Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.
Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.
No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.
NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.
I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.
I Don't Know.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It absolutely does.
From my point of view this was not an issue until a verifiable paternity test with a very low error rate was available. Before this is was a he said/she said and if the man had any pull at all he could get out of it. Now that such a test exists we have this as an issue. From my point of view once a child is born the parents of that child should have a legal obligation for supporting that child enforceable by penalties including imprisonment in extreme cases. If the man is such a screw up that they are not really able to even take care of his self properly then his rights can be severed but at the cost that he has a no contact order placed against the women and the child and the woman again to the man. Violation of such an order will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the man had more than the means to take care of himself or whatever family then he would be under obligation to provide for the child by court order but with a right to have the expenses audited by a court every 3 years. It would apply until the child has reached age 19 this policy would apply to offspring done outside of marriage and where he is not married. If he was married then the child would be able to receive benefits until age 25 under certain circumstances.
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
My Body, My Choice, is an argument based on a false premis.
The premise is: "It's my body".
This can be interpreted one of 2 ways, depending on what is meant by "my" or "mine":
- The unborn is literally another part of the woman's body, just like the woman's kidney, tooth or arm.
- The unborn is the woman's property.
- To the first interpretation: The unborn is literally another part of the woman's body, just like the woman's kidney, tooth or arm:
All of the parts of a woman's body share the exact same DNA. The unborn has a distinct and unique DNA. All of the parts of a woman's body are connected by a central nervis and circulatory system. The unborn is not connected to the mother's circulatory or nervis system. The unborn has it's own systems, circulatory, nervis, reproductive, respiratory, etc.
- To the second interpretation: The unborn is the woman's property:
When one person owns another, this is called slavery, which is illegal and invalid.
Therefore, it's not her body, it's her child's body, and while she remains the obvious custodial parent, she is still bound by all ethical standards every parent is already bound to with regard to caring for children under their charge. These standards are governed by Public Policy and Law, which therefore makes the matter every voter's and tax-payer's business.
I am a voter, I pay taxes, therefore I have a Constitutional right to an authorative voice. No single voter or tax-payer decides any legal issue arbitrarily, but collectively, and nothing diminishes my contribution.
so if I have authority ,then where does that authority come from, it does not come from the constitution , because the constitution does not grant or give any authority to the people, it only places limitations on government.
authority which comes from government is a privilege, ..........so authority which does not come from government is a right.
so authority is a right............. when government is prohibited from creating law which infringe on that authority.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
Last edited by JayDubya; 09-15-13 at 04:59 PM.