Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   29 comments
Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Permitting abortion is a contradiction to American family law.

By       Message Gallaher     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 5318
Abortion was allegedly granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to permit women control over their bodies. Apparently women do not believe anyone should be able to tell them what to do with their bodies, because they had sex. Oddly, these same women then demand control over another person's body to pay for the child they chose to have, because they had sex.

::::::::

- Advertisement -

In many recent articles published about "the Red Mass" there appears to be a problem with some Americans that some U.S. Supreme Court justices may be catholic and that this may influence their values in making Supreme Court decisions on abortion. Though I am Catholic, I would hope they would take a judicial stance of equality rather than religious.

Abortion was allegedly granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to permit women control over their bodies. Apparently women do not believe anyone should be able to tell them what to do with their bodies because they had sex. Oddly, these same women then demand control over another person's body to pay for the child they chose to have because they had sex.

From a judicial stand point, if the sex was consensual, there had to be a non verbal agreement or contract between the two parties that they would have sex. There is no way for a court to determine what each party wanted prior to the sex unless it was written in a contract. There are four possibilities;

1. Both wanted sex just for the feeling of pleasure and neither want a child.

2. Both wanted sex to produce a child.

3. The female wanted to have a child and the male did not.

- Advertisement -

4. The Male wanted to have a child and the female did not.

The latter two is where the legal problems arise. Should one party be able to take control over the other party's body? In one case the female would be forced to have a child or forced labor for 9 months. Granted this is a 24 hour a day "job" if you want to call it that and they should be credited to 27 months of labor.

The other a male would be "forced to labor for another" for a period of 216 months. In some cases it is a classic condition of involuntary servitude (illegal involuntary servitude if the person has not been convicted of a crime) or peonage. This is clearly prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, because no crime has been committed permitting a person to be subjected to involuntary servitude. This fact has been ignored by American courts, allegedly to benefit the children.

It is a contradiction of law to force one party to labor for having sex and not the other. The American lawyers have recognized this problem already and had the Black's Law Dictionary remove or change the legal definitions of peonage and (illegal) involuntary servitude from the 7th to the 8th edition.

Clearly for the law to be equitable, if the male wants the child the female should be forced to have the child.

That said, they should also both be equally responsible and have equal rights to the child. Support for the child should only be awarded to insure the child is living at an equitable standard with either parent.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -
If you're a gambling man, Vegas is the place to be.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -