male abortion

What Might ‘Male Abortion’ Accomplish?

1 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 1 1 Flares ×

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.  

Concerning Equality

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.[1] 

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?[2] 

Concerning Justice

The conclusion people jump to is that male abortion will prevent entrapment, however, in the cases where the woman is vile enough to trick[3] 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[4]

– 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[5]). 

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. 


[1] An extended version of this truth creates an equality problem for the adoption option as well.

[2] 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. 

[3] 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. 

[4] 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. 

[5] 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.  




13 Responses to “What Might ‘Male Abortion’ Accomplish?”
  1. This is a good start. I'd go 18 steps further and say at the 0th week a man has no legal responsibility. Or better still, a man should be compelled to marry a girl just for humbling her, regardless of whether or not a pregnancy occurs, and he should not be allowed to divorce her, ever.

  2. Smurfsnuff says:

    I agree that this could ultimately lead to a less promiscuous society; however it could just as easily lead to abortion epidemics given the social engineering. Abstinence should really become priority, for many reasons, socially and medically. Would a debase society, as Sweden is swiftly becoming, ultimately find the act of aborting a child addictive? 

  3. Brutus Laurentius says:

    The 'male abortion' option does nothing for men in circumstances like this:

    Man and woman have sex.  Three weeks later, woman dumps man.   Man goes on about his life.   Three years later he gets a call from social services:  "You owe 33 months of back child support."

    He's scratching his head … huh?  

    So all it REALLY does is put females who are more honest (i.e. at least tell the man about the pregnancy) in greater jeopardy.   It would certainly, of course, put such women in a position to be more … discerning … in their choice of partners.  And I think that would be a bonus.  

    But also … this sort of negates the responsibility men have.  

    Because sex can result in pregnancy, it would make sense that a man would choose to limit sexual contact to only a female he would actually want to be the mother of his offspring.  

    Unfortunately, even though at least in theory, and assuming men can correlate cause and effect and predict consequences, the status quo and its incredible destructiveness to men should have long ago made men much more selective in their partners.   But this has failed to materialize. 

    So why would essentially spreading the pain to encompass women as well … have any better outcome?  Is there any reason to expect women have any better track record of changing behaviors in the face of cause and effect?

    Furthermore, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

    Like it or not, not all people are created equal.  Well, they may all be sinners in the eyes of God and equally eligible for salvation (depending on one's religious beliefs), but the idea that all people are equally capable of postponing gratification, behaving with a long-range moral view etc has no factual basis. 

    If you go to the highest income zipcodes in America — outside of Hollywood stars — you will find things like divorce to actually be quite rare.   Divorce is practiced by the middle and upper middle class.  But it is very rare among the upper class.   And at least in America, abortion is very rarely employed by women of middle, upper middle and upper class.   Such women, if they wish to have sex with men they would rather not marry or father their kids, employ effective birth control methods.   So even though abortions occasionally occur, they are actually pretty rare.  

    Where abortions most often occur is among people who don't associate cause with effect, who do not properly weigh risks, and of course have an orientation that their personal convenience is more important than someone else's life. 

    You can tell a lot about a man by who he will choose to have sex with.   And men who have sex with such women, are a lot like them.   Albert Einstein might have had 10 mistresses, but none of them were idiots.  

    So it seems to me that extending a right of abortion to men … would only really affect a small subset of men — perhaps only those men "trapped" by unscrupulous women … and maybe not even them since such women would obviously conceal their pregnancies. 

    I am not a big fan of the idea that two wrongs make a right or that equality is best served through broadly distributing misery.  

    Although "male abortion" wouldn't give men the right to kill babies (thank goodness), it would still give men a legal right to separate cause from effect — at the state's expense and at the expense of children raised without fathers.  

    Kids have no choice about the conditions into which they are born, which makes it incumbent upon adults to give them the best possible shot. 

    However … in the final analysis, even though I have argued (I think reasonably) against the idea of male abortion, I will support it. 


    You cannot win a war with defense only.   There must be an offense.   Offense is what gets the other side's attention and makes them question things.   Offense is how you win.  

    Its very pragmatic.   Not a sound moral position.   But then again, war never is.   I think in the LONG run it will do more good.  

    • bravetheworld says:

      great points. the socioeconomic point is key and applies to the single moms discussion as well. thank you for the valuable expantion on this issue…such an odd world we live in these days isnt it. 

