• 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

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.

Of course it is a double standard. They both in engaged in sex either with protection or not, so naturally they both either consent to a child or not. What she thinks of the matter or what he thinks on the matter has nothing to do with what the other party might think or not. If she wants a child, and he doesn't, than more than likely she will have it and more than likely he will not just all of a sudden change his mind. He might go along with it, sure, and if he is a good man he will, but if and when he changes his mind on the matter is ultimately up to him. If he decides he doesn't want to go along with it, then yeah, if he is forced to do so that is forcing him to give his property and labor towards the support of something he did not consent to.
 
, 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.

What do you mean he has no say in the child's life?

Once the fetus enters the outside world and is detached from the umbilical cord that connected him to mom, he becomes a child and the father CLEARLY has a lot of say, as does the mother. It will never be equal. How would you even measure "equal". But yes, the father has a lot of say in the childs life. Just not the zygote, embryo, fetus.

You cannot have "equal" . But the hystrionics about a father having no say is just bullcrap. When the fetus is separated from it's host...then it becomes a born child, and then the father has a great deal of say!
 
Of course it is a double standard. They both in engaged in sex either with protection or not, so naturally they both either consent to a child or not. What she thinks of the matter or what he thinks on the matter has nothing to do with what the other party might think or not. If she wants a child, and he doesn't, than more than likely she will have it and more than likely he will not just all of a sudden change his mind. He might go along with it, sure, and if he is a good man he will, but if and when he changes his mind on the matter is ultimately up to him. If he decides he doesn't want to go along with it, then yeah, if he is forced to do so that is forcing him to give his property and labor towards the support of something he did not consent to.

Henrin,

The male strategy of "poke and hope" obviously isn't a good one. Maybe a new one is due. And if we can, let's stick with what we know.

When it comes to co-conception "current" legal obligations facing men (boys), beginning with the stage of conception through actual birth, there is an obvious double standard built into laws across the nation. The reasons vary, but more importantly, the acceptable reasons vary among men, women, and institutions of all kinds. The male's interests in a co-conception have been legally established as less than or even none existent when compared to the woman with whom he has co-conceived with.

If this is evident...if there is no legal rebuke for males with the legal system in a meaningful way that invokes a meaningful outcome...

Then why in hell aren't male children taught "from the earliest age possible" that if he co-conceives, accidentally or intentionally, that there will be significant consequences? It must be made very clear that "currently" men are not equal regarding the legal rights to demand a woman have an abortion or to carry a co-conception to birth. And that both situations can involve substantial financial obligations.

Avoiding reality, not working with what we know, is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity to eventually establish a meaningful resolve for all parties involved. The blame game isn't productive. Trying to deny women's rights isn't a reasonable solution. Legal battles between men and women are costly, emotionally damaging...especially when children are involved. Men's reproductive interests being legally denied is damaging.

In my opinion, the true solution lies in the creation of technologies that can be utilized to prevent human error when it comes to unwanted conceptions. Where consent to sex is no longer the consent to risk. And where most conceptions are mutual endeavors. These kinds of solutions are a win-win for all. We're moving into an age of technology in which conception issues should be easily managed. And they should be employed globally.

But while rocks are flying, nothing gets resolved.
 
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.

Because it's HER body that the zef is in. HER body that is being stretched all out of proportion, HER body that goes through great pain and discomfort, HER body that possibly suffer numerous side effects of pregnancy and childbirth, including but not limited to, death.

There is no double standard. Both parents are expected to support the child after it's born, unless it's placed for adoption.
 
So your thread is going to devolve into yet another argument about whether or not abortion is right? I don't see the hypocrisy. Please explain.

He tries to derail everything thread on the abortion board that way, yes.
 
Men and women have exactly the same obligation, morally and legally, for child support. Since there are more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms, more men bitch about child support. They want YOU to pay for THEIR children - or their children can starve to death for all they care.
 
Consent to have unprotected sex is consent to be financially responsible for any child created as a result.

I don't even think a consent claim has to be made.

The fact is that SOMEONE has to pay for that child. The rational view of the law is who MOST should have to pay? The answer is obvious - whoever made the children.

Deadbeats suddenly want to become quintessential socialists declaring all children are property of the state.
 
What do you mean he has no say in the child's life?

Once the fetus enters the outside world and is detached from the umbilical cord that connected him to mom, he becomes a child and the father CLEARLY has a lot of say, as does the mother. It will never be equal. How would you even measure "equal". But yes, the father has a lot of say in the childs life. Just not the zygote, embryo, fetus.

