|
View the Bill! Sign The Petition!
The Right to Choose Life Act
A description
The verb to force means to make someone do something against his or her will. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, women are rarely forced to continue a pregnancy.
However, women are commonly forced to terminate a pregnancy, despite the fact that it is illegal to make a woman do so. There are at least three reasons why the crime of
forced abortion is common: 1. not many people even know forced abortion is a crime, 2. it would be difficult to prove the criminal's guilt, and 3. the penalty would likely be minor.
But now, thanks to advancements in DNA paternity testing, it's possible to stop the crime of forced abortion by taking away the motive. The motive is that a male, who has impregnated a female, is currently able to receive the remission of his debt through the sacrifice of his offspring in the womb. He is in debt because he owes his offspring several years of child support. Sometimes, the parents of the female will illegally make their daughter get an abortion, lest they have to assume the male's debt. But even in that case, the motive is still the remission of child support debt through the sacrifice of her unborn offspring.
However, if we take away the motive, then the crime is taken away. That's a Spanish proverb (quitada la causa se quita el pecado). If remission of debt is the motive, then to take away the motive is to require the debt be paid. Therefore, the motive for the crime of forced abortion can be taken away by passing a bill which would require the male to pay his debt, regardless of whether someone were to kill his offspring (if the woman were to let someone kill their offspring by abortion, then she would pay the appropriate share of his debt, and their payments would go towards the welfare of another needy child). The bill is called The Right to Choose Life Act, because it would protect a woman's right to choose life.
In summary, there is now a better way to stop abortion besides the old way of simply banning it. The old way failed before, and it would fail again; because the public would see that as forced gestation, that is, making a women gestate against her will. Now is the time for us to try the better way, which is to protect a woman's right to choose life by taking away the motive for the crime of forced abortion. This way will not fail, because it is right and just.
What if Women Still Want to Get Abortions?
We should trust that, because of maternal instinct, the average woman would not want to get an abortion under the RTCL Act. The man will have to pay his debt regardless; and by continuing the
pregnancy, the woman ensures that the debt payments will go towards the welfare of her child, rather than someone else's. Nevertheless, a woman might want to get an unnecessary
abortion anyway. If and when that happens, the RTCL Act would require her to pay a portion of the man's child support debt. The portion would be calculated by each state. It would be high
enough to discourage her from getting an abortion, but not so high that she could not afford to pay it. If the man is going to be required to fulfill his responsibility of working to pay his
child support debt, then it is only just that the woman be required to fulfill her responsibility of either bearing their offspring or (in the case where she chooses abortion) working to help
the man pay his child support debt. Under the Right to Choose Life, their debt to their unborn offspring would be paid, unless she suffers a miscarriage naturally and that is confirmed by a
licensed doctor.
The Purpose of Government
According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are established to secure the unalienable rights of the people, one of which is a woman's right to choose life. We know that our
government is failing to adequately protect a woman's right to choose life; because homicide is the number 1 cause of death for unwed pregnant women, while ranking number 17
for everybody else. Our homicide laws, by themselves, are not adequately protecting women who choose life. In order to protect them adequately, it is necessary to pass
The Right to Choose Life Act into law.
If God Exists, Why Didn't He Give Us the Idea for the RTCL Act Sooner?
The reason why we were not given the idea for the RTCL Act until recently is because certain advancements in DNA paternity testing were needed before the RTCL Act could become law and those
advancements were not made until the 2010's. Before the late 1980's, we couldn't even prove the paternity of a born child, let alone an unborn one; and even when it became possible to prove
the paternity of an unborn child shortly after the year 2000, it was only through an invasive test. The non-invasive prenatal paternity test, or NIPP test, was developed in the 2010's, and it
enables paternity to be confirmed as early as 7 weeks gestation. That's near the time that a woman first realizes that she is pregnant.
The way the NIPP test works is that the pregnant female submits a blood sample, and that is tested against a DNA sample from a male to confirm that he is the father. The test costs about $900, and the RTCL Act takes advantage of that by requiring the woman to foot the bill if she makes a false claim as to who the father is, and by requiring the man to foot the bill if he challenges a true claim made by the woman. Hence, the cost of the NIPP test will deter the woman from making a false claim and the man from challenging a true claim. In most cases, the NIPP test will not need to be done. Nevertheless, the RTCL Act would not have been feasible if it weren't for the NIPP test; because we had to be able to prove the paternity of an unborn child before we could require the child support debt be paid.