BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>Who said it was supposed to be fair?

We did, and have _made_ it fair in the past.

So how do we (legally) make this particular situation fair? Do we require the father's signature before an abortion can be performed? Do we allow the father to sign something during the pregnancy saying that he wanted the woman to have an abortion, but since she wouldn't, he denies any parental responsibility? (I suppose that could apply to him wanting her to put the baby up for adoption too.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think I would allow the man to make a choice.

hee hee hee

the root of the issue, isn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>So how do we (legally) make this particular situation fair?

My first pass at a solution:

Have a legally enforceable agreement made before having sex. It can either be explicit ("sign this before we do it") or archived (i.e. you go to a publicly-accessible website and register as a "non-responsible father" or "aborting mother" or "keeping the kid and wanting child support mother.")

If he registers as a non-responsible father, he can't get sued for child support. The woman can check if she wants. If she doesn't want to check before they have sex, that's fine too; her choice - but then she doesn't get to change her mind later.

Likewise, the woman can register as a "keeping the kid" in which case she gets child support - but she needs his approval to get an abortion. Or she can register as an "aborting mother" in which case she can do whatever she likes, but cannot get child support. Again, the guy can check if he chooses before they have sex.

If neither one registers, then we're back to what we have now. If one registers, that agreement is legally enforceable. If both register and their desires agree, it is legally enforceable. If both register and their desires conflict, it defaults back to what we have now.

It wouldn't solve the problem in all cases, but it would be a start, and would allow people to whom this is important to make their wishes known beforehand.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I think I would allow the man to make a choice.

hee hee hee

the root of the issue, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

And, while I don't think it's possible to give men an equal level of control over their reproduction, as women have through the choice of abortion, perhaps both parents should have an equal right to turn the baby over for adoption once it is born? (Maybe the decision would have to be made while abortion was still an option?)

I'm not sure exactly how that would work, or if it is already a legal option.... just thinking out loud.

[freeflybella 0]

I say just perfect the reversible vasectomy and be done with it.

Little snip = no babies

Ready for babies? Tie 'em back together!

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Shotgun 1]

Not a bad idea.

Though I suspect that the type of people who would bother to register and keep up with this stuff, are the type of people who are least likely to find themselves in this situation anyway.

Oh, and I would disagree about it being legally enforceable if only one person had registered. I think there would need to be some kind of proof that they were both aware of the other person's position.

[billvon 2,400]

>Though I suspect that the type of people who would bother to register
>and keep up with this stuff, are the type of people who are least likely to
>find themselves in this situation anyway.

Probably true. But I can also see it becoming very popular very fast as people avoid problems (or get into problems with it. And you know that within a few months someone would have a mobile app to let you register/check with your cellphone.

>I think there would need to be some kind of proof that they were
> both aware of the other person's position.

I would think that merely having proof that the position was available would suffice. If not you're back to having both people sign a contract or something.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I would think that merely having proof that the position was available would suffice.

I don't know. That assumes that everyone is aware of the registry, has access to it, and knows how to use it (and is literate, I suppose).

[Royd 0]

Quote

i asked the poster a question

im still waiting for the answer

Sorry, I don't come here, much, anymore.... I'm busy planting and growing a garden, and then, aborting the fruits of my labor, just before it reaches maturity.
To answer your question, did he deserve to die. In the end, yes. I simply rejoice in believing that Karmha is a bitch. You get what you deserve, no matter how it's delivered.
That doctor was probably the kind of person, who thought that being an usher, in the church, was somehow, going to cover his sins.
One must also wonder how a person could do this job, day in and day out, wash his hands, at the end of day, and tell himself that he's done a good thing.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Yep. Any procedure that can save the life of a woman is, to me, a "nice" medical procedure - even if you do not like how it's used 98% of the time. Posting how disgusting you think it is makes as much sense as posting how disgusting an amputation is. Yes, it's pretty gross. But it is often used to save lives, and thus I am glad there are surgeons who know how to do it.

Please tell me how aborting a perfectly healthy child, in the last few days of the pregnancy, is going to save the woman's life.[ I was going to say mother's, but that would be a misnomer.]
The woman's body has to be violently violated, in order to perform the procedure, if it does not correspond with the natural childbirth. How can that be good for her?
If the child has not properly developed, and the woman has had proper medical care, she is going to know, early on, that there is something wrong with the baby, and surely doesn't need to wait until the ninth month, to make a decision. Unless, of course, she's one of those mddle of the road, independent voters, who can never make up their mind, until the last minute.

[billvon 2,400]

>Please tell me how aborting a perfectly healthy child . . .

Please tell me how delivering a child with thanatophoric dysplasia, and then allowing him to slowly suffocate to death over the course of six months, is more humane than aborting him before he tries to draw his first breath.

>. . . is going to save the woman's life.

Eisenmenger's syndrome often requires emergency abortions to save the mother's life. Cervical cancer that requires radiation treatments often mandates abortion.

>If the child has not properly developed, and the woman has had
>proper medical care, she is going to know, early on, that there is something
>wrong with the baby . . .

If she has good medical care and gets (for example) amnio, she will likely know. If she doesn't, she may not know until the third trimester that she may have to go through a risky childbirth to deliver a braindead child.

Is late term abortion for medical reasons common? No, the most common reason, by far, for late term abortions is simple birth control. For the 2% that are for health reasons, I am glad they are available.

[Royd 0]

Quote

>Please tell me how aborting a perfectly healthy child . . .

Please tell me how delivering a child with thanatophoric dysplasia, and then allowing him to slowly suffocate to death over the course of six months, is more humane than aborting him before he tries to draw his first breath.

>. . . is going to save the woman's life.

Eisenmenger's syndrome often requires emergency abortions to save the mother's life. Cervical cancer that requires radiation treatments often mandates abortion.

>If the child has not properly developed, and the woman has had
>proper medical care, she is going to know, early on, that there is something
>wrong with the baby . . .

If she has good medical care and gets (for example) amnio, she will likely know. If she doesn't, she may not know until the third trimester that she may have to go through a risky childbirth to deliver a braindead child.

Is late term abortion for medical reasons common? No, the most common reason, by far, for late term abortions is simple birth control. For the 2% that are for health reasons, I am glad they are available.

I agree with your last statement, but if the child has the ability live a perfectly healthy life, claiming that the health of the mother is at risk, is a bogus argument. She still has to go through the delivery procedure. Sorry, but killing the baby, at that stage of the game, is murder. At least, to anyone has a conscience.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Not everyone on a death row is criminal,

No one is. Just ask them.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Not everyone on a death row is criminal,

No one is. Just ask them.

In the past 35 years, 132 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,400]

>She still has to go through the delivery procedure.

The D+E procedure involves dilating the cervix far less than would be needed for delivery and then removing the fetus in pieces. It is sometimes used when a normal delivery could result in a high level of risk to the mother.

However, in general I agree with your sentiment that delivering the child (and subsequent adoption or whatever) is by far the better choice.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Sorry, but killing the baby, at that stage of the game, is murder. At least, to anyone has a conscience.

But what's wrong with it? Apparently just a few posts ago you seem to be ok with murder if the "cause" is right. Or you're only against "murdering" fetuses, but once it's born it is fine?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *