible adults within society to yet again take care of the legal cast off by an irresponsible state.