• 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!

Child Support is an Artificial Social Policy

that isn't debtors prison.

You are not put in jail for your debt. You are put in jail for contempt of court.
This means that you are purposely and deliberately ignoring a court order.

So reality is quite easy.

You can always to go the contempt hearing and explain to the judge why you are behind.
there is the possibility he won't send you to jail for contempt.

your semantic argument is lame

you go to prison for failure to pay child support.

that is the reality.
 
your semantic argument is lame

you go to prison for failure to pay child support.

that is the reality.

No you go to jail for ignoring a court order.
Similar when a judge issues you a warrant for not paying your traffic fine.
you go to jail.

no difference.

no semantic argument is all. you called it debtors prison.

you don't go to jail for owing money. You go to court and possible jail for
not following a court order.

similar to a restraining order or any other court order.
 
No you go to jail for ignoring a court order.
Similar when a judge issues you a warrant for not paying your traffic fine.
you go to jail.

no difference.

no semantic argument is all. you called it debtors prison.

you don't go to jail for owing money. You go to court and possible jail for
not following a court order.

similar to a restraining order or any other court order.

you can't bleed a turnip. as the article points out: Two surveys of county jails in the South Carolina conducted in the last decade found that at least one out of every eight incarcerated people were there because they had been held in contempt of court for not paying child support.

this amounts to debtors prison. lawyer speak about it being just contempt of court is why we hate lawyers.
 
you can't bleed a turnip. as the article points out: Two surveys of county jails in the South Carolina conducted in the last decade found that at least one out of every eight incarcerated people were there because they had been held in contempt of court for not paying child support.

this amounts to debtors prison. lawyer speak about it being just contempt of court is why we hate lawyers.

wow you just proved yourself wrong. they went to jail for contempt of court not for debt congrats for
proving yourself wrong.
 
It's not his fault you used an argument that you clearly don't believe in because you don't apply it evenly.
No. I ain't discussing abortion. End of. You want to enter abortardation? Take it too the forum section applicable or reframe the point. Whatever the **** that point is.
 
No. I ain't discussing abortion. End of. You want to enter abortardation? Take it too the forum section applicable or reframe the point. Whatever the **** that point is.

Congratulations, we're discussing child support and how it is amazingly hypocritical and sexist for folks like yourself who support abandoning parental responsibilities when it's a woman to turn around and start talking about taking responsibility and keeping one's pants on.
 
Actually it does make me right. It makes you wrong. we have passed laws because you the father should support your kid not the rest of society.
The law does not make you right, unless you are litigating a case in a court of law. Any argument you make in an extralegal setting is not substantiated by law alone. You have not come up with more than a basic appeal to authority. Because the law is sometimes flawed, I reject your argument that the law makes me wrong, on principle. We have passed laws that allow legal servitude of individuals and their descendants. The law is not always right, and your statement that "we have passed laws" does not substantiate a real argument, as it is an appeal to authority. Once again, you have failed to form a cogent argument with evidence.

Yes we know you are ignorant on this subject you keep proving it every time you respond. Nope it isn't an artificial policy whatever the hell that is. You guys make up more nonsense every time. Nope you are in full control of your reproductive rights
unless you are telling me women are raping you. if that is the case you should probably report it to the police. Sure they do. They can if they are found to need to pay child support. Women face the same risks.
Your opinion is irrelevant. Society has determined that it is better for you to pay for your kid than us. that we should not have to pay for your lack of sexual control or stupidity when it comes to sex.
Society also determined that it was legal to own slaves before the war. Sometimes, society is misguided by the congressional incumbents who were re-elected in a recent congressional election cycle, since they enjoy support disproportionate to their approval rating. That is called political science, and it won't be necessary to report to the police that policies exist which discriminate against heterosexual men. You wouldn't understand that, though, due to your biased, primitive and archaic opinions about biology which cloud your reasoning.

It is your child. if you don't think it is then have a DNA test done and show that it isn't your kid. You have no logic but a lot of appeal to emotion.
No, it is not an appeal to emotion. It is logical to base a social consequence on social empiricism, instead of biological empiricism. You have no real argument, but dogma.

