• 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

I think you may have misunderstood, although obviously I don't know about the specific example you were talking about.

'Organism' is a word which is used by scientists to refer to certain (normally living) individual entities (where 'entity' could mean any individual Thing - be it rock, tree, single sperm cell or planet). That is the main purpose of the word - it is not used to distinguish between 'organisms' and 'non-organisms' because there is no point. Why would a scientist care if something was an 'organism' or not, unless it was for an etchical debate such as this? My long-running challenge has been for someone to provide a definition of 'organism' to test - so far every single one I've ever see has either included things that aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), not included things which are organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms), not included a pre-viable foetus (any definition which includes 'maintain homeostasis', for example) or be so convoluted as to be unciteable.

As such, 'organism' tends to refer to the point at which the scientist wishes to consider the entity as a seperate living individual. This varies from field to field, as choice et al have posted many times - within human reproduction it can be fertilisation, implantation, viability, and so on. Within other biological fields (cellular biology, evolutionary biology, gaiaology, biological emergence) you can have still more definitions - an 'organism' can be a single human cell, or a planet, or a 'compound organism' like a single jellyfish or ant colony.

When I say 'embryologists are biased', I don't mean "you should ignore what they say". I mean "every scientist defines organism in their own way - and you are just picking one version of that and calling it The Definitive Definition, when it's actually just as biased/subjective as the rest of them".


Point 1) is debatable, because 'lifespan' of an individual tends to be described as starting at birth, not at fertilisation. I have also provided textbooks which say similar.
2) is obvious but irrelevant
3) is debatable because it includes the undefined term 'creature'. It is certainly true (possibly contrary to your position depending on definitions) that living non-organisms become living organisms, because you make this claim yourself, when you say that sperm and egg (living non-organisms) unite to become an organism.
4) contradicts your position, because one of the criteria of life is growth (biological meaning: get bigger) which a zygote does not do pre-implantation. Furthermore, another of the criteria of life is (normally) to exhibit independent homeostasis, which the implanted zygote/embryo/foetus does not do. Either way, this is clearly debatable because you have not defined the 'criteria of life'.
Great post...
 
That is what I don't get.
Why is it so important to you and some others on this debate if an early fetus really does not fit the strict criteria of an organism ?

I thought most of us on this forum know that until a fetus reaches viability it can't survive outside the woman's body.

It is the woman's vital forces that grow the fetus to the point it becomes viable.

To me this debate is stupid. It IS an organism. To deny otherwise just seems stupid to me. That being said it has zero standing on my view that abortion should be legal.
 
What more on a definition is needed or can be offered? For instance, Pluto was considered a planet for a very long time, till new criteria and more information deemed it not so, but till then there was not a host of scholarly articles why Pluto was a planet. Much the same with the definition of an organism. If anything at least a number of scientists would put forth theories and or explanations why the biological definition of an organism has to be changed. I am not aware of any and if you have it would be up to you to provide it as a rebuttal.

I am done with this argument... it is just too stupid to see people actually deny that a human embryo is not an organism.
 
Hi all, sorry I'm late. Sad to see that discussion spiraled into a debate about biology, as many of its nature do. I haven't had as much time to reflect on what's been said, having reviewed its contents over the course of a couple of hours today. I hope I can therefore, provide a fresh perspective on the original issue. First of all, I wanted to address certain posts from this thread. I take the position that there is a contract and that if it is forced, it is a coercive force (an example from the trial is DNA testing in a civil matter - there is no choice for the party who did not physically birth a child). I tend to share some views of the users MaggieD and Henrin. I see that there is some disagreement between the two. A pertinent exchange occurred among users including those two, before derailment from the original topic. The issue is still at large. So here goes,

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.

