Search Results: if women ruled the world

Regardless of one's personal opinion of "Roe vs. Wade", it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications.

As a result of the "Roe vs. Wade" decision, a woman's pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional "right to privacy".

The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman's conscious and deliberate "choice" to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy, without any regards for the wishes of the man involved.

Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birthmother and a biological father. If the birthmother has the legal means of a "contract" of marriage or an "implied contract" of a definable relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for that child.

If a birthmother does not have the obligatory "contract" with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birthmother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent. In that situation, the laws of alimony may also come into effect.

For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a "private" matter of a second party, the very essence of freedom, liberty, and justice, that America stands for, is violated.