Search the Community

Hello FDR!, Today I came across a series of convoluted reports on a court case in Oklahoma, USA concerning a young woman's marriage to her biological mother. The mother, allegedly, had previously been married to her son. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bet.com/news/national/2017/11/09/woman-pleads-guilty-to-incest-for-marrying-her-biological-mother.amp.html http://www.kswo.com/story/33054070/brother-claims-siblings-were-manipulated-by-mother Of course I'm thinking 'Isn't incest illegal because of the biological risks correlated with incestual reproduction?' Upon further reading I learned that there are two states in the USA that do not legally enforce ant-incest laws to impede people from participating in incest. In Canada, Incest is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It's curious that we treat incest with such severe opposition because of the health risk involved in incestual breeding but we do not consider other forms of dangerous breeding to be as serious an offence. In many cases, dangerous breeding that may result in serious health problems or environmental deficiencies are facilitated by the incentives government subsidies provide through the use of force against citizens who generate economic growth. I'm opposed to the idea of incest between two consenting adults but I'm not sure it justifies caging the weirdos for a decade. If that choice does justify being caged for a decade, should we not hold other forms of dangerous breeding to an equal standard of legal judgement? *There is an important distinction made between incestual pedophilia or molestation and a voluntary incestual relationship between two consenting adults.

Preeclampsia and other pregnancy complications as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen - JENNIFER A. DAVIS AND GORDON G. GALLUP JR. State University of New York at Albany How's this for an argument on committed relationships lead to healthier children? This information is new and may, or may not, hold up over time. Although, I didn't see a public argument against it--which would mostly be people with pitchforks and torches because this could bring a lot of parties to a crashing halt. (Insert scratched record sound here!)

Pretty amazing paper using Bing searches from pregnant women to explore the concerns of women over the gestation period. One of the head scientists at Microsoft, Horvitz, is an author. http://www.adamfourney.com/papers/fourney_white_horvitz_chi2015.pdf image hosting over 5mb

This is a followup to some ideas I outlined in this post. I started thinking about this in terms of a stateless society and DRO's, but I realized it might even work in the current statist system (though the govt likely would have to allow it as they've got incentives not to)...is this a good idea? a terrible idea? am I missing something? any feedback would be appreciated Disputes arising from unintended pregnancy, putting your money where your mouth is. People take risks. Smart people mitigate those risks, insurance is a common approach. Unintended pregnancy is one of the risks many take, and the consequences can be devastating -- emotionally, spiritually, and financially. What if this risk, too, could be mitigated through voluntary contractual obligations, unintended pregnancy insurance? Below I've outlined, in a simplistic way, two "insurance plans" and the various ways that disputes could arise -- and be resolved -- between participants of those plans should an unintended pregnancy occur. These insurance plans could provide incentives for people to make better choices with regard to sex partners and could provide leverage to "get your way" in any disputes that arise. Being contract-based they're likely to hold more weight in court -- should things come to that -- as it's not just a "he said, she said" situation, but rather a contractual obligation. If such a system were widely adopted, people could use inter-group sexual ostracism to further mitigate their risks. Sure, some people will always be irresponsible, but wouldn't it be great if you could just check the "insurance card" of a potential partner and *know* that your values align? The plans: Plan A - (A for abortion) prefers kids be aborted, or A(d)opted Plan B - (B for baby) prefers kids not be aborted Plan A gives discounts for birth control use, biggest discount for long-lasting injection-type. Also gives discounts for time without a claim. An optional additional premium goes toward incentivizing adoption over abortion, let's call this Plan A(d). Plan B gives discounts only for time without a claim. The players: Manny the man-whore and Suzy the floozy are both on plan-a, they've agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children and have insurance to cover contingencies. Manny has plan A(d), he doesn't want any children but would prefer his progeny be adopted over aborted. Suzy doesn't want to be tied down with the complications of pregnancy at all and therefore has plan A. Sally the saint and Mark the moralist are both on plan-b, they would prefer that even unintentional pregnancies be carried to term. Irene and Ivan are both irresponsible, they have no "abortion insurance" at all. Vance and Veronica don't want any kids, ever, so they've chosen vasectomy and tubal ligation, respectively. They don't have to worry about any of this. The scenarios: Note that payouts/incentives would be an effect of the "level" of insurance one carries, if one party has a $500k policy and the other has a $50k policy, the one with a higher level of coverage is going to have much more leverage. So, what happens when we mix up these variations of preference in the sexual arena, and unintended pregnancies result? Let's explore some of the possibilities. I) Manny unintentionally impregnates Sally. Manny does not want to be responsible for his progeny, he doesn't want children, and he's got insurance to mitigate the financial impact of his poor decision making. Sally refuses to abort the child and has insurance to mitigate the financial impact. In this case Plan A and Plan B underwriters get together and come up with the following options: 1 - Sally can be paid (by plan A(d), Manny's insurer) to abort the child. 2 - Sally can choose to release Manny from any liability, for appropriate compensation, and to carry out the pregnancy and either - a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation in accordance with Manny's coverage. 3 - Sally can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support. II) Manny unintentionally impregnates Suzy. They've both agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children...these are Suzy's options: 1 - Suzy can have an abortion, paid for by Manny's insurer. 2 - Suzy can choose to release Manny and their insurers from any liability and carry out the pregnancy and either -- a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation from Manny's plan A(d) coverage. 3 - Suzy can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support, her case will likely be thrown out of court as she's already signed agreements not to do this. III) Manny unintentionally impregnates Irene. Manny is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, Manny's insurance will cover part of the expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child, releasing Manny and his insurer from liability. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Manny's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. IV) Mark ("the moralist") unintentionally impregnates Sally. They both prefer their progeny not be aborted. These are Sally's options: 1 - Sally can carry the child to term, receive compensation from Mark's insurance and either - a) keep the child. b) give the child up for adoption (possibly to Mark.) 2 - Sally can keep the child and follow the traditional route. 3 - Sally can, at her own expense, abort the child. She will likely be dropped from her insurance coverage or her rates will increase significantly. V) Mark unintentionally impregnates Suzy, the options for Suzy are much the same as II above, varying only in regard to compensation for the various options (i.e. Mark's insurance will not pay for an abortion and will offer incentives to carry out the pregnancy.) VI) Mark unintentionally impregnates Irene. Mark is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, at her own expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child and release Mark and his insurer from liability for just compensation. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Mark's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. VII) Ivan unintentionally impregnates Irene. Neither are insured. Irene's options are: 1 - no different than they are today.

Hi FDR, We, my partner and I, are expecting a tod (delivery date: Mars 2015) and we're thirsty for all kinds of knowledge: How the baby develops throughout the pregnancy and what to think about in different stages, how the environment and emotions/stress-levels of the mother affects the fetus, what to eat/avoid, exercise that prepares for delivery, facts about nursing, how to create a stimulating/safe environment for the baby's development to thrive, etc. etc. Basically anything that you found/could be helpful during pregnancy and the first year(s) with the baby. That is: What books, blogs, YouTube-videos/channels, studies, etc. would you recommend? FYI: Currently in week 10. We're in our mid twenties, have a cat, live in an apartment in the city, don't really exercise on a regular basis but try to live healthy, eat mostly vegetarian (some fish and occasionally meat from "happy" animals), we're going to unschool/radical unschool, mother's a psychologist (father's a passionate bum ). Oh, and we're living in the socialist Mecca, Sweden, where unschooling is illegal, so we have to emigrate (better sooner than later), do you know if we could get political asylum anywhere (U.S/NZ/AUS/Canada). Thanks in advance, lampan