You cannot have "equal" . But the hystrionics about a father having no say is just bullcrap. When the fetus is separated from it's host...then it becomes a born child, and then the father has a great deal of say!

In our current system, if the parents are not married and the father does not have primary custody of the child, the father's wishes are essentially immaterial according to the courts. He has to be there to write the checks, but his preferences and opinions hold essentially no weight.
 
In our current system, if the parents are not married and the father does not have primary custody of the child, the father's wishes are essentially immaterial according to the courts. He has to be there to write the checks, but his preferences and opinions hold essentially no weight.

There can be custody agreements in cases with unmarried parents, right?

I think the wishes may be immaterial if the father choses not to be involved. If he wants involvement other than financial, he has to step up to the plate.

But you cannot be absent deadbeat dad and show up any day you want and all of a sudden take charge.

If you can show me that fathers that want a custody arrangement and to have shared responsibility (other than financial) and the court says "no" ----I would like to see this.
 
There can be custody agreements in cases with unmarried parents, right?

I think the wishes may be immaterial if the father choses not to be involved. If he wants involvement other than financial, he has to step up to the plate.

But you cannot be absent deadbeat dad and show up any day you want and all of a sudden take charge.

If you can show me that fathers that want a custody arrangement and to have shared responsibility (other than financial) and the court says "no" ----I would like to see this.

If the father is absent or deadbeat, that's one thing. In those cases I'll totally agree with you. However, our court system still materially favors mothers over fathers when it comes to custody and financial issues. I know of at least two cases personally, where the father offered to take full custody of the child rather than increasing support payments and the mothers refused, because they were more interested in another $250 a month in their pockets than in the best interest of the children. In both cases the judge chose her remedy over his "because she's the mother and the kids belong with their mother".
 
My argument is that if we our own person and our facilities than we own our labor and the fruits of that labor, being the property that is gained by the use of our facilities. Therefore, if the government forces you into labor to pay child support they are ordering you to provide your labor and property for the benefit of a child or children. If however, you fail to pay the support demanded of you, meaning, you failed to provide your labor and property to support a child or children, than they steal the fruits of your labor to support such a child or children, or of course imprison you.

I'm hoping. My last thread on this topic of involuntary servitude had a grand total of zero responses. Oh well, this thread is doing better already thanks to you.

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.

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

If one wants to discuss how law is applied, that can be done.
 
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?

. . . .

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.

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.
 
Of course it is a double standard. They both in engaged in sex either with protection or not, so naturally they both either consent to a child or not. What she thinks of the matter or what he thinks on the matter has nothing to do with what the other party might think or not. If she wants a child, and he doesn't, than more than likely she will have it and more than likely he will not just all of a sudden change his mind. He might go along with it, sure, and if he is a good man he will, but if and when he changes his mind on the matter is ultimately up to him. If he decides he doesn't want to go along with it, then yeah, if he is forced to do so that is forcing him to give his property and labor towards the support of something he did not consent to.

You're forgetting cases of not only rape, but also reproductive coercion, in which one person sabotages the other's attempts at contraception. In those cases, whether the male or female is at fault, the fact is that they do not both consent to pregnancy. To me, this is a real issue, because the pro-lifers view all embryos in the same way, as coming from both people's consensual acts, but actually, some embryos result even when one person has not consented to sex or has not consented to sex with protection. Technically, a pregnancy can result even if a 10-year-old girl has semen injected into her uterus with a turkey baster when she is asleep. This is engaging in sex???
 
Of course it is a double standard. They both in engaged in sex either with protection or not, so naturally they both either consent to a child or not. What she thinks of the matter or what he thinks on the matter has nothing to do with what the other party might think or not. If she wants a child, and he doesn't, than more than likely she will have it and more than likely he will not just all of a sudden change his mind. He might go along with it, sure, and if he is a good man he will, but if and when he changes his mind on the matter is ultimately up to him. If he decides he doesn't want to go along with it, then yeah, if he is forced to do so that is forcing him to give his property and labor towards the support of something he did not consent to.

A girl or woman does not have to engage in sex to become pregnant, and a boy or man does not have to engage in sex to get her pregnant. A female can steal a man's sperm, a male can put sperm into a woman without her consent, either by rape or reproductive coercion (the latter involves sabotage of contraception). So it is impossible to claim that all embryos result from consent to sex or even from consent to sex without protection.
 
Henrin,

If we calculate that a woman's body works 24/7 for 9 30-day months of pregnancy, and we divide the result into 8-hour work days, that is 810 work days, and if we divide that into 5-day work weeks, we get 162 5-day weeks of 8-hour work days. That's over three years of ordinary work. But since she's working overtime and not getting any time off, calculate two-thirds of the time as overtime, and you get a really hefty value. If the woman were actually paid for being pregnant and giving birth, she would certainly deserve more than six years of pay for it, plus insurance coverage for any complications and for the childbirth. So by the time the child is born, the equivalent of what she has already done would be more than six years of child support by the guy.
 