Sperm donors are not considered parents or legal parents of the kid. Therefore they can have no claim against them for child support.
This is evidence of your dogma. Sperm donors are biological parents, but the same support which is expected of other biological parents is not socially expected of them.

Evidently you can't control yourself and your sexual activity. Yes you do need help.
Evidently, you are obsessed with sexual activity. Seek help immediately.
 
You just 100% missed biology 101 didn't you? yes they biologically create children it is called semen.
I am well aware of biology as well as sociology, and I have a remedial understanding of political science. Your statements about semen are becoming tiresome. If you want to talk about semen in this thread, you are welcome to, but I should point out (yet again) a commonly misconstrued fact about biology. Men and women both provide genetic material required for pregnancy. Where men ejaculate semen using their reproductive organs, women provide eggs via the Fallopian tube. These reproductive materials meet in the uterus. No matter how they meet in the uterus, whether it is by natural or artificial insemination, the insemination and impregnation take place within the context of female biology. Let's take a step back and look at the semantics of this action.

Biological material is made available by men for use within the context of female biology. But men to not control female biology, they simply make a reproductive resource available in a way similar to the way that women make reproductive resources available. They are biologically different ways, but men do not cause women to become pregnant. Men are not acting upon women and women are not acted upon. It is a mutually beneficial biological arrangement. The problem occurs when it is not mutually and socially beneficial, such as when a women elects to have an abortion. Women have the right to elective abortion in a way that men do not, removing the social consequences of bringing a pregnancy to term. That is why women do not risk an average cost of ~$4,000 when they engage in vaginal, sexual intercourse with a heterosexual partner.

That is exactly what it makes it. Let me know when you actually present some logic. I have presented plenty of logic. You just fail to grasp it.
You have yet to state any facts at all. Nope no robbery at all. you evidently don't understand the definition of robbery either.
You have provided an opinion. I have provided factual basis for my argument. You have fixated on biology (and possibly biological health and well being, specifically), whereas I have treated the subject objectively by keeping in mind other factors that exist, such as civil liberties.

Yes they can be. I do know of men that do collect child support from their g/f's or ex wives.
Women are not forced to do this by the law. The law permits women to do two things without consent from any man that men are not permitted to do without consent from any woman: elective abortion and safe haven adoption.

if you do not want the risk then you should probably control yourself a bit more or wait till you are mature enough to
handle the responsibility.
Tell it to the pregnant woman who decided she couldn't afford to support a child, but needed a man to do it for her.

your continued use of logical fallacies show you never had an argument.
I have not committed any logical fallacy. If it is your opinion that my argument is either inconsistent, or that any point is without merit, please say so. Until you have conclusively shown that either of these are true, or if for some other reason than your personal ideology you would like me to reconsider my stance, my argument is unaffected by your BS.

wow you just proved yourself wrong. they went to jail for contempt of court not for debt congrats for
proving yourself wrong.

The debt is a direct result of an artificial social policy, the only purpose of which is to create a debt to the state. Child support creates artificial debt, not like other debts. It is a special debt, with special privileges, and the state imprisons people who do not pay that debt. The people who do not pay that debt are largely men, do to the law being biased. The number of incarcerated out of that number of male non-payors is between 95% and 98.5% in Massachusetts. Not only does this show the existence of a gender bias, but the same report shows that the bias has become more severe. Men are at an increased risk of discrimination under a biased law.
 
Last edited:
The law does not make you right, unless you are litigating a case in a court of law. Any argument you make in an extralegal setting is not substantiated by law alone. You have not come up with more than a basic appeal to authority. Because the law is sometimes flawed, I reject your argument that the law makes me wrong, on principle. We have passed laws that allow legal servitude of individuals and their descendants. The law is not always right, and your statement that "we have passed laws" does not substantiate a real argument, as it is an appeal to authority. Once again, you have failed to form a cogent argument with evidence.

The law isn't flawed. You should support your kids end of story. Why should you be able to dump your kid on the rest of society to take care of? You can attempt to reject whatever you want it is a failure of yours not mine.
Nope no legal servitude at all. Nope not an appeal to authority. again you claiming opinion as fact is yet another fallacy of yours.


