THE "SANCTITY OF LIFE" FOR BORN CHILDREN
Why should the State's obligation to protect it end at birth?
If the right-to-lifers in anti-abortion states are invoking a legal principle, namely the state's obligation to protect "sanctity of life" for unborn children, why should that obligation terminate at birth? Aren't the lives of born children equally sacred to those of the unborn? If so, shouldn't the state be similarly obligated to ensure that children of indigents, in particular, are provided with the essentials of life -- food, shelter, clothing, medical care -- until they are adults? This obligation seems particularly incumbent on the government for those single mothers the state has driven to penury by forcing them to bear unwanted children. Where, I wonder, are the lawyers who will bring class action suits against right-to-life states on behalf of such similarly situated mothers?
Agree.
I have an idea. Every male in the United States has their DNA collected and banked for paternity purposes. If a man sires a child he’s equally responsible. The data is accessed automatically and only when a baby is born with no acknowledged father. The person is contacted and a fresh sample taken if there’s any question about responsibility.
If a man doesn’t spew around irresponsibly there is no reason for concern.
A woman doesn’t have a choice. Neither should a man.
I bet there’d be a huge change in abortion sentiment if this were law,