Henrin,

If we calculate that a woman's body works 24/7 for 9 30-day months of pregnancy, and we divide the result into 8-hour work days, that is 810 work days, and if we divide that into 5-day work weeks, we get 162 5-day weeks of 8-hour work days. That's over three years of ordinary work. But since she's working overtime and not getting any time off, calculate two-thirds of the time as overtime, and you get a really hefty value. If the woman were actually paid for being pregnant and giving birth, she would certainly deserve more than six years of pay for it, plus insurance coverage for any complications and for the childbirth. So by the time the child is born, the equivalent of what she has already done would be more than six years of child support by the guy.

Then maybe she (and he) shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity if they're not prepared for a potential pregnancy.
 
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.
 
My argument is that if we our own person and our facilities than we own our labor and the fruits of that labor, being the property that is gained by the use of our facilities. Therefore, if the government forces you into labor to pay child support they are ordering you to provide your labor and property for the benefit of a child or children. If however, you fail to pay the support demanded of you, meaning, you failed to provide your labor and property to support a child or children, than they steal the fruits of your labor to support such a child or children, or of course imprison you.

I'm hoping. My last thread on this topic of involuntary servitude had a grand total of zero responses. Oh well, this thread is doing better already thanks to you.

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.

Since that is involuntary servitude of an entirely higher order and forced on people not remotely even responsible for the offspring, then the default is those responsible.

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

There is no child to be responsible for until it is born. A man is not responsible for anything before that....not her medical expenses, not her diet, not the pain and suffering of pregnancy and childbirth. If she dies during her pregnancy, is he held responsible? After all, it's partly his fault...does he owe her family any compensation?

Once there is a child however, there is an entity he is 50% responsible for.
 
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"?

That's what I meant when I wrote his 'philosophy' is not grounded in reality. It is not practicable.

It's an exercise in venting apparently....I say 'futile,' you say 'pissing in the wind.' Cheers!
 
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.

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

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.
 
Of course it is a double standard. They both in engaged in sex either with protection or not, so naturally they both either consent to a child or not. What she thinks of the matter or what he thinks on the matter has nothing to do with what the other party might think or not. If she wants a child, and he doesn't, than more than likely she will have it and more than likely he will not just all of a sudden change his mind. He might go along with it, sure, and if he is a good man he will, but if and when he changes his mind on the matter is ultimately up to him. If he decides he doesn't want to go along with it, then yeah, if he is forced to do so that is forcing him to give his property and labor towards the support of something he did not consent to.

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.
 
There is no child to be responsible for until it is born. A man is not responsible for anything before that....not her medical expenses, not her diet, not the pain and suffering of pregnancy and childbirth. If she dies during her pregnancy, is he held responsible? After all, it's partly his fault...does he owe her family any compensation?

Once there is a child however, there is an entity he is 50% responsible for.

Even though I actually want there to be reform of child support laws and an option for the man to be able to opt out during the pregnancy, I really like what you say here. It must be stressed again and again that the woman was the only one held responsible for the embryo/fetus and for childbirth before as well as after the right of the woman to choose whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy was legally established. If she died in pregnancy, the guy didn't owe her family a thing. If she was permanently disabled in childbirth, the guy didn't owe her a thing. And if she miscarried, the guy didn't owe her a thing. The guy was just scot-free all during pregnancy, and he still is.
 
In our current system, if the parents are not married and the father does not have primary custody of the child, the father's wishes are essentially immaterial according to the courts. He has to be there to write the checks, but his preferences and opinions hold essentially no weight.

It's exactly the same for the woman if she doesnt have primary custody.
 
If the father is absent or deadbeat, that's one thing. In those cases I'll totally agree with you. However, our court system still materially favors mothers over fathers when it comes to custody and financial issues. I know of at least two cases personally, where the father offered to take full custody of the child rather than increasing support payments and the mothers refused, because they were more interested in another $250 a month in their pockets than in the best interest of the children. In both cases the judge chose her remedy over his "because she's the mother and the kids belong with their mother".

While I completely agree the courts should be much more evenhanded when it comes to working with fathers, how do you know the mothers refused because of $$? You know for a fact they were less 'attached' to their kids than the fathers? That has nothing to do with the outmoded choice of the judge. THat sounds like emotionaly resentful rhetoric...which sadly is the outcome of most custody cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom