If you have been following along you will notice that lately I have been skipping around in the series and doing them out of order, but sooner or later I will get back to those parts that I skipped; and even though I’m not getting a lot of discussion going in these threads I still feel like I want to continue exploring the matter that I started exploring a few weeks ago on how the thirteenth amendment is not being upheld.
For that reason, even though it is going to be unpopular, and I am sure it will get me a good amount grief from those that respond, I will talk of child support laws and how it makes a servant of those that are forced by the state to pay for the support of a child that more than likely they did not want. I should mention before I begin to hopefully cover my own tracks a bit to disarm some of those that want to respond hatefully, that I do not support individuals not supporting their children and I am in no way endorsing or condoning any failure to support ones own children. That however does not mean that the laws on the matter are constitutionally sound.
A lot of people will argue that it is not involuntary servitude for someone to be imposed child support payments because the man or the woman that is being imposed upon willingly had sex, but is the act of sex by either party concept to have children? People in other debates, such as in the abortion debate, will argue that it is not, and that having sex is just consent to sex, and not concept to getting pregnant, dealing with the risks of pregnancy, the body changes that come along with pregnancy, the long term health risks of pregnancy, and of course, having children. If I was to argue, as I am, that it is no different after the child is born, people will argue that a born child is owed support from their parents, but if that is true, then why isn’t the unborn owed support from their mother? Again, if I was to say such a thing people would argue that the unborn is not a person and is dependent on their mother and therein lies the difference between a born child and the unborn. Is it not however true that after a child is born it is dependent on at least one of the two parents, and it is not true, that due to the health benefits of breast milk, the ease of its availability, and the obvious cost advantages, that the mother will once again be the best choice for the newborn to be dependent on? Is it not also true, that while the child grows over the coming years that it will only slowly lose its dependency on at least one of the two parents? Is not true, that during that time at least one of the two parents will have to provide their labor towards not only raising the child, but also providing for that child, in not only in their dealings with the child itself, but also the labor it takes to earn the money necessary to provide for it? Since labor is a consequence of the facilities of the body, and therefore the unborn are not owed the labor of their mother, than could it not be argued that the born are not owed the labor of their parents? If the party that is imposed child support payments by the government did not consent to having a child, but did as the pregnant woman does that aborts, only consented to sex, than how do we argue that the woman that aborts does not have to provide her labor towards their unborn child, but that the other party that did not consent to having a child has to provide their labor and property so as the child that they are being forced to support has such support?
. . . .