Although this argument is legally sound and logically sound, I have an ethical problem with the premise of not having to work for income. Let it be known that the idea of not working to grow and nurture your offspring is detestable. Working it out by not working and/or eschewing any involvement is not only non-custodial, but non-nurturing of the child following the event of birth. While I find institutions like school and business have helped me to grow, I reject the idea that this is parenting. My objection appeals to your morality and I offer no anecdote here to justify my personal views on this matter. As a society we should not raise children by depleting trust funds. Of course my follow up would be to what extent class plays a role in a society such as one where this socioeconomic behavior is acceptable.

The solution is simply...global masturbation. No intercourse. FIXED!

An attempt at humor which reflects a darker realization - that we should not act on our urges is morally reprehensible and earns heterosexual people the name of "breeders." Human beings are the one of a few - if not the only - known animal which uses sex in recreation. That is not a joke. Whether or not you agree with foreplay in the long term is meaningless. Foreplay is sexual - hence it is possible to engage in sex during recreation and not for the purpose of creation. Social breeding is dependent on laws and therefore is less free. Imagine how inbreeding is biologically impractical. If you live in a country whose values are tantamount to freedom, social norms are at least different than the law, if not subordinate to the laws of the state. Keep in mind the separation of church and state, I'll come back to this later.
 
One of the advantages of the current income tax system is that it permits the government to tax more than they otherwise would. The reason for this is that the withholding system allows them to tax people paychecks all year long and do it such a way that there is less disagreement with how much is taken. However, if they decided to ditch the system and just tax all the income owed at the end of the year and not go through the employer at all, there is very good chance people would have already spent the money, and for another, the amount taken people would have more problem with.

Compulsory tax systems are required because the government is called to do more than people would ever otherwise give up willingly. You couldn't set up a system based on voluntary taxation and have the people give up something like 35% of their salary. It just wouldn't happen.



What? I was talking about compulsory taxation, and yes, it is forced servitude at any amount.

I do not disagree with taxation in principle, but I see what you are saying. My take on it is that in order to effectively avoid taxation, one must reside outside of the jurisdiction of the state. I don't understand how someone who created a life should be forced to choose between entering a financially abusive relationship or leaving the country. That is clearly upholding the rights of one person over the rights of another. God love whomever comes back at this with some half-baked "public welfare" argument. Note that having a living, breathing child is a privilege, notwithstanding the use of youth as a shield for the actions of adults with kids.

Exactly. I am reluctantly prochoice. With limits. I wish it were illegal to have an abortion after 16 weeks unless the mother's life was in danger. It breaks my heart to look at a little baby and think of all the little babies who aren't being born. The ones that fate put in the belly of a mom who wasn't ready, didn't want it, whatever. Breaks.My.Heart.

But I understand the law is never going to change. And I understand that it's very easy for me to say, "You have to carry that baby to term!" That is wrong, too. So, like so many other uncomfortable/painful things that go on in the world, in my own circle of influence, I would never have done it myself. My Prochoice with limits stance is because I think a woman should be able to make that decision herself. And if we take safer abortions from women, they will get them anyway.

I find this to be incredibly challenging to approach. I agree with the sentiment, but I am not a women, so take this anecdote with a grain of salt. My ex-girlfriend told me she went to Planned Parenthood. I didn't ask her what she did there, out of modesty, but encouraged her to consider adoption or abortion because I had negative assets at the time. Nine months later, she's saying I "wanted to abort." In no way was control exercised over her decision by voicing my concern. I think that choosing life is the best option, in tandem with the best possible circumstances. Just try to find a man who will drop off his son at a church and walk away.
 
Just curious....do men believe they are entitled to sex without consequences?

Women know, just as they have for millenia, that they are not.

