SWEDEN'S LIBERAL PARTY IS PROPOSING SOME
CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION INVOLVING THE PARENTAL
RIGHTS OF MEN.
IF A WOMAN CHOOSES NOT TO ABORT HER CHILD, AND THE FATHER
THAT BABY ASIDE THAT HE DOES NOT REALLY WANT TO BE A FATHER,
SHOULD HE BE ABLE TO BASICALLY DENY ALL OF HIS PARENTING
RIGHTS AND NOT HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT?
THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS PRESENTING.
"MEN SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF PARENTING AND
CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO BECOME
A PARENT.
MEN ARE PROPOSED TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCLAIM PATERNITY
UNTIL THE EIGHTEENTH WEEK OF PREGNANCY, AS LONG AS IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR THE WOMAN TO
UNDERGO THE ABORTION PROCEDURE."
BASICALLY, JUST TO SIMPLIFY, IF TWO PARTIES HAVE SEX, THE WOMAN
GETS PREGNANT, SHE DECIDES SHE WANTS TO HAVE THE BABY BUT THE
FATHER DID NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO
NOT ONLY NOT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BEING A
FATHER, HE WOULD NOT HAVE THE
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF BEING A FATHER.
AND HE WOULD NOT GET THE PRIVILEGES EITHER.
THIS IS PITCHED AS A CRAZY IDEA, AND WAY TOO LIBERAL EVEN IN
SWEDEN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS CRAZY, I THINK IS ACTUALLY
FAIRLY SENSIBLE.
THE WHOLE, YOU SHOULD GO GET AN ABORTION, THAT IS NOT YOUR
CALL TO MAKE.
THAT POINT I DON'T AGREE WITH.
AND IT IS NOT SAYING THAT HE CAN FORCE HER INTO AN ABORTION,
IT JUST SAYS THAT HE CAN VOTE AGAINST IT.
I WOULD TAKE ALL OF THAT OUT.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IN THE FIRST EIGHTEEN WEEKS, IF
YOU ARE THE FATHER, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE, I'M INVOLVED
WITH THIS KID, OR I AM NOT.
I VOTED, WHATEVER IT WAS, PLAN B IN THE BEGINNING, OR AN
ABORTION, OR WHATEVER IT IS, AND IF YOU DO THAT YOU LOSE ALL
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
THAT IS NOT YOUR KIDS, YOU ARE DONE WITH IT.
BY THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY, I WANT TO OPT OUT OF IT AND
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT, THAT IS ON YOU, NOT ON THE.
I HAVE DEFINITELY EVOLVED ON THIS, BECAUSE I REMEMBER
DEBATING A FRIEND OF MINE YEARS AGO ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION.
OF COURSE HE IS A GUY AND BELIEVES GUYS TO BE ABLE TO
OPT OUT, BECAUSE IF WOMEN GET THE OUTPUT ñ
IF WOMEN GET THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE, WHY SHOULD MEN NOT
GET THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE?
AND I KEPT FIGHTING IT BECAUSE I FELT LIKE IT WAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH PARTIES.
BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK CONSENT AND CHOICE IS IMPORTANT FOR
BOTH PARTIES, AND IF THE FATHER WANTS TO MAKE THAT
DECISION, I DO BELIEVE HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
ALSO, AS A WOMAN, IF I WERE IN THIS SITUATION, I WOULD
CERTAINLY NOT WANT A MAN WHO WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY
CHILD BE PART OF OUR LIVES.
WE HAVE THIS CULTURE IN AMERICA WHERE IT IS, ABORTION IS
LIKE SOME GREAT SHAME OR
SOMETHING, SO THAT IS WHY THIS WILL SEEM OUTRAGEOUS TO
SOME PEOPLE.
FIRST OF ALL, HE CANNOT FORCE HER, THAT WOULD BE DEEPLY
PROBLEMATIC, THAT IS THE PROBLEM
WITH THE SO-CALLED PRO-LIFE POSITION, BECAUSE THEY ARE
AGAINST A WOMAN CHOOSING.
