• 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

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?

If everything that I have stated thus far is true and if people still disagree then the difference in their mind must be elsewhere, but then their argument would have to be based on something besides the womans body, labor and her agreement on the subject of pregnancy and having a child, or else there is no reason to suspect that if forcing the woman to remain pregnant and give birth to a child is forcing her into labor for the benefit of the unborn, that forcing individuals to support their born children through child support payments is not forcing them into labor for their born children. Therefore, the argument must be based on something else for the logic of their argument to not flow into the born state, and for that we have to start at the beginning of it all. This all goes back to development arguments that interfere with her abortion rights, however, if she has the right to abort at twelve weeks, for example, but lets say not at twenty-eight, than the question becomes why is her right to labor and body deemed overwritten at a certain stage of development, but not at another. The argument is simply that the unborn is viable at that certain stage and therefore it is wrong to destroy it, but that would appear to be more of a morality argument than one based on reason. Now you could say to me that it is not because it is backed by science, and even if that argument has some merit to it, it is incontinent with all her rights to her body and labor, and is just as it would be if it at an earlier time in the pregnancy, forcing her into labor for the unborn. After the pregnancy is over the argument shifts a little bit, and indeed, the argument is believed by the vast majority of people that are both pro-life and pro-choice that argue that the born are owed support from their parents. The question however remains unanswered as to why that is. Some will argue that the born are thinking, feeling, human beings that need love and compassion and the helping hand of loving parents to guide them through life, which also means the financial support of their parents. A loving sentiment, but again, I can not stress enough the inconstancy of this argument with the abortion debate, and how once again people are ignoring the labor that is required for such a sentiment to come to fruitarian, much as those on the pro-life side do with the abortion debate. There doesn’t appear to be any way to argue that in either debate, being that of abortion and child support, that it is not forcing individuals into labor if the state was to either force the woman to remain pregnant or to force individuals to support their born children.

Lastly, if I was to revisit the argument of consent to sex, we find ourselves in the hypocrisy of the argument that if the man does not want a child that he should restrain from sex or get himself fixed, but the woman can have sex and not support her unborn child. If the man must restrain himself from sex due to not consenting to a child, then why is it that the woman does not have to restrain from sex if she does not want a child? Is it not odd that we protect her right to labor, to some degree, but do go out of our way to ignore his? If he must restrain than obviously to be consistent in our argument she must restrain, or else we are protecting the one parties rights, but not the others parties rights.

Due to post character restraints I will need to cut this short, but if I was successful the point should be made that imposing child support payments on either the man or the woman is forcing them into service for a child that more than likely they did not want and by the actions of the state removing the property of the unwilling parent they are violating their property rights. It is thus clear that child support violates the thirteenth amendment.

Note: If you have been following along you might have noticed I argued that abortion laws violate the thirteenth amendment too. Consider it a bonus. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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...

Your argument is no better than anyone else's who thinks that child support is a violation of a parent's rights. To equate supporting one's biological child to a woman's right to an abortion is apples-to-oranges. As to your argument that it violates the 13th Amendment? By any definition, child support is not slavery. And it is no more involuntary servitude than income taxes.

I suspect this will be one of your more popular threads. Lots'a action. ;)
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Your argument is no better than anyone else's who thinks that child support is a violation of a parent's rights. To equate supporting one's biological child to a woman's right to an abortion is apples-to-oranges. As to your argument that it violates the 13th Amendment? By any definition, child support is not slavery. And it is no more involuntary servitude than income taxes.

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 suspect this will be one of your more popular threads. Lots'a action. ;)

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.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
See, I don't disagree with you, but I am absolutely floored by your level of hypocrisy.

You devolve into violent language and cursing over the idea of women having bodily integrity, but for some reason it's different when it concerns something more likely to affect you personally, as a man.

You don't give a damn about ethics. You're more than happy to violate them if someone else is doing something you don't like. You only care about your own hide.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
See, I don't disagree with you, but I am absolutely floored by your level of hypocrisy.

You devolve into violent language and cursing over the idea of women having bodily integrity, but for some reason it's different when it concerns something more likely to affect you personally, as a man.

You don't give a damn about ethics. You're more than happy to violate them if someone else is doing something you don't like. You only care about your own hide.

I don't recall ever cursing when talking about this issue. I do curse more than I should though, so I suppose it's possible.

Anyway, some months after you made the body sovereignty argument on abortion that I rejected I started to think about it after I read a book by an individualist turned communist feminist that made the very same argument you did, but in a way that convinced me I was in fact wrong on the issue by making an exception for the unborn that I logically shouldn't have been making.

This isn't the first time I made the argument that abortion laws are involuntary servitude, as I have actually done so a few times since I came to that realization.

Here is one such example:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/171840-todds-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests-w-699-a-64.html#post1062280513
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,471
Reaction score
4,063
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your argument is no better than anyone else's who thinks that child support is a violation of a parent's rights. To equate supporting one's biological child to a woman's right to an abortion is apples-to-oranges.