Society also determined that it was legal to own slaves before the war. Sometimes, society is misguided by the congressional incumbents who were re-elected in a recent congressional election cycle, since they enjoy support disproportionate to their approval rating. That is called political science, and it won't be necessary to report to the police that policies exist which discriminate against heterosexual men. You wouldn't understand that, though, due to your biased, primitive and archaic opinions about biology which cloud your reasoning.

now we have the equivalent fallacy. you have added a strawman to the argument as well you are just so backed up to a wall you don't know what to do.
I know more about biology pertaining to this topic than you do that is for sure. Nothing is clouding my reasoning at all. You on the other hand don't have a reason
to not support a child and dump it on society to bear the cost.

No, it is not an appeal to emotion. It is logical to base a social consequence on social empiricism, instead of biological empiricism. You have no real argument, but dogma.

Nope it is an appeal. No you are the one spouting dogma. You have yet to say 1 ounce of biology so far. In fact everything we know about biology says you are 100% wrong
as I have already proven.

This is evidence of your dogma. Sperm donors are biological parents, but the same support which is expected of other biological parents is not socially expected of them.

While they might be the biological donor they have no other connection to the women or child. In fact most don't even know if their sperm has been used to impregnate someone.
I told you why they are not considered legal parents by definition. your refusal to accept fact just shows how dishonest you are being.

Evidently, you are obsessed with sexual activity. Seek help immediately.

LOL says the guy that can't says he can't control his own reproduction lol.
 
The law isn't flawed. You should support your kids end of story. Why should you be able to dump your kid on the rest of society to take care of? You can attempt to reject whatever you want it is a failure of yours not mine.
Nope no legal servitude at all. Nope not an appeal to authority. again you claiming opinion as fact is yet another fallacy of yours.
The law which requires men to become parents at the convenience of the state, but not women is discriminatory and inconsistent. Why should society be able to dump the cost of parenting on any individual citizen? You can attempt to convey any unethical argument which is beneficial to the state, but that's your false success, not mine. You condemn others to a financial burden that you think is appropriate because you don't believe in social welfare being publicly funded. Yet at the same time, you advocate for social welfare from a public institution. That is an inconsistent position which allows the government to oppress private citizens on the basis of their sexuality.

now we have the equivalent fallacy. you have added a strawman to the argument as well you are just so backed up to a wall you don't know what to do.
I know more about biology pertaining to this topic than you do that is for sure. Nothing is clouding my reasoning at all. You on the other hand don't have a reason
to not support a child and dump it on society to bear the cost.
My argument, as it does not relate to your opinion, is not a strawman. I have not committed a fallacy by putting forth a legitimate argument. You do not seem to understand how logical argument works. I have put forth a cogent argument and you are attempting to downplay it by false accusation. I did not say that you said what I said, instead I said what I meant. The facts support my argument.

Nope it is an appeal. No you are the one spouting dogma. You have yet to say 1 ounce of biology so far. In fact everything we know about biology says you are 100% wrong
as I have already proven.
Nope, actually everything we have seen in your argument relies on your opinion. Your dogma is baseless without one of two fallacies: an appeal to emotion or an appeal to authority. As I have repeatedly stated, child support is an artificial social policy. "The law is the law" and "babies need support because they're babies" does not make a legitimate argument, it appeals to our perceptions of emotional connection to children and obedience to authority. Whether or not feeling emotion and behaving obediently are good or bad is not of importance in a logical argument, except as self evident truths. Because there is no law that says we must feel emotions and behave obediently, it is clear that your argument in it's purest, distilled form is as follows:
  1. Babies are good.
  2. Responsibility is inviolable
  3. Adults are responsible for babies.
  4. Adults who are not responsible are criminals, and must be punished due to lack of obeisance.


While they might be the biological donor they have no other connection to the women or child. In fact most don't even know if their sperm has been used to impregnate someone.
I told you why they are not considered legal parents by definition. your refusal to accept fact just shows how dishonest you are being.
When controlled for sexual behavior, we see that biological parents who reproduce artificially do not face the consequences of child support. Therefore, child support is a consequence of sexual behavior. It is artificial, and disproportionately targets heterosexual men.
 