Lursa, although you seem to be pro-life, your reckless brutalization and disregard for the lives of parents-to-be (or people who are sexually active for us modern thinkers) leads me to the conclusion that you do not understand a fundamental consequence of the act of sex. Conception by humans, outside of asexual reproduction and divine intervention, is the result of the actions of someone else. No one is entitled to that. Are we saying that men who choose to be non-custodial parents are all deadbeats? No, allow me to translate for you. Sperm donors are compensated for their time. Furthermore, prostitution, while presently illegal, does not imply conception. Allowing for some level of accountability is fine, however entitlement is another question entirely. The act of sex does not write your name in semen in some trial lawyer's ledger, whether you are male or female. Hence, the question becomes a matter of raising a child after birth. Our constitution guarantees inalienable rights upon birth, not before.

It cannot be fair. Biology sets that.

It's not reasonable to expect it to be fair...it isnt fair for women now. I dont see any men suffering thru pregnancy and childbirth.

President Obama was recently quoted saying something along these lines. So now that its been said, I think we can conclude a posteriori that men are aware of this biological difference. On the matter of parental leave, maternal leave is a consequence of being female. In order to create a more egalitarian society, at minimum some paternal leave would be required. I find it intriguing that you are willing to victimize women via the pain of childbirth, but do not once mention maternal abandonment during this discussion. That is likely because you are operating on the principle that men should pay for their children, and therefore no paternal analogue exists within which you may couch your misled dogmatic opinion of childcare. I'm going out on a limb here, since the thread is about involuntary servitude and not the absence of service in childcare (i.e. egalitarian parenting, following childbirth).

It's not exactly involuntary servitude if you elect to deposit your sperm into a person capable of conceiving a child. How hard is this to understand? You need to comprehend the sacredness of sex and where your essence is placed when you choose to do it. It's a sacred trust that you shouldn't enter into lightly. But our society doesn't treat it that way.

I'm sorry that nature is inequitable when it comes to how human reproduction happens, but this reality should be deeply understood by everyone in terms of their rights. There's no trickity mind-trick trick that's going to change the reality of nature, folks. Women inherently have more control over childbirth than men and that's never going to change no matter what laws are enacted.

The care of children is more important than your selfish desire to avoid responsibility. You did the deed, you planted the seed, so own up. No one is saying you have to be a parent - and in fact I think it's immoral to say otherwise - but you owe some material responsibility to the creation of that child. They represent the future of a family, a community, and the world. Children matter.

I'm not going to risk being the pot calling the kettle black here. Since you share a common view with some other transient participants in this thread, I will simply mention the separation of church and state. You say sex is sacred, I say patronage is not a consequence of childbirth, even when a potential patron does not see fit to be the primary patron. Also I don't think childbirth is always a direct consequence of sex, even if you're lucky in your sacred act. Some intention is involved not through, but coterminous with the sexual act, even if that act is considered the primary physical aspect of procreation.
 
Again...men refuse to even consider not having sex to protect themselves from something they see as handing women 'power.'

It's not even something they'll consider...they still want all the perks and none of the responsibility...as long as THEY can choose.

And when someone tells them they cant choose any longer, they just get made, claim unfair!...and continue the same behavior. Wut? Dont want to be stuck with child support, dont commit the act that creates a child.

Pro-lifers been saying for years. Women, until abortion, had no choice unless they were willing to risk their lives with illegal abortion. Let me know when there is medical technology to make the 'biology' fair for men and we can discuss the laws again.

This is a clear false dilemma from where I'm standing (see above). What I just don't understand is how sex could be a perk in the sense that its an act that creates a child. Of course, artificial insemination avoids the dilemma of men violating the sanctity of child rearing perks, but maybe you are against that too because it is not sacred enough. I find your reasoning extraordinarily limiting here and I suspect there is a personal motivation of which I am not aware. Quite frankly, I don't find the idea of artificial insemination very funny.

I see we disagree. You simply cannot recklessly partake in activities that put others in a bad position, and not expect society make you fill your role in society.

