Involuntary Servitude part 8: Child Support

[Henrin]

Is this about property rights or about commitment to contract?

Usually when one argues "the government" is not able to take "labor and property", it is usually to argue that the Cosntitution is non binding on them.

I'm arguing that child support laws are involuntary servitude and thus in violation of the thirteenth amendment.

If one does not believe in authority of the constitution, "the government", state law, municipal ordinances, LEO,...ect; then there is no futher arguement.

Why would that be?

 

[Henrin]

As you know, I'm a big supporter of reform of the child support laws, and I think that the man should also have a choice after the pregnancy has begun, because the woman who has a choice of terminating a pregnancy also has, implicit in that choice, the choice of not being a biological parent and therefore not being required to pay child support.

Yes, I have heard your idea before, but there is a few problems that idea.

1. A contract has to be agreed to for it be binding. A contract that is binding until those held to it say otherwise is very much doing it backwards.

2. If the man find out after the child is born or the set period that is in place he is very much still offered no choice.

However, I do recognize that there is a total difference between the 24/7 biological support the pregnant woman provides for the embryo and the financial support that either parent may be legally required to provide after birth.

Pregnancy is 24/7 labor which, if treated in law as a form of labor, would violate labor laws - for starters, how many hours in a day or how many days in a row a person can be required to labor at a job, the fact that people have to be financially compensated for their labor by mutual employer-employee agreement, and the fact that numerous safety regulations have to be met by the employer, etc.

Furthermore, the person who has to pay child support, whether man or woman, can choose what type of labor he or she wants to engage in in order to make the money out of which he or she will provide for the child. It can be physical labor, sure, but it can also be essentially intellectual labor. The woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be is likely to think that, if she merely had to work to pay child support, she could get a clean office job doing primarily intellectual work, go home at the end of a 7-8 hour day, have weekends off, and have sick leave and paid vacation. Well, after a child is born, that's a possibility for either the man or the woman who has to pay child support.

So pregnancy is not comparable to mere child support.

The comparison was just made in terms of forced labor and the choice to have a child. It was not meant to be comparable in any other way.

 

[Henrin]

Does he know all that before he engages in sex? Does he still choose to take the risk? Then he has to accept the risk.

THe woman cannot escape the risks. She just has different options but all contain risk.

Wait..doesn't the woman know the risk of pregnancy before she engaged in sex? Why are you treating it differently?

 

[MaggieD]

I'm arguing that child support laws are involuntary servitude and thus in violation of the thirteenth amendment.

Involuntary servitude involves working against one's will. No one forces a spouse to work to pay child support. One doesn't have to work a day to pay it...assuming one has resources from another source.

 

[Henrin]

Then it is even more morally wrong to force someone else 'into labor' for a consequence of your actions.

Who is doing that?

If the father can morally refuse, so can the mother (or perhaps she cannot care for the child adequately) and so can society. So your version of 'morality' allows the child be be abandoned to die. In your philosophy, that would be allowed, legal, even.

Yes, both can refuse. They call it giving up your child. It happens all the time.

 

[Henrin]

Involuntary servitude involves working against one's will. No one forces a spouse to work to pay child support. One doesn't have to work a day to pay it...assuming one has resources from another source.

When the state forces you to pay child support to support the child that is forcing you into labor.

 

[Henrin]

Speaking of "Involuntary Servitude"...

When considering the 13th Amendment: Anti-abortion laws create mandatory motherhood and force "involuntary servitude," which, for all intents and purposes, such laws should be declared unconstitutional.

IOW, this type of involuntary servitude should also recognized and banned by this amendment.

Yes, if we are to uphold the Constitution than all laws on abortion have to be ruled unconstitutional. As I have said before, any laws on abortion will inevitably force women into labor and for that reason are a violation of the thirteenth amendment.

 

[Henrin]

Well your philosophy on the matter does not even reflect reality, since the offspring of others must be cared for. If the parties responsible are not held accountable, then the rest of society, i.e. the taxpayers must.

So you against people giving up their children?

A non-custodial parent must pay child support if the custodial parent requests it or applies to the state for public assistance.

As I have said, if the individual in question doesn't consent and the state forces them into labor the state is in violation of the constitution.

 

[Lursa]

Wait..doesn't the woman know the risk of pregnancy before she engaged in sex? Why are you treating it differently?

How is she treated differently? If she is the non-custodial parent, all the same child support laws apply to her.

 

[MaggieD]

When the state forces you to pay child support to support the child that is forcing you into labor.