Your statements about semen are becoming tiresome. If you want to talk about semen in this thread, you are welcome to, but I should point out (yet again) a commonly misconstrued fact about biology. Men and women both provide genetic material required for pregnancy. Where men ejaculate semen using their reproductive organs, women provide eggs via the Fallopian tube. These reproductive materials meet in the uterus.

Evidently you are not aware that kids are biology the creation of men. yeah because there is nothing you can do to defeat it. I never women didn't. however you seem to deny that men are responsible for women getting pregnant or that they
are biologically theirs. The fact is you are 100% wrong and I have proven it with basic biology. Nope you just admitted this whole time that you were 100% wrong. that is all I need to know and for everyone else.
without the semen from a man a women cannot get pregnant.

Biological material is made available by men for use within the context of female biology. But men to not control female biology, they simply make a reproductive resource available in a way similar to the way that women make reproductive resources available. They are biologically different ways, but men do not cause women to become pregnant. Men are not acting upon women and women are not acted upon. It is a mutually beneficial biological arrangement.

I never said that men control female biology so that is a strawman argument. They do however control what goes into a women's body. Actually they do without semen a women cannot get pregnant here you go again flunking biology 101.
You have a right not to get her pregnant to begin with. you control the ability of whether or not she gets pregnant. Actually women must pay child support to men as well if the court orders such and they have.
so you are wrong here as well not surprising.

You have provided an opinion. I have provided factual basis for my argument. You have fixated on biology (and possibly biological health and well being, specifically), whereas I have treated the subject objectively by keeping in mind other factors that exist, such as civil liberties.

LOL no I have provided biological fact you have an opinion but evidently do not know how biology works. No you have treated the subject with your bias and frankly uneducated opinion.
No civil liberties have been violated.

Women are not forced to do this by the law. The law permits women to do two things without consent from any man that men are not permitted to do without consent from any woman: elective abortion and safe haven adoption.

So now are areguing that the law forces men to get women pregnant? source please I really have to see this to laugh my rear end off.
Please post the law that requires men to get women pregnant. You are not allowed to not get her pregnant to begin with? really
please show me this law and everyone else.

Tell it to the pregnant woman who decided she couldn't afford to support a child, but needed a man to do it for her.

Supporting a child is expensive. So why should he not have to help pay for the child that he helped create? you still have not answered this.

I have not committed any logical fallacy. If it is your opinion that my argument is either inconsistent, or that any point is without merit, please say so.

Your entire argument is a giant fallacy that flys in the fact of biological fact. Your argument is so full of holes you could drive a semi-through it.
Yes your argument is consistent of being uninformed of biology. We know all you have is BS and have had nothing but BS for pages now.

The debt is a direct result of an artificial social policy, the only purpose of which is to create a debt to the state. Child support creates artificial debt, not like other debts. It is a special debt, with special privileges, and the state imprisons people who do not pay that debt. The people who do not pay that debt are largely men, do to the law being biased.

there is no such thing as artificial social policy you keep saying this as if it has a meaning. In fact it has no meaning at all. The only place that this even shows up in google
is in this thread. There is no debt to the state. It isn't an artificial debt. Nope it isn't special at all. No special privleges.

No you are wrong people get imprisoned for violating a court order just like they can get prison for violating any other court order.
the law isn't bias at all. if you refuse to follow a court order and that is any court order then you run the risk of going to jail.

pay your child support don't go to jail due to contempt of court no problems.
again don't like child support don't go sleeping with random women.
 
The law which requires men to become parents at the convenience of the state, but not women is discriminatory and inconsistent. Why should society be able to dump the cost of parenting on any individual citizen? You can attempt to convey any unethical argument which is beneficial to the state, but that's your false success, not mine. You condemn others to a financial burden that you think is appropriate because you don't believe in social welfare being publicly funded. Yet at the same time, you advocate for social welfare from a public institution. That is an inconsistent position which allows the government to oppress private citizens on the basis of their sexuality.

Women are just as much responsible for the well being and financial support of the child. you are 100% wrong again.
why? becauses you got her pregnant. she didn't do it by herself. why should society pay the cost of that?

The only unethical argument is yours. yet another appeal to emotion from you that is all you have.
Nope I believe putting the burden on the people that created the problem. That means less money needs to be paid out by social
services. which means less of a burden on society. Pregnancy is a personal responsibility not a society one.

