What Might ‘Male Abortion’ Accomplish?
The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party is proposing to legalize 'male abortion' up to the 18th week of pregnancy. What this means is, a man can sign away all parental rights and responsibilities during the time frame in which a female can legally terminate a pregnancy. The logic here is that if a woman has the right to choose not to be a parent, then a man should too. I don't disagree with this sentiment of equality and justice, but sentiments rarely effectively translate to reality.
The ends and the means of male and female abortion are dissimilar, and far from equal.
The Means: a man signing away his parental rights to a child he cannot feel, or fully comprehend, is not the same thing as having an invasive procedure (with risk of physical and emotional complications) to destroy a human life that the female may be emotionally connected to, and can physically feel inside of her.
The Ends: female abortion results in a permanent termination of life. With male abortion, the child can still be born. The man's genes may live on. He might even have the opportunity to reconsider his abortion. If the mother kept the child, and is willing, the man could be an involved father in the future. This reality also functions as a drawback, depending on the father's attitude. If the child remains unwanted, the father will always be at risk of his bastard finding and confronting him.
Due to a basic biological difference between the sexes, when it comes to abortion, true 'equality' cannot exist.
This inequality can be observed within our current systems. Today female abortions are legal and accessible in the name of equality, but complete reproductive rights for women turned out to be the robbery of some reproductive rights from men. There have been plenty of boyfriends and husbands who did not wish for their partner to terminate their pregnancy; is he not justified in his wish? Are they not his genetics too?
The conclusion people jump to is that male abortion will prevent entrapment, however, in the cases where the woman is vile enough to trick the man into impregnating her, I would assume she would wait until after 18 weeks to tell him of the pregnancy. Dishonest people don't suddenly become honest because the rules changed.
In all other cases
– Both parties were either careless or experienced a statistical failure of their contraceptive method
– The woman is moral enough to inform the male of the pregnancy
– The woman chooses not to have an abortion (fyi, not all women believe in this option to begin with)
– The man 'aborts,' becoming absolved of all responsibility from the result of an act he chose to partake in
The Winner: the man, who gets to propagate his genes without investment
The Losers: the tax payer (unless a new partner is found or the mother is financially sound), the child (who will feel abandoned by their father even if a stepfather is present), and the mother (who didn't have the foresight to not sleep with a paternity wittol).
The Take Away
Male abortion, in all likelihood, would do little in terms of equality and justice, but it may result in something more interesting. If non-deceptive females know that males are able to legally avoid reproductive responsibility, might they make more of an effort to pair-bond with righteous men? Could the "modern" woman be transformed into the chaste woman as a result of Liberal policy? One expects the curbing of unabashed promiscuity to be the job of the reactionary alt-right, but I vote male abortion. Or syphilis.
 An extended version of this truth creates an equality problem for the adoption option as well.
 If we accept radical individualism (personhood beginning at conception), and basic parental rights, then we accept that abortion is not only immoral, but when done without the consent of the father, a violation of paternity rights. Yet because the female is too an individual, we cannot force her to grow a human being in order to preserve the paternity rights of the male. Have reached an impasse? Not exactly. The logic of minimum harm can save us. In the not so far distant future, a man could pay to extract and incubate his preborn child, while the mother signs away all parental rights.
 Trickery includes convincing a man that she is infertile, going off the pill, or inseminating herself with sperm deposited outside her body. Everything else is an accident, which means shared responsibility. Men: do not assume that the default to accidental conception is abortion. Know the risks to every birth control method. If you scapegoat this responsibility on women, you demote yourselves to boy children. My advice: if you are having sex with women you don't trust, wear a condom, pull out before you ejaculate, and flush it.
 These are scenarios anywhere from committed relationships where expectations were set, to one night stands between strangers. Unfortunately what is implied or agreed upon prior to conception is often unreliable because the occurrence of pregnancy changes attitudes. For example: a married woman that thought she didn't want kids is likely to have a change of heart once pregnant because of a hormonal shift. On the flip side, a man infatuated with a girl may say he wants her to have his children, but back out after the pregnancy due to fear, or any other number of reasons. In both of these scenarios there is not intended deception, yet the other party would be right to feel sidelined.
 A wittol is a male that allows other males to fuck his wife. A paternity wittol is a male that abandons the mother of his brood, leaving her to be fucked by other men.