Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and take on fatherly duties. The typical solution is to “forget” to take the pill or just let the man falsely assume she is taking birth control.

1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

We propose that

a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

Advantages:

1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally “forgotten birth control” to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
   1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
   2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.

It fixes our perverted system in which

1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
   1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
   2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
   3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility

b) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

Who will pay for children’s needs?

If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

Your comments are welcome

All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights (further analysis)

Your comments are welcome

All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment.

On the other hand, the same conservatives try to shield the agricultural industry, so that unconscious consumers of eggs, or hamburgers, have no awareness of the cruelty towards feeling adult animals involved in the creation of the meal. No pictures of sick caged hens on supermarket egg cartons or of movies of slaughterhouses at the butcher’s!

The new ultrasound law not only requires the medical procedure, but also requires that women know they have the option to hear a description of what is seen in the ultrasound, to receive a photograph of the ultrasound image and to view the ultrasound.
There is no exception for victims of rape or incest.
The lawsuit argues the ultrasound requirement is “unconstitutionally vague” because it doesn’t explain whether a person performing the ultrasound exam must try to force the woman to accept the envelope containing the photograph. The lawsuit also says it could violate a patient’s right to confidentiality by “exposing their private information to the risk of delivery by third parties.”
During legislative debate, supporters of the new law said they hoped the ultrasounds could dissuade women from getting an abortion by having to learn more about their pregnancies. Opponents said requiring a procedure that might not be available at a free clinic nearby will make it more difficult and costly for women to get
abortions.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged similar ultrasound laws in other states.

nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/08/louisianas_latest_abortion_law.html
wwltv.com/news/local/Abortion-clinics-file-suit-against-states-new-abortion-laws-100157199.html

Normally, human-stupidity is in favor of increasing consciousness. Though, this is more about emotional sentimentailsm then about intellectual awareness.  We also agree with abortion foes, in that i t would be better if abortions could be avoided. If not by abstinence then responsible sexuality with diligent use of birth control. We think these abortion ultrasound movies should be shown BEFORE women have unprotected sex that gets them pregnant in the first place. Of course, consciousness raising would also require showing movies about the hardship of unwed pregnancies and child rearing.

Now, interestingly, the same conservatives who want to increase women’s consciousness about their fetuses and their abortions, often decry birth control education in school sex ed.

The anti-abortion conservatives also normally back up the meat industry who actively hides their cruel activities  from the general populace.  The average meat eater would be appalled and turn vegetarian if he were constantly reminded of all the cruelty in industrial caged animal raising and slaughtering. Peter Singer, and many TV stations were consistently denied access to filming US industrial animal farming enterprises.

The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer $25.95 157954889X (get a free sample online or on your kindle) “the company does not allow photographs inside the barn because many people would not understand why the birds are ein a cages.” .. textbook Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture … “For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows about what’s happening before the meat hits the plate, the better ….   Of of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people in the developed coutnries are several generations removed from the farm and haven’t a clue how animas are raised and processed” [...] if urban meat eaters were to see the raising and processing of  industrially produced chickens, “they would not be impressed”. Many of them might even “swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat”. [...] “You’re not going to see a beef-packing plant to be transparent. They can’t. It’s so shocking to the average person”.

So why not put the meat industry to the same standards as abortions in Louisiana? Require McDonalds customers, before having a Big Mac, to watch a movie about industrial cattle raising in tiny stalls and slaughter houses. And before having a scrambled egg, make it mandatory to watch a movie about caged hens. Put drastic images on egg and beef packaging, like the gruesome lung cancer pictures on cigarette packs.  This would help getting us a population of vegans, or vegetarians. Or at least of getting more human poultry raising, with free running chicken instead of caged hens. Peter Singer isn’t even radical about vegetarianism, he would find eating happy range cattle far more acceptable then eating animals that suffered unnatural torturous confinement all life long.