  4. Ray says:

    The government should not be involved in any of this as laws are just threats of violence that usually result in the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.  Ultimately, people should be responsible for who they have sex with; having some gang of thieves that robs and controls people, supposedly looking out for the "rights" of women or men, just makes women less responsible in their choices, and the same for men… you just get more irresponsible behavior. Whenever threats of violence are use to remove responsibility from people, people become less responsible… that should be self evident.  And then the irresponsible people and their offspring then clamor for for more threats of violence to help correct their poor choices and lack of responsibility.

    Another point also, is that women and men should treat their children as people: they own themselves, the parents do not own the children; and as such, neither parent should not be required by force to have any relationship with them if they choose not to.  A great book to read on this subject is Roslyn Ross, "Theory of Objectivist Parenting".  It goes beyond peaceful parenting and being a benevolent dictator, and makes you realize that everyone owns themselves, even children.  In fact, the word "child" orginally had nothing to do with age, it had to do with whether you could support yourself or not.  By the original definition, there are many full grown people that are actually just children. 

    Once you remove the misconception that you own your child or are responsible for your child, you treat your children with more respect, and they learn to be responsible for themselves much quicker.  That doesn't mean you don't have a relationship with them, it just means your relationship is no longer that of the traditional master to slave, which is the problem with the world.. people thinking it is okay to control others.

    On a side note, pretty scary picture of Don King, one of the biggest con men of all time.. what has he ever produced?  He hasn't traded voluntarily with people… would like to research it some more… and maybe you could do an article on him.

    • Ray says:

      This is just a follow up, I forgot to mention that here in the US there are millions of men who want to be full time fathers and they can't because the woman has used the state to steal money from the fathers at gun point and threaten caging and murder and only let them see their kids twice a month.  There are probably millions of more fathers that are submitting to outright extortion from the mothers just to be with their children when they are growing up, because of the mother threatening to call the gang of thieves. Women should just be more honest and just aim the gun themselves at the husband and steal his money and threaten to kill him if he plays with his kids… that would be more honest… and many of these women are horrible mothers, but it doesn't matter to the gang of theives… in fact they profit more from horrible parenting because the state can then be the parents of the children, and the children will be more dependent on the state; it is part of their growth plan to have families fail and not work things out!

      • bravetheworld says:

        The State definitly wants to, and is detroying families. And for sure there are plenty of cases of fathers being shut out. But millions? Maybe. Hard to say. From life experience and history, men tend to ditch. It is a mating strategy for low income males. Men are JUST as responsible as women for single households. For every woman who shut our her kid’s father using the State, there’s 5 men who absolve their guilt and inherent responsibility, because they can leave and the State will pay for their kids. Don’t swallow the MRM pill…it takes two to create a nation of single household kids. 

        • Ray says:

          Well actually, no, if they leave, the state forces them to still pay for their kids, even if they never get to see them… the mother (or rarely the father) gets the stolen money.  Here are some census statistcs from the big gang from 2009, if you can believe them:

          As for millions, according to the same census data, it is over 5 million women getting custody payments in 2013; over 600 thousand men getting payments from women:

          I guess your point is that if they have no income the gang can't collect anything from them, so I agree with that, but what it also does, is it gives the men extra incentive not to work, because it is just going to be stolen anyway.

          Statistically, women do dump men far more then men dump women; that's why bars give free drinks to women to lure men in to pay ridiculous general, men pursue women, and women reject or agree to put up with men.  Most guys are easy, you should know that… women have to protect the egg, guys don't have to protect anything… guys would have your baby without even getting to know you… in general guys try to move way too fast.

          It is scary where you say "absolve their guilt and inherent responsibility"… as if they committed a crime by voluntarily agreeing to mate with someone… but it kind of is like that for some reason.  If a child truly owns itself, why should anyone owe it anything?  Shouldn't any care given to the child be voluntary?  Or do the parents own the children?  Or is it some combination or transition?  If it is a transition of ownership, who makes up the arbitrary rules and decides when the child moves from being a slave of the parents to actual self ownership? 


          • bravetheworld says:

            Well actually, no, if they leave, the state forces them to still pay for their kids, even if they never get to see them… the mother (or rarely the father) gets the stolen money.  Here are some census statistcs from the big gang from 2009, if you can believe them:


            As for millions, according to the same census data, it is over 5 million women getting custody payments in 2013; over 600 thousand men getting payments from women:



            I would not argue whether the State make these rulings. But another thing to consider: just because there is a child support order, it doesn’t mean it is being paid. Every single woman I know who is divorced had the man totally or somewhat bail on paying for his child. Most of these men MOVE AWAY and don’t care about having a relationship with their kids. This is common in divorce. Just saying this for perspective. I won’t deny plenty of good men get screwed in this process…but there are far more shitty men and shitty fathers than there are good ones (same goes with mothers). I disagree with the idea that there are hordes of abused men who get their kids taken and forced to pay for them (successfully) without having a very involved role in the bad situation.


            I guess your point is that if they have no income the gang can’t collect anything from them, so I agree with that, but what it also does, is it gives the men extra incentive not to work, because it is just going to be stolen anyway.


            Statistically, women do dump men far more then men dump women; that’s why bars give free drinks to women to lure men into paying ridiculous general, men pursue women, and women reject or agree to put up with men.  Most guys are easy, you should know that… women have to protect the egg, guys don’t have to protect anything… guys would have your baby without even getting to know you… in general guys try to move way too fast.

            I know all this, to a great extent (new video coming soon). But this works against your point. A woman’s mating strategy, because her eggs are expensive and pregnancy is a huge investment, she wants a man that will stick around. Whether it’s the father of her kids (that’s the ideal) or a man who is lower on the replication value scale, but will be a good provider (second best option). Biologically, there is 0 incentive for females to ditch a provider. I know the state affects this, but not fully. Biology is more powerful. This is often why women stay in horrible abusive relationships. Having a big roof over their kid’s heads, to them, seems worth a bloody lip. Our drives are powerful and scary.

            Women dump men:

            before they have kids

            and AFTER menopause (once the kids have grown up, and their brain rewires to become more self oriented).

            Men are at the height of abandoning females:

            when their kid are about 3-4 (in nature, the age where the kids are becoming less vulnerable)

            and as well as right before menopause, to exchange them for a more fertile woman

            It is scary where you say “absolve their guilt and inherent responsibility”… as if they committed a crime by voluntarily agreeing to mate with someone… but it kind of is like that for some reason.  If a child truly owns itself, why should anyone owe it anything?  Shouldn’t any care given to the child be voluntary?  Or do the parents own the children?  Or is it some combination or transition?  If it is a transition of ownership, who makes up the arbitrary rules and decides when the child moves from being a slave of the parents to actual self ownership?

            Not sure what you find scary. Morally, abandoning your own child is wrong. Before welfare, that child’s survival would decrease significantly if a male did that. Today it does not, so men have no guilt. Like if a woman abandons her kid to an orphanage in 19th century Poland, she would probably feel worse than if she did in 21 century America.

            A child did not ask to be conceived. A child a half you. A child you YOUR decision. A child cannot violently demand your care. I don’t care what contractual, NAP arguments have been made, they are simply nice excuses. The truth is, abandoning an individual who is incapable of self-care, who only exists because you created them, is immoral. Like when dr. frankenstein abandoned his monster. You cannot create life, wipe your hands clean, and whistle on your walk through the park. The monster will find you and kill you. Your children will never forget. 


            ps. really enjoying this conversation. Thank you!


  5. Ray says:


    Because children "are incapable of self-care", parents owe the children something?  That doesn't sound like objectivism, sounds more like socialism or communism, does it not? "Give to each according to their need, take from each according to their ability".  Ayn Rand just rolled over in her grave.

    I love your Frankenstein analogy though as it made me think of it in a new way, as people are going around literally creating monsters… creating kids that on their best day, the only thing they can produce is to convert food and electricity into poop and curse words… and yet these parents keep making more.

    Really great point though, I agree that it is the creators responsibility, in not violating the NAP, to control whatever it is they create, even if it was a machine or chemicals or whatever; of course if their children are violating the non-agression principle, at what age are parents no longer responsible?  And if the parents are using control, isn't that a master/slave relationship?  Also, going back to parents being "guilty"… I understand the use of that word if the parents have created monsters.. if the parents created productive non-aggressive junior Atlas Shrugged heroes, they would be "guilty" of that too, or would they be "innocent"? When are the parents no longer "guilty" if their offspring violates the NAP? Is there an age, and who sets the standard? And if the parent's are responsible, how far back does it go… grand parents?  great grand parents?  great great grand parents… thousands/millions of generations of screwed up, confused, instinctual controlling parents all the way back to dawn of man and further… not a single one understanding self ownership, until now, some people starting to wake up out of the darkness.

    What if the parents instead of abandoning this monster, fed the monster until it got big and became a Rothschild or Rockefeller?  Are they then guilty of feeding it and letting it get bigger to where it can do more harm?  Or should they have abandoned it?  Or maybe they were the jerks who made it into the mass murderer/robber, maybe if they would have abandoned the child and it was raised by other parents, it would have turned out fine.. maybe the cycle of destruction would have ended because of the abandonment?