I have provided no inconsistent argument at all. you dont' get to make up my arguments. that is yet another logical fallacy called a strawman.

My argument, as it does not relate to your opinion, is not a strawman. I have not committed a fallacy by putting forth a legitimate argument. You do not seem to understand how logical argument works. I have put forth a cogent argument and you are attempting to downplay it by false accusation. I did not say that you said what I said, instead I said what I meant. The facts support my argument.

Sure it is you are arguing something that I never argued in an attempt to say I am wrong that is by definition a strawman argument.
it isn't a legitament argument it is what we call a red herring combined with a strawman argument. All of your arguments are logical fallacies so far.

Nope you haven't put out any argument thus far. it is simply I got a girl pregnant and don't think I should have to support the child that other people
should have to support them because I didn't want a kid to begin with. well sorry that is one of the risk factors of sex that you agree to when you engage
in that activity. She accepts the same risk factors.

Nope, actually everything we have seen in your argument relies on your opinion. Your dogma is baseless without one of two fallacies: an appeal to emotion or an appeal to authority. As I have repeatedly stated, child support is an artificial social policy. "The law is the law" and "babies need support because they're babies" does not make a legitimate argument, it appeals to our perceptions of emotional connection to children and obedience to authority. Whether or not feeling emotion and behaving obediently are good or bad is not of importance in a logical argument, except as self evident truths. Because there is no law that says we must feel emotions and behave obediently, it is clear that your argument in it's purest, distilled form is as follows:
  1. Babies are good.
  2. Responsibility is inviolable
  3. Adults are responsible for babies.
  4. Adults who are not responsible are criminals, and must be punished due to lack of obeisance.

again you don't get to make up my argument. the fact is you cannot defeat biology 101 classes. They are based only on fact. then you go to the strawman and appeal to emotion points.
Babies are babies I never said anything about them being good or not so this is a strawman.
Yes we hold people to be responsible for their actions.
yes adults are responsible for babies
I never said they were criminals so this is a strawman argument. No punishment at all.

When controlled for sexual behavior, we see that biological parents who reproduce artificially do not face the consequences of child support. Therefore, child support is a consequence of sexual behavior. It is artificial, and disproportionately targets heterosexual men.

This has been explained to you. evidently you do not understand simple concepts.
 
Evidently you are not aware that kids are biology the creation of men. yeah because there is nothing you can do to defeat it. I never women didn't. however you seem to deny that men are responsible for women getting pregnant or that they
are biologically theirs. The fact is you are 100% wrong and I have proven it with basic biology. Nope you just admitted this whole time that you were 100% wrong. that is all I need to know and for everyone else.
without the semen from a man a women cannot get pregnant.
Evidently you do not understand how pregnancy works. "I never women didn't" is nonsense. What are you saying here? That men go above and beyond the call of duty by biologically facilitating pregnancy beyond the provision of genetic material? I don't see that at all. Your basic rhetoric has not disproved much of anything at all. In fact, I did not admit that I was wrong by pointing out that men provide genetic materials for use by female biological functions. Men do not create children, they provide semen. Women provide eggs and use a technique called "insemination" to achieve pregnancy.

I never said that men control female biology so that is a strawman argument. They do however control what goes into a women's body. Actually they do without semen a women cannot get pregnant here you go again flunking biology 101.
You have a right not to get her pregnant to begin with. you control the ability of whether or not she gets pregnant. Actually women must pay child support to men as well if the court orders such and they have.
so you are wrong here as well not surprising.
I'm just trying to make heads or tails of your argument. It seems really complicated. So you're not saying that men control female biology, though the womb is a unique characteristic of female biology, but you think that men somehow create children. Since the womb is the source of biological creation of human babies, are you saying that spontaneous generation is possible? I thought that theory was discredited by Pasteur.

I've provided a succinct and accurate description of how pregnancy occurs, you seem to believe there is an alternative in "basic biology." There is not. Women create children, not men.

