Things to think of before you get married again..

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.
Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required
to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no
mandatory
medical information."
So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very
serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.
I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and
force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't
want.
Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital
drug
to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,
give
the
child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it.
Instead,
she
chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.
I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of
the unwanted child?

Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility -
father
should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire
department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child
is
"unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child.

That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do
just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do,
even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child.
That's just reality.

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what
you want? I don't.

If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the
child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion,
the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason
that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are
unwilling
to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the
firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the
firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the
preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a
dumpster.

Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still
flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and
killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late
term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another
post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no
meaningful punishments for these types of crimes.

It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers
are
abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them
"parents"
just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse.

I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between
having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting
the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe
harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the
irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die
in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?


I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here
is why.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers. Mothers who are hiding pregnancies are sanctioned
under these laws to continue the hide the truth after childbirth. The
concept behind the drop off law is to save the baby, but the reality is the
mother is saving her own butt to preserve her secret. Her choice is murder
or lie. And these laws reinforce the stigma of unwanted pregnancies for
young girls suggesting hiding the pregnancy and child birth will make it go
away.