Life contains many restless acts and we participate in life and its acts willingly and recklessly. Just being humorous here. Anyway, as adults, how is it not reckless to violate the right to walk away from a pregnancy? By violate, I mean coerce into involuntary servitude. I have reproductive actions along with reproductive rights. Is it reckless to embark on a nine month journey which leads to dependency?**

**of the fetus to the mother or the child to the parents.


I quoted my Embryology textbook verbatim and was told that Embryology is not Biology. There is no point in providing further effort researching quotes for the gent who did that.

I'm pretty sure if someone starts talking about "vital force" in a scientific discussion, they're also not going to be receptive to actual science.

  • As members of a sexually reproducing species, our lifespan begins at fertilization with the creation of a zygote.
  • We do not change species at any point during our lifespan.
  • There is no such thing as a living creature that is not an organism. You do not "become" an organism.
  • At all stages in our lifespan we exhibit at least all but one of the criteria of life... because that criterion is reproduction, and only mature organisms can sexually reproduce.


None of what I just said is remotely controversial.

Ok, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here. Follow me now, Biology is the study of "living organisms." Your assertion that embryology is not biology means that it exists outside the study of living organisms. Do you mean that it isn't study, or that it isn't concerned with living organisms?

I want to briefly thank prometeus, Bodhisattva and others for their comments on homeostasis. Although it is remote from the legal question of how a support obligation might violate our 13th amendment protections from the Bill of Rights, it is important and due consideration. I am of the opinion that the symptoms associated with removing a fetus from the environment of amniotic fluid inside the womb is comparable with maternal abandonment later in life. By life you may take it to mean either the life of the mother or the life of the child after birth, because it goes both ways, even in the unfortunate case of separation. As many of us know, parents are incredibly important in the child's life, so separation is unfortunate in either the case of the mother or father.
 
As an afterthought, I want to note that human beings are not commodities and should not be treated as such. I am not of the belief that a child is an asset. Parents should be socially rewarded by parenting, under the extent that the law is applicable. I do not agree with the measures taken by the Department For Children and Families to find noncustodial parents and enforce support orders, and I doubt that many cases are handled fairly for men. Moreover, if there is any case in which a parent or parents are treated unfairly, that brings severe doubt in my mind about the effectiveness of judges in family court. I will not propose an alternative here, except to say that we can do better here in the US, during the upcoming election.
 
It's unresolved, and the forum rules don't prohibit a reply in an open thread. Don't give me that "where have you been for the past year-and-a-half" rhetoric, like some kind of single thread curator.

fam38.gif
 
Last edited:
Yep. The anti-choice guys go ballistic at the idea of a woman deciding NOT to stay pregnant and give birth, but then whine like spoiled babies at the idea of THEM having to pay child support. If they really DON'T want to pay child support for a child they never wanted, wouldn't it have been better, in their case, for the woman to have aborted the pregnancy?

As you said, it's pure hypocrisy. How typical.

I would say this is an Appeal to Emotion but it is more like an Appeal to Bleeding Heart Whining instead...
 
Family is not collateral by virtue of biology. Biology is not collateral by virtue of debt. Family is not necessarily caused by biological factors nor is family an effect of economic stability alone.
 
It is important to correct unscientific nonsense like the suggestion that what is objectively and indisputably an organism of the species Homo sapiens is somehow not...

Who gives a ****? Irrelevant.
 
I think that the main problem with child support is that the power to stop men from entering vaginas is assigned a value during sex which is translated into stopping men from exiting vaginas. Women want to force men to share their resources, but they are willing to co opt the power of the state to accomplish that end if they need welfare to bring a child to adulthood. Therefore, the power of the state to force men to do things is used to assign a debt to men when they are coupled to the state.