So now are areguing that the law forces men to get women pregnant? source please I really have to see this to laugh my rear end off.
Please post the law that requires men to get women pregnant. You are not allowed to not get her pregnant to begin with? really
please show me this law and everyone else.
No, I haven't argued that the law forces men to get women pregnant. Quote me saying that. I have said that the law forces men to be patrons, in which case they are forced to be patrons of women, via the Office of Child Support.

Supporting a child is expensive. So why should he not have to help pay for the child that he helped create? you still have not answered this.
Did you expect a different answer? He should not be required to pay for a child he helped create, if he did not help create it. Since men do not create children, this loaded question is kaput. The real question is, why should society not have to help in the social welfare of its people?
 
Your entire argument is a giant fallacy that flys in the fact of biological fact. Your argument is so full of holes you could drive a semi-through it.
Yes your argument is consistent of being uninformed of biology. We know all you have is BS and have had nothing but BS for pages now.
Pure BS. Your argumentum ad lapidem is duly noted and poorly received. I am more knowledgeable of biology than you, and I have substantiated my argument with greater and more numerous biological, sociological and political evidence.

there is no such thing as artificial social policy you keep saying this as if it has a meaning. In fact it has no meaning at all. The only place that this even shows up in google
is in this thread. There is no debt to the state. It isn't an artificial debt. Nope it isn't special at all. No special privleges.

This is your argument: "it doesn't exist, you keep saying it does. It doesn't mean anything. I Googled it, therefore I know. No, I don't get it." Remember, saying it's not real doesn't mean that you have a legitimate argument. You seem to be in denial. My argument is cogent and supported by an adequate amount of evidence.

No you are wrong people get imprisoned for violating a court order just like they can get prison for violating any other court order.
the law isn't bias at all. if you refuse to follow a court order and that is any court order then you run the risk of going to jail.
Your appeal to authority makes a fallacious argument. Once upon a time, it was legal to own slaves and their descendants. The law is not right because it's the law, and sometimes the law is poorly written, for example a law can be "vague[/QUOTE]," or "overly broad." In that case, the law must be revised. A law which disproportionately targets men for financial abuse and imprisons men due to actions by women should be revised.

again don't like child support don't go sleeping with random women.
Tell that to women, and they will have nothing to fear. The law targets men only.

Women are just as much responsible for the well being and financial support of the child. you are 100% wrong again.
why? becauses you got her pregnant. she didn't do it by herself. why should society pay the cost of that?
False, women can adopt through a safe haven and they may abort. They do not face the financial cost that men do. This has been explained to you, but you still do not understand the simple fact that the law targets men.

The only unethical argument is yours. yet another appeal to emotion from you that is all you have.
Nope I believe putting the burden on the people that created the problem. That means less money needs to be paid out by social
services. which means less of a burden on society. Pregnancy is a personal responsibility not a society one.
My argument is based on factual evidence, not an appeal to emotion. You seem to believe that pregnancy is a personal responsibility, but men are not personally pregnant. According to what you have written, men cannot be held responsible for a woman's pregnancy. I agree, but I think men should be voluntarily responsible.

I have provided no inconsistent argument at all. you dont' get to make up my arguments. that is yet another logical fallacy called a strawman.
I don't make your arguments, but your arguments are poorly made. I make my own arguments which are cogent. That means they make sense and they are clear.
 
Evidently you do not understand how pregnancy works. "I never women didn't" is nonsense. What are you saying here? That men go above and beyond the call of duty by biologically facilitating pregnancy beyond the provision of genetic material? I don't see that at all. Your basic rhetoric has not disproved much of anything at all. In fact, I did not admit that I was wrong by pointing out that men provide genetic materials for use by female biological functions. Men do not create children, they provide semen. Women provide eggs and use a technique called "insemination" to achieve pregnancy.
At this point you are simply being obtuse. No you are the one that does not understand how pregnancy works. You have proven this the entire thread. No your rhetoric doesn't prove anything but you still repeat it as if it makes a difference.
Yep you did you said men can't get a women pregnant and in one sentence just countered yourself.

Umm providing semen is creating children unless you think a women doesn't need anything else and can just miraculously get pregnant with 0 outside influence. You keep saying she can but have yet to prove it.