If it is "apples to oranges" due to contrast, that contrast does not favor of anyone who argues in favor of both abortion and mandatory child support.

When the apple is "not providing financial support to your kid" versus the orange of "paying someone to kill your kid," then yes, that discrepancy is severe - paying someone to kill your kid is more harsh even if (for some trumped up absurd reason) you think that killing is justified.

It is profoundly illogical for anyone to say that consensual intercourse is not consent to potential parenthood for one party - and thus they claim abortion is justified - and then they turn around and say that it is consent to potential parenthood for the other party.


Supporting mandatory child support AND legal abortion is stacking blatant hypocrisy on top of amorality.
 

Ocean007

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
2,612
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
See, I don't disagree with you, but I am absolutely floored by your level of hypocrisy.

You devolve into violent language and cursing over the idea of women having bodily integrity, but for some reason it's different when it concerns something more likely to affect you personally, as a man.

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.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I am not generally in favor of the Government forcing anyone to support anyone else. I truly do not believe that it is the Government's role to do so. HOWEVER, this happens to be one of very few exceptions to that rule, for the following reasons.....

A. I do believe that consent to sex IS consent to parenthood for BOTH parties involved. This means that by consenting to sexual relations with a man, a woman is consenting to the potential to be pregnant for 9 months and to undertake the role of a mother for 18 years thereafter. It also means that the man is consenting to being financially and emotionally supportive of both the child and the mother for a minimum of the next 18 years and 9 months.

B. If the mother of the child does not want the child, and the father is not married to the mother, she should be free to give the child up for adoption after birth; at which point all financial and emotional support requirements for the child by the father cease to exist. However, he should be responsible for the financial burdens imposed by the pregnancy, and for any complications which she may have incurred due to the pregnancy. Beyond that he has no financial or emotional responsibilities to the mother either.

C. In return for the financial support of the child, the father should be granted significant and regular access to the child both in the presence of the mother and without her present (so long as there is no reason to believe he will be harmful to the child). If those paternal rights are violated in any way, other than for due cause, his requirement for financial support should be voided immediately and permanently.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
See, I don't disagree with you, but I am absolutely floored by your level of hypocrisy.

You devolve into violent language and cursing over the idea of women having bodily integrity, but for some reason it's different when it concerns something more likely to affect you personally, as a man.

You don't give a damn about ethics. You're more than happy to violate them if someone else is doing something you don't like. You only care about your own hide.

Ya didn't you see where it said libertarian?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If it is "apples to oranges" due to contrast, that contrast does not favor of anyone who argues in favor of both abortion and mandatory child support.

When the apple is "not providing financial support to your kid" versus the orange of "paying someone to kill your kid," then yes, that discrepancy is severe - paying someone to kill your kid is more harsh even if (for some trumped up absurd reason) you think that killing is justified.

It is profoundly illogical for anyone to say that consensual intercourse is not consent to potential parenthood for one party - and thus they claim abortion is justified - and then they turn around and say that it is consent to potential parenthood for the other party.

Supporting mandatory child support AND legal abortion is stacking blatant hypocrisy on top of amorality.

It's quite simple, really. In one case, we're talking about the rights of a woman. In the other, we're talking about the rights of a child.

I'm sick and tired of men on this forum who think child support is unfair. No one's going into the tunnel blind, are they? If it feels so damned good to have unprotected sex, then that's the price one must be willing to pay. Gone are the days when a man could simply say, "Hey!! It isn't mine, sweetie." Every time a man has unprotected sex, every single time, he's risking child support payments for the next 18+ years.

As to abortion and child support views either falling in line with your thinking or being hypocritical? That's simply not true. One view has nothing to do with the other.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As to abortion and child support views either falling in line with your thinking or being hypocritical? That's simply not true. One view has nothing to do with the other.

I have to respectfully disagree, Maggie. If a Man is expected to be responsible when he takes his pants off, then a woman should be expected to be equally responsible. We do live in a supposedly egalitarian society wheren men and women are equal, right? If he doesn't have the right to say that he doesn't want the kid, and is expected to pay for 18+ years, as you suggest, then why is she not expected to be equally responsible for her actions?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have to respectfully disagree, Maggie. If a Man is expected to be responsible when he takes his pants off, then a woman should be expected to be equally responsible. We do live in a supposedly egalitarian society wheren men and women are equal, right? If he doesn't have the right to say that he doesn't want the kid, and is expected to pay for 18+ years, as you suggest, then why is she not expected to be equally responsible for her actions?

She is equally responsible. A mother is just as responsible for child support payments as a father. You're talking about the rights of the mother and the father. Before a child is born, a man can neither force a woman to have an abortion nor force her to carry to term. After a child is born, the child has rights. One of those rights is to be supported by its parents.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,471
Reaction score
4,063
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's quite simple, really. In one case, we're talking about the rights of a woman. In the other, we're talking about the rights of a child.

I disagree. I think in both cases you're talking about the rights of the kid. There is no "right" to kill in aggression.

