If corporations want to be given the rights of individuals then they need to pay the price of being one. I don't get to deduct rent, cost of goods, etc., why should they be able to?
15% from everyone including all corporations, no tax exempt status for anyone, churches PACs, etc. everybody pays. No deductions, no anything. 15%, period.
Exactly, they can't and women can't. So that is just the way it is. Pretty much is the way it has always been, and most likely always will be. So, to quote a common prayer... Accept the things you can not change and change the things you can.
No darlin' I will not. I know myself and my motivations for my decisions very well. And trust me, I have had far more insightful and probing people pick me apart emotionally than you could ever hope to do.
Who said he shouldn't have? Not me. That is another issue I am torn about.
If a woman decides to go ahead and have a baby that the father wants aborted then I am not sure he should be forced to provide for that child as long as he signs over all parental rights.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI et al., Appellants, v. John C. DANFORTH, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, et al. John C. DANFORTH, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Appellant, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI et al
"4. The spousal consent provision in 3(3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot
"delegate to a spouse a veto power which the [S]tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy."
Roe v. Wade (1973) (Bolding is mine)
"At stake in this matter was the fundamental right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The underlying values of this right included decisional autonomy and physical consequences (i.e., the interest in bodily integrity).
Because there was a fundamental right involved, the court applied the strict scrutiny test. That meant that the burden of proof went to the state to show the court that there was a compelling interest to which the statute was narrowly tailored. The Court identified two state interests, both of which became compelling after the first trimester of a womans pregnancy: the interest of the potential life of the fetus and the womans health interest.
The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman."
The same "decisional autonomy and physical consequences (i.e., the interest in bodily integrity)" language is used in some of the legislation and legal decisions regarding informed consent.
That has already been challenged and shot down. The only one that has the right to decide on the fate of a pregnancy is the mother. The father has no right to decide to continue or to terminate a pregnancy. I am looking for the legal decision.
The father has no recourse and the rights of the father in this kind of situation were covered when they made abortion legal. Because the mother is wholly responsible for the continuation of the pregnancy the father is SOL whether he wants the baby or doesn't. There is absolutely NO implied consent in any way shape or form, you are seriously reaching there. Fathers that have tried to force abortions have been criminally charged, fathers that have beaten pregnant women to try to end a pregnancy have been criminally charged. I know it sucks for a man in that position but that is the law. And again, that isn't going to change because you can not divorce the pregnancy from the mother.