I'm just trying to make heads or tails of your argument. It seems really complicated. So you're not saying that men control female biology, though the womb is a unique characteristic of female biology, but you think that men somehow create children. Since the womb is the source of biological creation of human babies, are you saying that spontaneous generation is possible? I thought that theory was discredited by Pasteur.
Only complicated to people that do not understand basic high school biology. Yep she can't have a baby without you. Again this is biology 101. Sure deposit an egg in a uterus without a man and see what happens. I bet she doesn't have a baby.
No you are saying they spontaneously generate.

I've provided a succinct and accurate description of how pregnancy occurs, you seem to believe there is an alternative in "basic biology." There is not. Women create children, not men.

Which is why you flunked biology class if you didn't then your teacher was an idiot.

[QUOTE
No, I haven't argued that the law forces men to get women pregnant. Quote me saying that. I have said that the law forces men to be patrons, in which case they are forced to be patrons of women, via the Office of Child Support.[/QUOTE]
That is what you said in your post. Men have no control over getting women pregnant. I asked you to post the law that force men to do this. Since you can't because there isn't one then this claim is just as much nonsense as your others.

Did you expect a different answer? He should not be required to pay for a child he helped create, if he did not help create it. Since men do not create children, this loaded question is kaput. The real question is, why should society not have to help in the social welfare of its people?

This is where you flunk biology again. So you are back to saying babies just sponteously create themselves.
You lose this conversation right here. You are now no longer worth responding to.
 
At this point you are simply being obtuse. No you are the one that does not understand how pregnancy works. You have proven this the entire thread. No your rhetoric doesn't prove anything but you still repeat it as if it makes a difference.
Yep you did you said men can't get a women pregnant and in one sentence just countered yourself.
I am not being obtuse by distinguishing between male and female biology. You are being obtuse by claiming that men create children. Men do not create children. The biological creation of children takes place within the context of female biology. Yes, reproductive materials are provided. However, male reproductive material alone does not create a child, nor does female reproductive material create a child without male reproductive material. The fact that the reproductive material in the form of sperm comes from outside of female biology does not mean that anyone else other than a woman can create a child. Women have wombs, which is where fetuses grow. Where fetuses grow, there is a good chance a baby will develop and when birth occurs, it occurs at the very least in part due to female biology. Birth is not a male biological function, except in the trivial case of the birth of a male infant, which is not due to the infant's masculinity, but his young age.

Umm providing semen is creating children unless you think a women doesn't need anything else and can just miraculously get pregnant with 0 outside influence. You keep saying she can but have yet to prove it.
No, providing semen is not the same as creating children. Providing semen is not even the same as impregnation. I can't believe you actually just wrote that.

There is a very good reason to believe this does not always result in child support: providing semen at any time other than during sex does not account for child support, unless fraud is involved. Take for example, the sperm donor who donated sperm a couple years back, not by sexual intercourse. Because no doctor was involved, the state of Kansas determined that they should be able to legally rip him off.

Now this gives rise to two questions: why are medical doctors required to stop an artificial social policy, and how do we know what really went on at the time of donation in this particular case? By the former, I could have a medical doctor in attendance at the time of sexual intercourse, where sperm would be physically donated, and have the doctor sign off on the donation. By the latter, I could have sexual intercourse using a condom, and throw the condom away in the trash. Then, my girlfriend and I could leave when her roommate arrives, and her roommate could remove the semen from the condom, insert it into her vagina, get pregnant and give birth nine months later.

These types of scenarios are not common, but as far as I know, they are also not illegal. But the law is not supposed to enable fraud, it is suppose to end it. Men and women are not treated equally under family law.

Only complicated to people that do not understand basic high school biology. Yep she can't have a baby without you. Again this is biology 101. Sure deposit an egg in a uterus without a man and see what happens. I bet she doesn't have a baby.
No you are saying they spontaneously generate.
Why would you deposit an egg in a uterus except as a form of surrogacy? Is this in any way even remotely related to the topic of child support or sex?

That is what you said in your post. Men have no control over getting women pregnant. I asked you to post the law that force men to do this. Since you can't because there isn't one then this claim is just as much nonsense as your others.
You asked me to post a law which says that men don't have control over women getting pregnant? That makes absolutely no sense. There is no law preventing women from getting pregnant, it is simply a biological fact that men do not have wombs.

