As a follow up to the post titled RE: Abortion Billboard and in response to a few comments relating to this story, the issues raised and the PUN used by Greg to “name names”…
@The statement “He’s 35. She’s 18” and what. Should we discriminate based on age?
@The notion of Greg being less than civil by dating a “Teenager” as if that’s a crime. No qualms with sending our teenagers off to war to die for the freedom now used in our speech. So by using what in some social circles is deemed inappropriate (“He’s 35. She’s 18”), though in line with natural law, we attempt to disparage another.
Here’s the thing for me, I do believe in discretion (privacy) as well as ensamples. When to use which seems to be the matter at hand. Does his motives trump his actions? I do not think so. We ought not base charges upon our motives but our actions.
@The “PUN”: so Greg apparently used a pun here to “name names”. But where is the Constitutional violation?
Further, many assume the property is her’s alone. I do not. I contend he has as much right to that child as she does. He has Right of first refusal to father that child. Fatherhood begins when, after birth? That would be unnatural wouldn’t it?
If you take my property for public use (abortion laws), it’s a public matter.
If the child was not aborted, what then. Then he has a right to know. Does he have the right to make assumptive claims publicly. If he were accusing her of breaking the law, when he neither knew if she had or knowing she has not, then yes, that would be a violation of Amendment 4.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
for he would be searching out a matter in public, though having probable cause, did not have oath of affirmation.
@The idea of child care “but if she decides to keep the baby, he is fully expected to provide” Bottom line is this…Custody Equals Care. If you have custody of the child then the care for that child is all yours.
Interesting how many will open up to receive a “gift” then demand payment from the giver.
Who should support our children….the one who has custody. Why are they unable, in many cases they have not he means. Why not? Because wages are no longer based upon the individual but upon the collective, the household. There is no liberty in that.
Our Current Solution….keep individuals who do not want to be a family yoked together though finances, visitations, shared parenting, etc. That is wisdom? Why not legalize polygamy. Granted, what we do with our laws is worse than polygamy…we put one away to take another. We trample upon the liberties of one household by extorting them in order to pay for another. It would be much Wiser to pay a living wage whereby the individual was able to individually care for their family. It would be much Wiser to have a social safety net ensuring individual liberty which supports the one who has custody as also having the responsibility of care. Bottom line….
Custody Equals Care
Leaving one individual open to receive another is neither cruel nor unjust, it is liberty. When one departs another, in their departing, they leave the departed with the liberty to live, to legally pursue other relations, to pursue happiness. Their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are left intact.
The one who departs suffers no lose of liberty either. In exercising their choice to depart, they have willingly disposed of their personal property which is their Constitutional right.
4. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership.
9. Nearness or right.
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.