IT IS HER BODY.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, TAKE THAT UP WITH WHOEVER YOU LIKE,
BUT THE WOMAN CARRIES THE BABY IN OUR SPECIES, BUT I DON'T
THINK THERE IS ANY SHAME IN ABORTION AT ALL.
NO SHAME AT ALL.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, THAT'S A SAD DAY FOR YOU.
IF YOU SAY I THINK WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT CHILD, THAT IS A
PERFECTLY NORMAL THING TO SAY, AND IF YOU GUYS DON'T AGREE,
WELL, ONE PERSON CAN HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO WITHDRAW HIMSELF
FROM THAT RELATIONSHIP.
HERE ARE THE CHALLENGES, AND WHY PROPOSAL LIKE THIS
USUALLY DON'T PASS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES.
IT IS BECAUSE COUNTRIES DON'T WANT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF
SUPPORTING THAT CHILD.
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.
LET'S SAY IT'S A WOMAN WHO MIGHT NOT BE WELL OFF FINANCIALLY,
AND SHE DECIDES, WELL I WANT TO HAVE THIS BABY ANYWAY.
IF A FATHER CAN OPT OUT OF THAT FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,
HOW DOES SHE GET SUPPORTED?
A LOT OF BIRDIES WERE TO FALL ON THE STATE, WHICH IS WHY I
THINK A LOT OF POLITICIANS HAVE A NEGATIVE KNEE-JERK
REACTIONS TO PROPOSAL LIKE THIS.
YOU SAID MAYBE AMERICAN POLITICIANS?
ABSOLUTELY.
WE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING SIMILAR THE OTHER DAY.
IT IS ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE AN ATMOSPHERE HAS TO
BE CREATED WHERE WE ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE THINGS WE
ARE WORRIED ABOUT.
I'M NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS ABOUT SWEDEN'S CARE, OR HOW MUCH
THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED, BUT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS THE
REASON WE GASP IS THAT WE'RE
THINKING ñ WE'RE THINKING FROM A PRIVILEGED POINT OF VIEW.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ALREADY SET UP A SITUATION IN A COUNTRY WHERE
THERE IS A SYSTEM ñ YOU PAY FOR US WITH YOUR TAXES ñ
THERE'S DAY CARE AND DROP OFF PLACES.
THIS HAPPENS IN CANADA.
WHERE YOU ARE NOT PAYING $500 FOR TWO DAYS A WEEK, IT IS PART
OF WHAT YOU ARE PAYING.
IF THAT EXISTED IN AMERICA, I WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE A KID.
AS A SINGLE MOTHER OR A SINGLE FATHER, YOU ARE NOT
THINKING HOW I GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?
THESE THINGS CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE, SO IF YOU HAVE
THIS LAW THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO OPT OUT, IT IS LESS OF A
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS TO THIS WOMAN?
IT MAKES IT EASIER.
BOTH OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS TRUE.
IN SWEDEN THEY HAVE MUCH BETTER SUPPORT FOR PARENTS, SO SHE
WILL BE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO TAKE CARE OF
THE KID, IT MAKES IT LESS OF AN ONUS ON HER.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT MAKES IT MORE COST FOR THE GENERAL
POPULATION, AND HENCE WHY MORE
PEOPLE MIGHT GET PISSED ABOUT IT.
EITHER WAY, I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE HAVE TO OWN UP TO THEIR
DECISION.
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
EIGHTEEN WEEKS, OR WHATEVER TIME
PERIOD YOU WANT TO PUT IT AT.
A WOMAN HAS A CHOICE TO MAKE, AND I THINK A MAN HAVE A
CHOICE TO MAKE.
IF A MAN SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED, IT IS NOT LIKE
THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.
THE WOMAN CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE THE BABY, AND SUPPORT IT
HERSELF, AND IN SWEDEN IT IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
BUT I THINK BOTH PARTIES SHOULD HAVE A SAY.