This is where you flunk biology again. So you are back to saying babies just sponteously create themselves.
No, women create babies. You have falsely attributed this argument to me. I am saying that your question about men who help create children is loaded. Even if men did 'help create children,' then by that logic, sperm donors would also be required to pay for the women who they helped in the matter of creation of a child. Unless you give them special legal immunity because child support is an artificial social policy designed to target sexually active men who engage in intercourse with women.
 
Congratulations, we're discussing child support and how it is amazingly hypocritical and sexist for folks like yourself who support abandoning parental responsibilities when it's a woman to turn around and start talking about taking responsibility and keeping one's pants on.
At which point did I take that position? Point me to it?
 
wow you just proved yourself wrong. they went to jail for contempt of court not for debt congrats for
proving yourself wrong.

wow, you just debate in circles because you don't know any better.

wow - since you can't offer anything of substance, you lose by default.

contempt of court is lawyer speak for do what we say.

in this case, what they said to do is "pay your debt"
 
Last edited:
wow, you just debate in circles because you don't know any better.
Nope I am not the one that posted the link that proved myself wrong that would be you.

wow - since you can't offer anything of substance, you lose by default.

How am I wrong when you own link says that I am right?

contempt of court is lawyer speak for do what we say.

This is the definition of contempt of court.

There are broadly two categories of contempt: being rude or disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order.

in this case, what they said to do is "pay your debt"

nope you willfully disobeyed a court order that is what gets you put in jail.
 
Last edited:
Nope I am not the one that posted the link that proved myself wrong that would be you.

wow. my link proved you wrong. I even quantified this debtors prison trend for you.

I led the horse to water, I can't make them drink

people go to jail because of debt. that is a fact.
 
wow. my link proved you wrong. I even quantified this debtors prison trend for you.

I led the horse to water, I can't make them drink

people go to jail because of debt. that is a fact.

Yep your link said that you go to jail for contempt of court which is exactly what I said.
You don't go to jail for debtors prison.

Yep you were lead you refused to drink and then posted a link that said you were wrong.
They go to jail for contempt of court.

Nope people have unpaid debts all the time they don't go to jail over them. They might have to
go to court but they don't go to jail.

So this is false. The only time they would go to jail is if they are in contempt of an injunction.
 
Yep your link said that you go to jail for contempt of court which is exactly what I said.

my link backed my claim. this is a slippery slope to debtors prison.

it isn't just contempt of court - that is a catch all. what were they showing contempt for? failure to pay their court ordered debt.

without debtors prison, you have no teeth saying someone owes money. semantic arguments are for ******s.
 
The point being, the money is owed by a particular class. That class of people often do not pay because they cannot pay, which either fuels the prison system with bodies, or funds a system which fuels the prison system. Frivolous incarceration is a pain in the ass of society. We have failed in the drug war and succeeded in oppressing nonviolent offenders - whether they be criminal by drug use or civilly disobedient by non-payment of child support. It's not productive to incarcerate someone because they don't do what you want; incarceration at will is the method of a tyrant.

I think it's clear what I mean by "at will," but for those of us who do not understand:

The court ordered the DNA test. Then the court ordered the child support. Then the court ordered imputed income. Then the court ordered prison time. At no point is there an option to divert. This is a matter of control and it is very specific in terms of who is controlled by whom.
 
Last edited:
The point being, the money is owed by a particular class. That class of people often do not pay because they cannot pay, which either fuels the prison system with bodies, or funds a system which fuels the prison system. Frivolous incarceration is a pain in the ass of society. We have failed in the drug war and succeeded in oppressing nonviolent offenders - whether they be criminal by drug use or civilly disobedient by non-payment of child support. It's not productive to incarcerate someone because they don't do what you want; incarceration at will is the method of a tyrant.

I think it's clear what I mean by "at will," but for those of us who do not understand:

The court ordered the DNA test. Then the court ordered the child support. Then the court ordered imputed income. Then the court ordered prison time. At no point is there an option to divert. This is a matter of control and it is very specific in terms of who is controlled by whom.
And all through that process leading up to incarceration, the man has a chance to make his case. Tell me at which point he is not free to explain why he cannot meet his responsibility?
 
Back
Top Bottom