Yes, I interpret that our Constitutional genius is legally describing birth as a miracle. Miraculous it is decided by the United States Supreme Court that by law men have nothing to do with the conception process. The law of the land through the Roe vs Wade decision proclaims that a woman's body is hers and hers to do as she chooses, so where does man enter in this occasion? When this law states that a woman's body is theirs alone and abortion is only an extension of the woman then man has no cause to her body's effect. With this notion the object that is resultant of abortion is by law describing the woman's body. The law does not end here because if extended this object is left to latter growth and birth and also describes what is of the woman's body. As it stands the law implicates that no man could be legally obligated to an object that is solely of a woman. There appears to be more legal magic as a gray area when a man has had a choice in what has happened to this woman's body. How could men be held financially accountable when the US Supreme Court has given women this miracle of conception? It is my interpretation that for a “dead beat” man to currently be legally bound to support payments the law must change because I consider the action "a prior" to conception to be chosen by the woman and the man and not miraculous.