Yes, the government intervenes if some religious group says that their religion allows them to practice infanticide.
<h3>What is government?</h3>
A government can be defined as an institution that is made to make laws, policies, and reforms. It also makes sure that every rule is implemented and followed correctly.
The government can intervene if there is some type of issue or the right of some people are affected by it.
Infanticide is a cruel act and is not allowed according to the law and if a person says that their religion allows it then too it would be considered punishable under the law.
Learn more about government, here
brainly.com/question/2302232
#SPJ4
The question is incomplete, the complete question is
Will the government intervene if some religious group says that their religion allows them to practice infanticide.
Which contingency in a behavioral contract involves the loss of a reinforcer when an undesirable behavior occurs, the loss of the reinforcer will be a penalty. This is further explained below.
<h3>What is a penalty?</h3>
A penalty can simply be defined as a punishment levied for violating a law, regulation, or contract.
In conclusion, the loss of the reinforcer will be a penalty that he will pay for his undesired behavior.
Read more about behavior
brainly.com/question/24518056
#SPJ1
Angkor was a center for organization and the love of a heavenly ruler. The city was arranged and built based on strict and political originations imported from India and adjusted to nearby customs.
The immense arrangement of repositories, waterways, and channels, which was the most remarkable highlights of Angkor, served principally as a method for water control and rice water system, although it likewise spoke to the waters of the universe.
The answer is "openness-privacy dialectic".
Disclosure is one characteristic for relational connections. However, alongside the drive for closeness, we have a similarly essential need to keep up some space amongst ourselves as well as other people. openness-privacy dialectic alludes to the strain between the requirement for exposure and the requirement for mystery in a relationship.