No, it's forcing you to pay child support. If you have to work to pay it? Well, that's the way it is; but one might not need to work to pay it. One could take it out of their 401K; they could sue for custody; they could have inherited it; they could borrow it from family; they could get it from investments. Wouldn't have to work. There are other ways.

 

[Lursa]

Who is doing that?



Yes, both can refuse. They call it giving up your child. It happens all the time.

Then someone else is forced into involuntary labor because of your actions...because if you refuse to be responsible, then the taxpayers are.

That is even more morally reprehensible...as the taxpayers had nothing to do with producing the child. So how can you complain that it's immoral to 'force' the actual people responsible?

Again, unless you find it morally ok to abandon the child to die?

 

[Lursa]

So you against people giving up their children?

As I have said, if the individual in question doesn't consent and the state forces them into labor the state is in violation of the constitution.

Taxpayers dont consent either and you are giving them no choice when you abandon your moral (IMO) obligation to your spawn.

You would force on everyone else what you (for purposes of example) would avoid. Completely hypocritical.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yes, if we are to uphold the Constitution than all laws on abortion have to be ruled unconstitutional. As I have said before, any laws on abortion will inevitably force women into labor and for that reason are a violation of the thirteenth amendment.

Interesting, Henrin. Personally, I've never seen you make that particular claim. Good on you.

So you agree that:

1) the act of being forced to go through 9 months of gestation and forced to give birth is involuntary servitude.

Then there is:

***2) being forced to raise a child to legal adult age, which also forces a woman to be financially, medically, educationally, etc, etc, responsible for the child is also involuntary servitude.

***I know adoption is an option, but a lot of women wouldn't go for being forced to do that because the child's well being would be out of their control and it is their offspring that's being placed in the hands of other person(s), usually persons that they don't know.

Just checking to see if we're on the same page. You might see it differently...or not as I've listed the two items above exactly in the same way you would define involuntary servitude.

But then comes the argument coming from pro-life that yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,...killing, murdering, yadda, yadda, human...life...yadda, yadda....which is based on????

Thanks, Henrin.

 

[Henrin]

Taxpayers dont consent either and you are giving them no choice when you abandon your moral (IMO) obligation to your spawn.

What the state decides to do is their business.

You would force on everyone else what you (for purposes of example) would avoid. Completely hypocritical.

Moral arguments the last time I checked are not the same thing as legal arguments. If the mother carried it to term then either she wanted the child herself or couldn't bring herself to abort it. In either case, she made a choice past the point of having sex. If she decides to give it up at that point, since we are assuming the man doesn't want the child, she is again free to do so. If she decides instead to keep it then the man can't very well force her to do anything. On the other hand, if the woman doesn't want the child at that point, but the man does, then if the legal system works like it should and assuming he knows, then he should be able to stop her from doing such. If both parents say they don't want the child, then yes, the legal system takes the child. That isn't really different then it is now.

 

[Lursa]

What the state decides to do is their business.



Moral arguments the last time I checked are not the same thing as legal arguments. If the mother carried it to term then either she wanted the child herself or couldn't bring herself to abort it. In either case, she made a choice past the point of having sex. If she decides to give it up at that point, since we are assuming the man doesn't want the child, she is again free to do so. If she decides instead to keep it then the man can't very well force her to do anything. On the other hand, if the woman doesn't want the child at that point, but the man does, then if the legal system works like it should and assuming he knows, then he should be able to stop her from doing such. If both parents say they don't want the child, then yes, the legal system takes the child. That isn't really different then it is now.

The state, in this case, trumps your 'forced labor.' Because it has the best interests of the child in mind. And after that, it protects the taxpayers...from YOUR actions (using you as an example).

Children and taxpayers should be protected from the careless, unplanned, accidental, etc actions of other people. So, yes, it is not only a moral issue, but a legal one. We are talking about real life here...not some abstract philosophy....real babies are involved.

Your (or anyone elses) resentment that a woman DECIDES what to do within the sovereignty of her body...even if you have contributed to that....has no *realistic* impact on what MUST happen to protect that child. And then, what will protect the taxpayer.

Men and women have a choice when having sex. If they do not wish to accept those risks, as clearly laid out by the law, then they should decide accordingly. You have full control....up to a point. After that, **OTHER** people would be forced into labor on your behalf. And that is not remotely acceptable...or necessary, since we have your DNA.

And in case you havent noticed...which you have...the state DOES morally and financially make it their business. Based on protecting the kids and taxpayers. You (or adults that engage in consensual sex)....must protect yourselves.

 

[Removable Mind]

What the state decides to do is their business.