If we are untroubled by boiling an egg where we would not dream of doing the same to a live adult chicken, this should tell us something about the so-called “right to life” of the unborn foetus. utilitarian.net/singer/about/20030714.htm

Peter Singer’s utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering in all creatures. Young early embryos do have hands and feet but – unless one postulates a religious “soul” that science has no knowledge about – are biologically, physiologically incapable of consciousness, of will to live, and pain.  Animal livestock does have all these emotions, all life long.

This is why movies of animal suffering depict real suffering, while movies of tiny embryos are nothing but playing with women’s emotions.

This is the opinion of the Christian government of the state of Bavaria and of a stong minority of the government of Germany. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos to be implanted into women in fertility treatment should be outlawed.

Even though preventable, without abortion, and without having less offspring, women should be obliged bear defective children. These children will have a life of suffering, make their family suffer and be a burden to society. By simple pre-implantation genetic testing all this suffering could be avoided and instead a happy productive child could be born.

Religion prefers genetically damaged children to healthy children

I think only the twisted mind of religion could come up with such a perverted idea of how to create suffering on this earth. All this in the name of the rights of defective embryos! But, instead, a healthy embryo, already available, and ready to be implanted, will be discarded and distroyed.

German Government Divided over Calls for Embryo Protection

Artificial insemination: Politicians want new legislation to ban genetic testing of embryos.

Maria Böhmer of the CDU, a senior official in Merkel’s Chancellery, is also calling for a rapid ban on PGDs. “There can be no selection between handicapped and non-handicapped life,” Böhmer said. The politician argued that it would be impossible to place limits on the selection of traits once doctors were permitted to do PGD tests.

Following a federal court decision that would allow pre-implantation genetic diagnosis procedures in Germany, a number of conservative politicians are calling for a tightening of German law to ensure that “selection” of embryos cannot take place.

A growing number of conservative politician in Germany are rallying for a swift prohibition on genetic testing of embryos produced via artificial insemination prior to implantation in a mother’s womb. The politicians with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), are reacting to a ruling last Tuesday by the Federal Court of Justice that such procedures were not in violation of the country’s Embryo Protection Law.

“We need a swift change in the law to make clear that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does not lead to selection,” said Markus Söder, the health minister for the state of Bavaria. Söder, a member of the CSU, said he had sympathy for future parents who would want to do this, but that it was unacceptable that embryos could be destroyed through PGD procedures.

Söder has been one of the most prominent critics of the plan by German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and her business-friendly Free Democratic Party to immediately permit gynaecologists to start using PGD as a result of the court ruling. The FDP shares power as the junior coalition partner in Merkel’s government. Söder has criticized the fact that genetic screening inevitably leads to human embryos being chosen based on genetic criteria.

“This goes to the core of our Christian worldview,” Söder said. “There can be no compromises.”

‘There Can Be No Selection’

In its ruling last week, the court said PGD tests do not violate the country’s Embyro Protection Law. Under the protection law, which has been on the books since 1991, those who use embryos in a way that does not promote their survival, such as scientific research, can be prosecuted and sentenced to up to three years in prison. However, noting that the aim of PGD testing is healthy pregnancies, the court ruled that embryos can be screened for serious genetic defects before implantation in the mother.

Maria Böhmer of the CDU, a senior official in Merkel’s Chancellery, is also calling for a rapid ban on PGDs. “There can be no selection between handicapped and non-handicapped life,” Böhmer said. The politician argued that it would be impossible to place limits on the selection of traits once doctors were permitted to do PGD tests.

However, German Education and Research Minister Annette Schaven of the CDU said she believed it was too early to discuss changing the laws. Schavan is instead calling for the court decision to be reviewed by the German Ethics Council, an independent body comprised of scientific, medical, theological, ethical, social and economic experts who provide opinions to the government on issues in those areas. She said that ethics on genetic testing must take into consideration Germany’s law protecting embryos as well as the constitution. Meanwhile, the head of the CDU’s party group in parliament, Volker Kauder, has said he wants to start discussions over a possible ban on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis at a meeting of the party in early December.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,706040,00.html
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=26255 (repost, in case the original link goes away)

Google translation of German FAZ article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/0,1518,705997,00.html German

Religion prefers genetically damaged children to healthy children

I think only the twisted mind of religion could come up with such a perverted idea of how to create suffering on this earth. All this in the name of the rights of embryos! But, instead, a healthy embryo will be discarded and distroyed.