Men who are sexually active do not cease to live as individuals after sex has taken place, yet men are automatically assumed to owe the state financial assets upon validation of paternity. How does paternity imply a debt to the state? The state did not compel the sexual act to take place and there is no precedent for debt servitude on the basis of biology outside of inheritance of debt from a biological relative or being born into slavery. The power to stop men from leaving a relationship is transferred to the state. Not paying child support is seen as an abuse of power, i.e. "cheating the state." But choosing a voluntary course of action is not an abuse of power or a neglect of any duty, so the state doubly taxes biological fathers for the public welfare of the state. This takes the place of women illegally harassing or punishing men in order to exploit them for their resources, but the lesser of two evils is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people will argue that it is not involuntary servitude for someone to be imposed child support payments

Child support itself is not involuntary servitude, they are your children, whether you wanted them or not, you had sex and took the risk of bringing another life into this world. So proscribing child support is not a constitutional violation.

However; the guidelines each states uses themselves are unconstitutional and should be deemed unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. Even if it is or is not our choice to have children; we have no control over what a district court Judge decides to be in the best interests of a minor child. The best interests factors are highly geared towards only a non-custodial and custodial parent. For those parents who want to be active in your children's lives as much as the other parent, you can't have altering opinions from your spouse or ex. You cannot voice those alternating opinions and you pretty much have to agree to whatever they say, and they can make things as difficult as possible in the hopes to obtain residential custody of your child. On top of that, the non-custodial parent is punished for a decision he had little to no control making.

2. Once you are assigned a child support order, it is impossible to do anything else. If at any time you exercise your thirteenth amendment right to freedom of choice in employment e.c.t, the individual states view exercise of this right as a willful actions, which then reduce your ability to obtain actual reductions to your child support amounts. I forget the case, but the ninth circuit decided that parents have no right to quit their jobs or go back to school whenever they want just because they have children. Which is a load of garbage. We as american's protected by the Thirteenth Amendment, can quit our Jobs whenever we want, we can choose to go back to school to better our employment options and provide better for our children in the long run. No state agency is ever going to accuse a parent not subject to custody / visitation / support order of neglecting their obligation to their children in anyway if they make the decision to go back to school to provide a better life for themselves and their children.

So though expecting parents to support their children they brought into this world is in itself not unconstitutional in any manner, the manner to which it is unconstitutional is the way they draft , execute and enforce their duty to support.

Custodial and non-custodial parents are two government made classifications, they are a classes of individuals in our society. Residential parents are treated like royalty, given special permissions e.c.t The non-custodial parent is told they have to provide a specific amount to their children, but the residential parent can spend that money however they see fit, there is no governing entity that actually monitors that the children are living the appropriate life style they should be living with the money given to the residential parent. So even though the states say that one parent must provide beyond the basic funds to provide the bare necessities for their children, taking away the freedom to choose from them to provide between the $10.00 dollar outfit and the $150.00 dollar outfit, the residential parent still retains that freedom to choose entirely, there is no guarantee that the money a non-custodial parent gives in child support is actually used on the child by the custodial parent. And asking a court for proof of such expenditures is generally frowned upon in a court of law...its none of the non-custodial parent's business how the custodial parent spends his/her hard earned money the state is forcing him/her to pay to support their children.
 
Well a nearly 2 year old necroed thread quoting a banned poster?

Made me remember that Walking Dead won't have any new episodes for about 6 months.:lamo
 
Well a nearly 2 year old necroed thread quoting a banned poster?

Made me remember that Walking Dead won't have any new episodes for about 6 months.:lamo

Probably just another guy who thinks men and women should both be forced to support their biological children in order to reinforce socioeconomic segregation of a generational order of magnitude.

I mean I can't possibly imagine why anyone should think that "you had sex therefore you risked bringing a child into the world" should apply only to men and not women. That's criminally subversive of due process of law in an equitable court which does not discriminate against either gender.
 
Probably just another guy who thinks men and women should both be forced to support their biological children in order to reinforce socioeconomic segregation of a generational order of magnitude.

I mean I can't possibly imagine why anyone should think that "you had sex therefore you risked bringing a child into the world" should apply only to men and not women. That's criminally subversive of due process of law in an equitable court which does not discriminate against either gender.

If the shoe fits, wear it.
 