Moral arguments the last time I checked are not the same thing as legal arguments. If the mother carried it to term then either she wanted the child herself or couldn't bring herself to abort it. In either case, she made a choice past the point of having sex. If she decides to give it up at that point, since we are assuming the man doesn't want the child, she is again free to do so. If she decides instead to keep it then the man can't very well force her to do anything. On the other hand, if the woman doesn't want the child at that point, but the man does, then if the legal system works like it should and assuming he knows, then he should be able to stop her from doing such. If both parents say they don't want the child, then yes, the legal system takes the child. That isn't really different then it is now.

Well, Henrin now you have me really confused. Now I see your post going in the same direction as always.

I can think of a number of reasons women who have children who didn't want to have them. And at the same time couldn't bring themselves to giving them up for adoption or the state. But in the end, when the smoke clears, they'll live their lives much like those who experience involuntary servitude.

I see you mention "legal system" taking a child. Do you have any idea what it's like to be a child in the state system...and potentially for all their childhood? Believe me, it's horrible in more cases than not. Kids become cash cows for so-called foster parents. Now I'm not claiming all are in the business of being a foster parent...as a business. But for a lot of people it is exactly that. It's damn hard for children to bond with foster parents. They're often moved, they never get established in school, they can't make and keep friends, they don't have normal sibling relationships. I could type for hours about it. I hope some day you will never really see this as an option.

Sometimes, Henrin...there is no equitable solution to problems. But I did a reply post to you a couple or so pages ago. Don't know if you read it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...de-part-8-child-support-6.html#post1063077750

Post 53, by the way...for some reason I can't get the link to go directly to the post.

 

[Henrin]

The state, in this case, trumps your 'forced labor.' Because it has the best interests of the child in mind. And after that, it protects the taxpayers...from YOUR actions (using you as an example).

That is unconstitutional "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Did the state convict the man? Is it punishment for his conviction? No, it is forcing him into labor for something he never consented to and it is therefore illegal.

Children and taxpayers should be protected from the careless, unplanned, accidental, etc actions of other people. So, yes, it is not only a moral issue, but a legal one. We are talking about real life here...not some abstract philosophy....real babies are involved.

Yeah again, review the law. You aren't arguing a legal argument, but only a moral one. I respect your moral argument, but it has no legal feet to stand on.

Your (or anyone elses) resentment that a woman DECIDES what to do within the sovereignty of her body...even if you have contributed to that....has no *realistic* impact on what MUST happen to protect that child. And then, what will protect the taxpayer.

If the woman decided to carry the child to term she can decide to do whatever she wants if the man wants nothing to do with it. My so called resentment can't do anything to challenge that. If she decides to use legal avenues like giving up the kid herself, then yeah, the legal channels are going act accordingly.

Men and women have a choice when having sex. If they do not wish to accept those risks, as clearly laid out by the law, then they should decide accordingly. You have full control....up to a point. After that, **OTHER** people would be forced into labor on your behalf. And that is not remotely acceptable...or necessary, since we have your DNA.

Again, are you against people giving up their kids to the state? Yes or no? If you are then fight against it, otherwise, we have nothing to talk about.

And in case you havent noticed...which you have...the state DOES morally and financially make it their business. Based on protecting the kids and taxpayers. You (or adults that engage in consensual sex)....must protect yourselves.

I forget nothing. I'm reporting on facts that make you unhappy is all.

 

[Henrin]

Btw, what is income? Anyone want to tell me? Oh right, a consequence of labor. So then, in order to earn money to send to the state I have to provide my labor, and if they were to take it they are stealing the fruits of my labor. When they force this transfer they are forcing me to pay them and by doing so they are forcing me into labor. So not only are they are stealing the fruits of my labor, but they are forcing me into labor on top of that.

 

[Henrin]

Look, if people want to make children or even the unborn an exception to the rule, then pass an amendment, but as it stands neither one are an exception. The amendment in question makes that pretty clear.

 

[Lursa]

The state, in this case, trumps your 'forced labor.' Because it has the best interests of the child in mind. And after that, it protects the taxpayers...from YOUR actions (using you as an example).

That is unconstitutional "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Did the state convict the man? Is it punishment for his conviction? No, it is forcing him into labor for something he never consented to and it is therefore illegal.

Again...this is some philosophy you believe...has nothing to do with reality...or law. It is just as legal as other taxation or requiring people to be responsible for their actions. Only the people who created the kid are responsible for it...and should pay for it. To remain consistent with your philosophy, the couple should be allowed to abandon it to die if they dont want to care for it, as they certainly do not have the right to demand others enter into forced servitude to do so.

Children and taxpayers should be protected from the careless, unplanned, accidental, etc actions of other people. So, yes, it is not only a moral issue, but a legal one. We are talking about real life here...not some abstract philosophy....real babies are involved.

Yeah again, review the law. You aren't arguing a legal argument, but only a moral one. I respect your moral argument, but it has no legal feet to stand on.

It's a lovely, but silly, exercise....not remotely based in reality. Our laws ARE based in morality. A very big one is that people are accountable for their actions. A kid is a consequences of your actions.

Your (or anyone elses) resentment that a woman DECIDES what to do within the sovereignty of her body...even if you have contributed to that....has no *realistic* impact on what MUST happen to protect that child. And then, what will protect the taxpayer.

If the woman decided to carry the child to term she can decide to do whatever she wants if the man wants nothing to do with it. My so called resentment can't do anything to challenge that. If she decides to use legal avenues like giving up the kid herself, then yeah, the legal channels are going act accordingly.

Yes...and the legal channels are interested in the best interests of the child. And they will go after the other responsible party before they go after further enslavement of taxpayers who had nothing to do with producing the kid.

Does the man know before having sex that the woman controls any outcome? Yes. So then why so unwilling to accept the consequences of that decision? Could it be because sex was a more attractive option and he just chose to take his chances? lolol Well then, he must be held accountable for his decision. He went into it with full knowlege.

Men and women have a choice when having sex. If they do not wish to accept those risks, as clearly laid out by the law, then they should decide accordingly. You have full control....up to a point. After that, **OTHER** people would be forced into labor on your behalf. And that is not remotely acceptable...or necessary, since we have your DNA.

And in case you havent noticed...which you have...the state DOES morally and financially make it their business. Based on protecting the kids and taxpayers. You (or adults that engage in consensual sex)....must protect yourselves.

If men dont like the risks, no one is making them have sex. But morally AND legally, men (nor women) have any right to thrust the taxpayers into involuntary servitude because of their own actions.

Stop saying it isnt legal...of course it's legal. People are held accountable for their actions by the law all the time.

 

[Lursa]

Look, if people want to make children or even the unborn an exception to the rule, then pass an amendment, but as it stands neither one are an exception. The amendment in question makes that pretty clear.

Apparently no amendment is necessary. Nor should it be. It's nice that there are some areas of law where people are actually held accountable for their actions and there is some...if weak...effort to protect the taxpayer from 'forced labor' on behalf of parents who choose (to try) to defer their responsibilities.

Do you deny that men....or women...have complete control over protecting themselves from having to be responsible for children they produce?

 

[Henrin]

Apparently no amendment is necessary. Nor should it be. It's nice that there are some areas of law where people are actually held accountable for their actions and there is some...if weak...effort to protect the taxpayer from 'forced labor' on behalf of parents who choose (to try) to defer their responsibilities.

Read the amendment again. Do you see anything about children being an exception? They listed the one exception, so if children are also an exception, why aren't they listed? Should pro-life people argue that the unborn are an exception when they are clearly not listed as one?

Do you deny that men....or women...have complete control over protecting themselves from having to be responsible for children they produce?

Are you arguing that women have complete control, assuming they don't get raped of course, to avoid pregnancy?

 

[Lursa]

Read the amendment again. Do you see anything about children being an exception? They listed the one exception, so if children are also an exception as well, why aren't they listed? Should those pro-life people just argue that the unborn an exception when they are clearly not listed as one?

Are you arguing that women have complete control, assuming they don't get raped of course, to avoid pregnancy?

LMAO....it's YOUR personal interpretation that it is 'forced labor.'

After that, it's all academic. And not remotely based in reality.

And yes, women have complete control in avoiding pregnancy. They say no.

And yes, men have complete control in avoiding pregnancy (a kid). They say no.

 

[Henrin]

LMAO....it's YOUR personal interpretation that it is 'forced labor.'

If you think I'm wrong, why not show me where I'm wrong?

After that, it's all academic. And not remotely based in reality.

Of course it is based on reality. The exception to the rule set out by the amendment is even listed. If children are not an exception, and the man was not convicted of a crime, then what argument is there to make for the law not being in violation of the amendment in question?

And yes, women have complete control in avoiding pregnancy. They say no.

Ah, so they are offered a choice after sex, yes?

And yes, men have complete control in avoiding pregnancy (a kid). They say no.

So, no choice after sex, right? Interesting.

 

[Bodi]

If a woman wants to have a baby and not include the father in the baby's life then she should forfeit child support. She should tell him that she is pregnant and allow him the choice of being involved and paying or not. If he chooses to not be involved then she can choose to have an abortion or to have and raise the child on her own without financial help from the father, who also loses all rights to be involved in the kids life.