Insemination To Become Reality For Single Women In Sweden

Art. insemination being allowed under the law or not for unmarried women is not the issue. It's about condoning, officially, out-of-wedlock births. Ultimately I feel it's nobody's business one way or another if people are married or not when they have kids. That's just my opinion. What is important is if the father of the child is both fit and present as such. If a woman quite deliberately deprives her child of this, she is doing something very wrong to her child and the father. But as we see it happens with or without government's tacit approval, day in and day out. She need merely meet a man, say she is on b/c, have unprotected sex with him long enough to get pregnant, and then be on her way. It can happen any time. So I feel that since we can't be sure if that is what is happening in such a situation, we ought to take precautions against becoming a father unawares. Just my $.02, what you choose to do with your own life is up to you, but personally, I wouldn't like knowing I had a son or daughter walking around in the world who I would never even knew existed.

sweden is ruled by a constitutional monarch. he/she rules w/in the confines of the constitution.
gosh, wish our pol's would try it.

however, other readings suggest it is ruled by socialists.

getting rid of dada (and mama) is communism 101. odd how often those who deny being something
always seem to line up w/ it in the end. what do they call that? oh yeah, karma.

imho, feminists and communists were joined at the hip at birth.

I don't buy that about communism at all. By that reasoning, Cubans should have weak families. But they don't. They have stronger families than in the U.S. I agree that many of the Marxists in the U.S. try to tear apart families for the purpose of pushing an agenda. But I disagree that socialism and communism are inherantly anti-family or are more anti-male than capitalism.

In socialist-leaning Belgium and Holland, men have presumed joint custody, there are state-funded battered men's shelters, and the medical communities oppose the mutilation of boys' genitals. None of that is true in the U.S. Men in Belgium and Holland can also safely turn to sex workers and smoke medical marijuana (most medi-pot users are men). Not in the U.S.

By contrast, in Japan, separated dads have virtually no custody rights, and they have very high suicide rates due to the extremes of the workforce and the discrimination against dads. Israel has some of the worst anti-male discrimination there is (they still use "tender years doctrine," women can retire at a younger age, men are forced into military, etc.). Germany and Britain have horrible laws against dads too.

I've heard that argument from MRAs for a decade and I don't buy it at all.

Where's the sperm going to come from?? Men in Sweden would need to man up, a daunting task in the mecca of feminazism, stop having recreational sex, stop having unprotected sex, stop donating to sperm banks, heck, even stop selling your sperm for whatever the price.

Then again, men in Sweden have been basically neutered, both legally and emotionally, the only way would be to leave that country.

i could throw the commie u.s.s.r. right back at ya, where as kids we learned
first hand how the state took ownership of their children, much like we have now.

and then there is communist china with the total control over the children's
lives, and the one child per family, and forced abortions, and on and on.

these countries you site, belgium and holland, are a sort of socialism lite,
from what we see on the news. not exactly the full blown commie jack booters.

many japanese males are like a lot of the u.s. males. they stand by and
nod their heads while the feminist monster takes and takes and takes. one day you
wake up and have nothing left. same thing as we have here, and not so much more extreme.

using cuba as the example to prove the point is a false front. hispanics, in general,
are by their upbringing family oriented, always have been. even if you took the kids completely away, its an island. they will eventually wind up back home anyway.

the reason i see feminism and socialism/communism as being so much alike is that they both
seem to thrive on other people's stuff. neither group can exist w/o taking from others
and handing it out to their subscribers. i always said women (in general) make better socialists/communists than men, for that reason.

@davinga, no it's just such a useless hyperbole. So Belgium and Holland are "lite", Cuba is an island, but the US and Japan are just like the USSR because of feminists? Talk about cherry picking your facts!

The more I look at it, the more it looks like equal rights for men has nothing to do with left or right politics. It has to do with equal rights for men, period, full stop. I totally appreciate all the conservative guys who really started the MRM but they're going to have to put aside the politics if they want the movement to grow and make a real difference.

Davinga misses the point by pointing to the extreme examples. My point was that communism and Marxism are not inextricably anti-family even if some communist countries are. Yes, Belgium and Holland are "lighter" versions but they're more toward communism/Marxism than the U.S. and Japan are, and yet they have presumed joint custody, battered men's shelters, etc. that the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason why a communist, socialist, or capitalist country has to have anti-male laws. Some of them do, but it's not necessary to that form of government. That's the point.

about how putin is having trouble with the population growing old, and no replacement troops to build the great russian army back up to snuff. should we not attribute this destruction of the family and the fact that russian women now average as many abortions as births (1.3 per) to a communist past and the complete devastation in its wake? the absoute failure of socialism/communism and its pitiful failures hangs in the air like a stench, a curse if you will. people only strive to improve if that improvement is immediately felt, as in immediate rewards. russia learned this the hard, slow way.

each country mentioned so far on this thread has its own unique problems. however, the ones headed into socialism/communism/marxism (s/c/m), to whatever degree, are just feeding off the fat of the country until it is gone, and the stench of prolonged failure sets in. the old saying is that these systems (s/c/m) only work as long as there is somebody else's money to spend. i believe china's leaders believed this, and started china on a path to wealth by embracing capitalism, of a sort. the people are still mostly poor, but the country has enough wealth to lend us trillions toward our own destruction, i'm sure.

so the old MRA's should move over, eh? choosing sides left/right is not helping us out? i agree that the right is almost as stupid about men's rights as the left, almost. however, i still haven't met any right wing whacko feminists, yet. the very word 'feminism' has serious negative connotaions on many sites. the conservative women i read about usually don't espouse hatred of men, just the opposite. it looks to me like our problems with the right start and end with the manginas.

My observation about the US is that it's now about socialism for women and capitalism for men. If a woman has a problem, we're all supposed to do something about it. If she can't afford birth control, we're supposed to help her get it. If a man has problem, however, it's his problem; he's largely on his own. Most US entitlement programs benefit women and children; few benefit men. A woman with children can get full welfare benefits; an able-bodied man can usually get only food stamps. And we know who the government goes after to repay the welfare benefits the woman received.

If the US goes fully socialist, however, men should be entitled to the same benefits as women. But my observation is that such systems don't work in the long run. The Soviet Union collapsed; China is surviving by adopting capitalism. The problem is always the same: the piper has to be paid at some point. Capitalism generates far more wealth than socialism, making it easier to pay the piper. Socialism lives off the fat of capitalism until there's no fat left and it turns back to capitalism. And I say that as someone who used to support socialism/communism. It sounds great but it never quite works out the way it's supposed to.