Is that your very passive mea culpa? Because that would be truly shocking. I'm pretty sure you just like shoes and are willing to find any excuse to use that aphorism.
 
I think that the main problem with child support is that the power to stop men from entering vaginas is assigned a value during sex which is translated into stopping men from exiting vaginas. Women want to force men to share their resources, but they are willing to co opt the power of the state to accomplish that end if they need welfare to bring a child to adulthood. Therefore, the power of the state to force men to do things is used to assign a debt to men when they are coupled to the state.

Men who are sexually active do not cease to live as individuals after sex has taken place, yet men are automatically assumed to owe the state financial assets upon validation of paternity. How does paternity imply a debt to the state? The state did not compel the sexual act to take place and there is no precedent for debt servitude on the basis of biology outside of inheritance of debt from a biological relative or being born into slavery. The power to stop men from leaving a relationship is transferred to the state. Not paying child support is seen as an abuse of power, i.e. "cheating the state." But choosing a voluntary course of action is not an abuse of power or a neglect of any duty, so the state doubly taxes biological fathers for the public welfare of the state. This takes the place of women illegally harassing or punishing men in order to exploit them for their resources, but the lesser of two evils is unacceptable.

So...after reviving a necro'd thread from a banned poster, here is your solution: dont have sex if you dont want to have a kid with that woman.

Can you tell me why that is unreasonable to protect yourself from 18 years of child support?

And dont say it's because women dont have to. Women will always have the right to abortion...that's not going to change.

This isnt equal. Men dont get pregnant, it cant be equal.

So equal or not...do men actually want to protect themselves or just bitch about not getting to have sex without consequences anymore? (which women cannot and never have been able to do...so again...not remotely equal)
 
So...after reviving a necro'd thread from a banned poster, here is your solution: dont have sex if you dont want to have a kid with that woman.

Can you tell me why that is unreasonable to protect yourself from 18 years of child support?

And dont say it's because women dont have to. Women will always have the right to abortion...that's not going to change.

This isnt equal. Men dont get pregnant, it cant be equal.

So equal or not...do men actually want to protect themselves or just bitch about not getting to have sex without consequences anymore? (which women cannot and never have been able to do...so again...not remotely equal)

It is funny, frequently when this is brought up we get all the stories of women sabotaging condoms. It is the 2018 equivalent to "she told me she was on birth control". Sites I was on 10 years ago were rare complaints of sabotaged condoms and frequent reports of "she told me she was on birth control".

Well, If I was a guy and knew 18 years of child support could be in my future .....I would show discretion who I was screwing and bring my own condoms. I would dispose of my own condoms as well. Each and every time.

I would also look into why the hell there is no long term birth control option for men!!

Struggle all you want for opt out. Not going to happen. Fairer child support and custody arrangements are do-able.
 
It is funny, frequently when this is brought up we get all the stories of women sabotaging condoms. It is the 2018 equivalent to "she told me she was on birth control". Sites I was on 10 years ago were rare complaints of sabotaged condoms and frequent reports of "she told me she was on birth control".

Well, If I was a guy and knew 18 years of child support could be in my future .....I would show discretion who I was screwing and bring my own condoms. I would dispose of my own condoms as well. Each and every time.

I would also look into why the hell there is no long term birth control option for men!!

Struggle all you want for opt out. Not going to happen. Fairer child support and custody arrangements are do-able.

Yup.

And I've also posted the examples of men that do the same thing...pinholes in condoms in order to get her pregnant and control her, keep her with him.
 
Yup.

And I've also posted the examples of men that do the same thing...pinholes in condoms in order to get her pregnant and control her, keep her with him.

How difficult is it to bring your own and dispose of your own condoms?
 
How difficult is it to bring your own and dispose of your own condoms?

Yes but men can still put a pinhole in while putting it on...or either can provide one in a package that's had a pinhole put in it.
 
Back
Top Bottom