• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Involuntary Servitude part 8: Child Support

It's fairly simple to understand. No one has the right to force someone else into labor for them or is owed such labor, and that includes adults, children, and the unborn. It would be one thing if the individual agreed to provide them their labor, but if the party in question never consented then there is no argument that they ever agreed to provide them their labor.

I have to disagree, to a point. In my mind, consent to sex is consent to parenthood; which for men means consent to financial support of the mother and child.
 
I have to disagree, to a point. In my mind, consent to sex is consent to parenthood; which for men means consent to financial support of the mother and child.

Are you talking about implied consent?
 
It's fairly simple to understand. No one has the right to force someone else into labor for them or is owed such labor, and that includes adults, children, and the unborn. It would be one thing if the individual agreed to provide them their labor, but if the party in question never consented then there is no argument that they ever agreed to provide them their labor.

I cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who sees child support as forced labor. We have not one shred of common ground. Good luck implementing your non-existent views on personal responsibility on the rest of the civilized world. Can you say "pissing in the wind"?
 
Are you talking about implied consent?

Yes, and as I mentioned in my response to the OP, I believe that BOTH participants imply consent for parenthood (and all the consequences/responsibilities thereof) when they engage in sexual activity. If guys don't want that, they need to keep Wee Willy Winkie in their pants where he belongs until they are ready for that.
 
So you are suggesting that the moment a man gets a woman pregnant he loses all rights to control the life of the child created but retains the responsibility to support that child financially; whereas in that same moment the woman gains the right to control the life of that child but does not retain full responsibility for financially supporting those decisions?

I am saying whoever gets physically pregnant, whether it is the man or the woman, has control over his or her body. Just happens it is always the woman.;)

I am deaf to the "it's not fair" argument, because in terms of overall fairness....pregnancy and termination of pregnancy does not have any physical ramifications for men. Yeah, they have no legal say so...but they also suffer none of the physical burdens of pregnancy or termination of pregnancy.

I should have had a breeze of a pregnancy. Not only went down the pre-eclamptic route, I ended up with a footling breech baby, a C-section. Between a footling breech position for two months and a C-section - there was a huge physical toll. None of which were experienced by the father. 20 years later, I have physical issues relating to the pregnancy.

I ended up NEEDING to take 5 months off of work. 2 months beyond FMLA. Thank God I retained my position and seniority. Were there any similar job threats on dad's side? Nope.

Is it fair that the father did not suffer what I did? I never thought of it as fair or unfair. It just is.

The father cannot have a choice in continuing or terminating the pregnancy - it is neither fair nor unfair. It just is .

But unfair? Nope . It is similarly not unfair that the father does not get a choice in what happens to the mother's body. It just is.

And in terms of fair and unfair.......

If you want really unfair...the taxpayer paying any more than necessary to support a child when the parents are not paying to support.
 
Yes, and as I mentioned in my response to the OP, I believe that BOTH participants imply consent for parenthood (and all the consequences/responsibilities thereof) when they engage in sexual activity.

Implied consent is a bunk concept that ignores how someone actually feels and assumes they consented by their actions alone. It is not the actual person deciding on what they consent to or not, but other people deciding what they consent to by their own views, feeling and attitudes towards a topic.
 
So you are suggesting that the moment a man gets a woman pregnant he loses all rights to control the life of the child created but retains the responsibility to support that child financially; whereas in that same moment the woman gains the right to control the life of that child but does not retain full responsibility for financially supporting those decisions?

The zygote/embryo/fetus is attached to the mother. It is totally dependent on her life and physical resources to continue. Why would you think a man should have any control over this...or that somehow his lack of control can be traded off for not financially caring for your born children?
 
I cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who sees child support as forced labor. We have not one shred of common ground.

If they never agreed to provide the child their labor it is by definition forced labor. My argument is a constitutional argument, so yes, forced labor is a problem.

Good luck implementing your non-existent views on personal responsibility on the rest of the civilized world. Can you say "pissing in the wind"?

If they showed consent to care for the child then you hold them legally responsible for caring for it, but when you lack all evidence they have consented to having a child then there is no grounds to hold them to an agreement they never made.
 
Last edited:
Implied consent is a bunk concept that ignores how someone actually feels and assumes they consented by their actions alone. It is not the actual person deciding on what they consent to or not, but other people deciding what they consent to by their own views, feeling and attitudes towards a topic.

So we should be more concerned with how someone feels than how they act? "Oh gee, Mr. Judge I was just really upset with Fred so I took him apart with a chainsaw. It's not really my fault that I killed him." BULLSNOT!!!! You are responsible for your actions. If those actions result in the creation of another human being you are responsible for the upkeep and well-being of that child until they are an adult. If you don't want to run that risk, keep the trouser snake in its cage.


The zygote/embryo/fetus is attached to the mother. It is totally dependent on her life and physical resources to continue. Why would you think a man should have any control over this...or that somehow his lack of control can be traded off for not financially caring for your born children?

If there is equal responsibility for creation of a child AND an expectation of equal responsibility to provide for the financial support of siad child, then there must be equal say in the raising of that child. That's basic common sense, which unfortunately is no longer the basis for US Law. You cannot expect a man to endure equal responsibility to support a child whose life he has no say in. I'm not suggesting that he should be able to force her to get an abortion. In fact, if anything, I'm saying the exact opposite.
 
So we should be more concerned with how someone feels than how they act? "Oh gee, Mr. Judge I was just really upset with Fred so I took him apart with a chainsaw. It's not really my fault that I killed him." BULLSNOT!!!! You are responsible for your actions. If those actions result in the creation of another human being you are responsible for the upkeep and well-being of that child until they are an adult. If you don't want to run that risk, keep the trouser snake in its cage.

Did you really just bring up murder when you're arguing that implied consent exists? Am I reading that right? What does murder have to do with implied consent again? I'm pretty sure when you murder someone they didn't consent. Again, you have nothing to show that an individual having sex consented to having a child. If you think you do, then show it, but just running around with an assumption on your part means nothing.
 
Did you really just bring up murder when you're arguing that implied consent exists? Am I reading that right? What does murder have to do with implied consent again? I'm pretty sure when you murder someone they didn't consent. Again, you have nothing to show that an individual having sex consented to having a child. If you think you do, then show it, but just running around with an assumption on your part means nothing.

THEY COMMITTED THE ACT, THEREFORE THEY CONSENTED!!!!!! What in that rock of a skull of yours doesn't get this. IF YOU DON'T WANT KIDS, DON'T **** THE GIRL!!!!!! This shouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out.
 
THEY COMMITTED THE ACT, THEREFORE THEY CONSENTED!!!!!! What in that rock of a skull of yours doesn't get this. IF YOU DON'T WANT KIDS, DON'T **** THE GIRL!!!!!! This shouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out.

They committed the act of sex, which means the only thing we can assume they consented to was sex. Of course, it could of been rape, and therefore no consent was given.
 
They committed the act of sex, which means the only thing we can assume they consented to was sex. Of course, it could of been rape, and therefore no consent was given.

I cannot agree with that comment. The way that I was taught, and what I believe to this day, as I near my 40th Birthday is that Consent to Sex IS Consent to Parenthood. If you are not ready for Parenthood, then you are not ready for Sex. It's that simple. That is what I was taught and what any child of mine will be taught. If you are not prepared to be a parent then you are not prepared to be engaging in sexual activity. Pure and simple. No exceptions. No excuses.
 
I cannot agree with that comment. The way that I was taught, and what I believe to this day, as I near my 40th Birthday is that Consent to Sex IS Consent to Parenthood. If you are not ready for Parenthood, then you are not ready for Sex. It's that simple. That is what I was taught and what any child of mine will be taught. If you are not prepared to be a parent then you are not prepared to be engaging in sexual activity. Pure and simple. No exceptions. No excuses.

Great belief system, but it's not accurate. Consent to sex is just consent to sex unless otherwise noted by those involved.
 
Great belief system, but it's not accurate. Consent to sex is just consent to sex unless otherwise noted by those involved.

Again, we're going to have to disagree. This difference is one of the things that I believe is leading to the destruction of our society.... the lack of even BASIC morals and values as expectations in society means the end of that society, as we are seeing on a daily basis here in the United States. Nothing will ever change my view on this topic or any related ones.
 
Great belief system, but it's not accurate. Consent to sex is just consent to sex unless otherwise noted by those involved.

Consent to have unprotected sex is consent to be financially responsible for any child created as a result.
 
Again, we're going to have to disagree. This difference is one of the things that I believe is leading to the destruction of our society.... the lack of even BASIC morals and values as expectations in society means the end of that society, as we are seeing on a daily basis here in the United States. Nothing will ever change my view on this topic or any related ones.

This has nothing to do with morals and values, but with reality. I believe every man should care for his children and every woman should give birth to their children, but the reality of the situation is that not everyone consents to being a parent, nor are they willing to put that aside because I think they should for the child. However, since you bring it up, if they don't consent to being a parent it is morally wrong of us to force them into labor for that child because we think they should provide the child their labor.
 
Consent to have unprotected sex is consent to be financially responsible for any child created as a result.

Why does the failure to take measures to avoid pregnancy mean the individuals involved consented to either pregnancy or a child?
 
Abstinence isn't going to happen with humanity. That's a stone, cold reality.

The act of sex, by in large, is consent to engage in a physical act that involves risk of conception. That's because sex isn't primarily engaged in for reproduction. That's another stone, cold reality.

However, if that risk results in a conception. That does not mean that there was an automatic agreement regarding the fate of such a conception.

In other words, if there is a lack of agreement between those involved as to a predetermined fate of a conception resulting from a sexual event, it is not an automatic form of consent, which requires that a woman must allow that conception to develop to the point of birth.
 
This has nothing to do with morals and values, but with reality. I believe every man should care for his children and every woman should give birth to their children, but the reality of the situation is that not everyone consents to being a parent, nor are they willing to put that aside because I think they should for the child. However, since you bring it up, if they don't consent to being a parent it is morally wrong of us to force them into labor for that child because we think they should provide the child their labor.

This has EVERYTHING to do with morals and values, or in the case you're suggesting the complete and total lack of them. If you are not willing to consent to being a parent, then you should not be engaging in sexual activity. It's that simple.

If you don't consent to being a parent, then you don't become one, by not engaging in activity which could lead to that very consequence. I'm almost 40 years old and I can still count the number of women I've had sex with on one hand with a thumb to spare. Why? Because those have been the only four long-term, committed relationships I've ever been in. The three times where, if she had gotten pregnant despite our use of contraceptives, I would have been ready to marry her and be a father to our child and my fiance (current) whom I hope to have a child with someday.
 
In other words, if there is a lack of agreement between those involved as to a predetermined fate of a conception resulting from a sexual event, it is not an automatic form of consent, which requires that a woman must allow that conception to develop to the point of birth.

We are going to have to disagree on that, RM.
 
Why does the failure to take measures to avoid pregnancy mean the individuals involved consented to either pregnancy or a child?

Also why is that a Woman can abort the child even if the Man is wanting to keep and rise the child on his own but if he doesn't want it but the woman does he forced to pay. Sounds like a double standard to me.
 
Consent to have unprotected sex is consent to be financially responsible for any child created as a result.

Maggie, "Child created" is obviously involved with an act of having sex. But for the sake of argument, the word "Child" needs defining. I say that because that is a constant point of disagreement between pro-choice and pro-life.

Henceforth, my comments in which I use the word "child" will be defined as: Being born; more specifically, a child born who is the result of unprotected sex, failed birth control, or by mutual effort.

Going back to the act of having sex (unprotected and/or some form of birth control is used by one or both involved)....

In my opinion, consent to have unprotected sex is consent to the risk of conception...not a predetermined agreement about the fate of such a conception if one occurs. Even if protection is used, sex is still consent to the risk of conception.

Now, I'm not saying that an agreement shouldn't be an important discussion between people who have sex, and in particular, unprotected sex. That's certainly a responsible thing to do. We (society) in whatever form, can't force people, in general, to behave in specific ways regard their sexual conduct.

After the fact...

Those who engage in what is generally considered to be irresponsible sexual behaviors, which results in either an abortion or an unwanted child. Either way, someone will pay. But more to the point of your post, if a child (using the definition I posted above) is the result of having sex...then I agree with your comment above. Both should be financially responsible. But to what degree? That's determined by law.
 
Back
Top Bottom