    Maybe it is just me who wouldn't bail on my own child.. maybe it isn't millions.  Maybe the males that abandon kids, don't really like themselves, so they certainly wouldn't like living with and supporting a copy of themselves. Or maybe the women made life so miserable, that the men had no choice but to run away. I only know from myself and a few friends, and what I have read, so maybe my view is skewed.  I have seen most other people's kids, and I would skip town too, if they were my kids.  I definitely got lucky with my child, I am the richest man alive.

    I agree with you, that abandoning your children is morally wrong, but I'm not sure why that is true. If you view them as things that can cause harm to others, then I see, yes you better take care of them and make sure they don't turn into monsters… but what if you gave them the best care in the world and because of some genetic defect they still ended up harming others?  

    If parents are not feeling any desire to care for their own children, should they be force to take care of them anyway? Doesn't that just make more children in the world that don't want to take care of their children?

    What if everyone owned themselves, from the moment of exiting the vagina?  What if everyone was responsible for their own actions from that point on?  What if no one owed them anything from that point.. what if their crying and demands were just requests, and not orders. What if parents didn't look as raising their children as a responsibility, but more as something they chose to do? What if it was voluntary on both sides?

    • bravetheworld says:

      This is why I don’t like rigid philosophy. Does objectivism acknowledge that different rules should apply to individuals that are not yet fully capable of keeping themselves alive? I could argue from a contractual view that parents are obligated to take care of kids. As soon as any two people have sex they are entering into a contract of potentially having to care for potential result of this sexual act.

      I prefer to argue from an ethical point of view. Life is not a Libertarian courtroom.

      • Ray says:

        A is A, is a rigid philosophy… do you not like that?  "We can ignore the consequences of reality, but we can't ignore the consquences of ignoring reality"

        I was just asking questions, I wanted to get your take on it. Most of us are just children raised by children, so answers that should be simple and automatic require difficult thought.  Whatever the answers are, I don't think many people understand them.  Maybe peaceful coexistence and self ownership is contradictory to life; we all have to kill to live, even if we are just murdering plants… animal cells and plant cells are related.

        BTW, you said "the child didn't ask to be born".. how do you know that?  The egg seems to control an aweful lot and so do the sperm…they can send out chemicals to make their hosts literally sing and dance.  I could argue that the sperm and egg used force on the parents, made them lose their minds and reason, gave them temporary insanity, gave the woman lots of pain, and gave them both 18+ years of servitude.

        There have also been studies that even our gut bacteria, and yeast, and viruses are able to manipluate our brains and make us do things.  I know that there is one day a month when a woman looks about 10 times prettier and is about 1000 times less annoying than other days of the month… logically I know that is impossible, but it appears so to all my senses, and I'm guessing it is pheromones… then there are other days that a woman can be completely annoying no matter what she does.  Men and women get divorced because of this, when all they really needed was to open the window and get some fresh air.  PMS goes both ways; some women lose their memories and get all irritable… men around them can also find them extremely annoying, even if the women aren't experiencing symptoms.

        I guess either way, if we start using digital currencies, then hopefully the point of making threats of violence to have male abortions will be moot.



  6. Ray says:

    I was just thinking on this some more, and thinking how you kind of shut down when I pointed out what appears to me to be non-objectivist reasoning when it comes to helpless beings, and how the world is not a libertarian court room when it comes to helpless beings, that their neediness makes breaking the non-agression principle okay… is that what you meant?  Yet you say you prefer to deal with ethics… isn't it ethical not to use force on anyone?  Isn't it most ethical to treat every person as if they own themselves?  Or I am missing your meaning here?  Is ethics not connected with reason?

    It made me realize that it most likely isn't males abandoning their children, that it is more likely males trying to get away from the mothers… I base this on absolutely nothing other than the fact that reason seems to go out the window with mothers, in my experience.  I have yet to see a really logical woman when it comes to children, especially their own children, other than Ayn Rand, and 2nd place (or 1st place!) would be Roslyn Ross.  Women seem to gush over children for no practical reason, other than children are helpless… or for some other reason, not sure… I think it is just built-in wiring… and I see all kinds of claims that women are the better care giver, yet when I go to the zoo for example, I see 90% of the women just staring at their phones, not even watching their kids, certainly not engaging with them… it is because it is their "responsibility" not because it is something they actually want to do.

    It brings to mind that quote by Jack Nicholson from As Good As It Gets

    Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

    Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

    Or even funnier, a quote from Rocket in Guardians of the Galaxy:

    Rocket Raccoon: [scans a small child] Look at this thing. It thinks it's so cool. It's not cool to ask for help! Walk by yourself, you little gargoyle!

    Well I was enjoying this conversation too…it is nice to be able to argue with someone that is more self aware than most.  Thank you, too!

Leave A Comment

Reload Image