God Himself aborts 80% of fertilized human eggs

It must be said: the great majority of fertilized human eggs never turn into pregnancy. They either don’t even implanted, or suffer spontaneous abortion. For the sake of avoid a few damaged children, nature aborts the majority of fertilized ovi.

Proof: why does a women who has sex every day need almost a year to become pregnant? Even though she has ovulation once a month with several days of chance to get pregnant? This is why. Most fertilized eggs never become a pregnancy. God is wiser then His religious dogmatic followers.

Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.

http://www.estronaut.com/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

The exact numbers need more research. But be it 40% or 90% of spontanous abortions: God is the worlds greatest abortionist! Sorry to say that. But he does it for good reasons. To maintain genetic health!

None of the proposals under discussion would ban abortion. None would take away your right to buy abortion coverage with your own money. None would force you to pay for somebody else’s abortion. These are the conceptual parameters on which all sides have, for the time being, agreed.

So they already clobbered Congress into making special complicated arrangements for abortion foes (so called pro-lifers). Only for this vociferous group. Not for other special interests or religious convictions.

Abortion, we’re told, is different from other issues caught up in the health care debate. It’s a question of ultimate values, impervious to compromise. [...]
Each side has legitimate worries. Pro-choicers fear that insurers will abandon abortion coverage. Pro-lifers fear that insurers will be forced to include it. Pro-choicers fear that women won’t buy abortion coverage if the premiums are separated up front. Pro-lifers fear that abortion opponents will be suckered into abortion coverage if the premiums aren’t separated up front. We’ll have years of studies, hearings, legislation, and lawsuits to follow up on these concerns and fine-tune the policy.Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2239647/

• “Pro-lifers” are opposed to abortion and thus want to make sure their money does not go towards funding someone’s abortion
• Well I am opposed to paying for the war in Iraq.  Did they make special income tax arrangements for me? Those in favor of the Iraq war can pay a special additional war tax.
• I am also against nuclear weapons. Those who want the US to have nuclear missiles should opt into a special nuclear tax option.
• I am opposed to keeping people alive in intensive care, when they are brain dead in a coma. Or when they are terminally ill and in pain and are not allowed to die.
  • Some of these guys live for 15 years in intensive care in a coma.
  • Very expensive.
  • Can I please have a health insurance exemption so I don’t have to pay for that?
• I am totally profoundly against this artificial prolonging of life,  I consider this torture.  It is against my consciousness and against my religion.
• It is unnatural. In nature, very sick animals and people get mercy killing by predators.

The above items are ultimate values for me. No compromise is possible. They are my religious belief, so by no means I must be forcet to pay for unjust wars of aggression and painful prolonging of life a against a person’s will. My beliefs on the follwing items are a little less strong, still I think I deserve exemptions in order not to pay for the following items:

• I am also against paying for diseases people caused to themselves. I don’t want to pay treatment for people who
  • committed suicide attempts
  • abuse alcohol and drugs
  • do extreme sports and have accidents due to their recklessness
  • engange in criminal activities and get shot by police or rival gangs
  • overeat
  • don’t exercise

• I live in a hot state. I am also opposed to treat people for frost bite. That should be an add-on.
• I live on ground floor. I don’t want to pay for elevator maintenance.

So we should have 15 different voluntary private add-on insurance options for each of the following: comatose, terminally ill, obese, self-endangering, reckless, criminal, drug addicted, alcoholics, ……

Note the absurd idea that parents or young people will, at extra cost,  add insurance for abortion, criminal activity, drug addiction. They will presume that they will not engange in these behaviors, that they will not need the insurance.

This is religious zealots’ terror.  If you are against abortion, then don’t do abortion. But leave other people alone.

Actually, I agree that one should use better birth control, to make efforts to avoid needing abortion. But the same people who are against abortion are the ones that are sex education and promotion of birth control.