I'm sick and tired of men on this forum who think child support is unfair.

For the record, I didn't say child support is unfair.

I support mandating child support. I do absolutely believe that if you create offspring you have an obligation to them... hence my abortion opposition.

I DID say that supporting abortion AND mandatory child support is blatant hypocrisy, because it is.

Every time a man has unprotected sex, every single time, he's risking child support payments for the next 18+ years.

Funny, this sounds an awful lot like what I would say about pregnancy.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I DID say that supporting abortion AND mandatory child support is blatant hypocrisy, because it is.

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.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,471
Reaction score
4,063
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.

It doesn't need to, though I hardly regard talking about the crux of the matter to be a devolution.

So, you are asking why, why is that hypocrisy?

Well, remember when you said:

Every time a man has unprotected sex, every single time, he's risking child support payments for the next 18+ years

And I said:

Funny, this sounds an awful lot like what I would say about pregnancy.


That's it in a nutshell.


The effort to justify abortion hinges entirely on the notion that having sex is not consent to conceive offspring.

If it isn't, then it isn't.

If mom can just say she didn't mean to make a kid and that's adequate justification in your mind for her to hire someone to kill the kid, then dad can likewise say he didn't mean to make a kid.

If you don't even let dad walk away (let alone allow him to hire someone to kill the kid), you're treating men drastically unequally to women. You're telling the man that sex was consent to offspring for him.

The same consensual and mutual act either is or is not consent to create offspring.

I say it is. If you say it isn't, then be consistent.
 
Last edited:

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
She is equally responsible. A mother is just as responsible for child support payments as a father.

This is the first place where we will disagree. I believe that she is responsible for the care of the child but that HE is responsible for the financial well-being of the child. That is HIS job, and hers is to care for the child. Preferably both of these responsibilities are carried out beneath the same roof as they are both also responsible for the emotional support of the child.

You're talking about the rights of the mother and the father. Before a child is born, a man can neither force a woman to have an abortion nor force her to carry to term.

Exactly. Once she is pregnant, she gets total control of the life of that child for the next 9 months. He gets no say in the matter of whether that child lives or dies under the current laws. If he is going to be expected to pay for his "mistake" when he doesn't want the child, then why is she not equally expected to pay for her "mistake" when she doesn't want the child. ESPECIALLY if he is willing to take custody of the child and support it after birth? It appears that moden women want to have the Right to choose whether they want to be responsible for their mistakes but also want the Right to determine whether a man will be forced to assume responsibility for his mistakes as well, regardless of what he wants. Seems like a pretty significant double standard to me.

After a child is born, the child has rights. One of those rights is to be supported by its parents.

Remember that I'm much more of a believer in children as property than people until they reach an age where they can make choices on their own and be held responsible for them.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is the first place where we will disagree. I believe that she is responsible for the care of the child but that HE is responsible for the financial well-being of the child. That is HIS job, and hers is to care for the child. Preferably both of these responsibilities are carried out beneath the same roof as they are both also responsible for the emotional support of the child.



Exactly. Once she is pregnant, she gets total control of the life of that child for the next 9 months. He gets no say in the matter of whether that child lives or dies under the current laws. If he is going to be expected to pay for his "mistake" when he doesn't want the child, then why is she not equally expected to pay for her "mistake" when she doesn't want the child. ESPECIALLY if he is willing to take custody of the child and support it after birth? It appears that moden women want to have the Right to choose whether they want to be responsible for their mistakes but also want the Right to determine whether a man will be forced to assume responsibility for his mistakes as well, regardless of what he wants. Seems like a pretty significant double standard to me.



Remember that I'm much more of a believer in children as property than people until they reach an age where they can make choices on their own and be held responsible for them.

It doesn't need to, though I hardly regard talking about the crux of the matter to be a devolution.

So, you are asking why, why is that hypocrisy?

Well, remember when you said:



And I said:




That's it in a nutshell.


The effort to justify abortion hinges entirely on the notion that having sex is not consent to conceive offspring.

If it isn't, then it isn't.

If mom can just say she didn't mean to make a kid and that's adequate justification in your mind for her to hire someone to kill the kid, then dad can likewise say he didn't mean to make a kid.

If you don't even let dad walk away (let alone allow him to hire someone to kill the kid), you're treating men drastically unequally to women. You're telling the man that sex was consent to offspring for him.

The same consensual and mutual act either is or is not consent to create offspring.

I say it is. If you say it isn't, then be consistent.

I respect both of your opinions. I'm just not willing to counter them.

Child support after a child is born and the right to abortion are not in the same ballpark, in my opinion. Trying to somehow link the two to bolster one's beliefs is poor form. ;)

I think "strawman" might be the right word here.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I respect both of your opinions. I'm just not willing to counter them.

Child support after a child is born and the right to abortion are not in the same ballpark, in my opinion. Trying to somehow link the two to bolster one's beliefs is poor form. ;)

It comes down to this, in my mind, Maggie..... TWO individuals have to engage in an act to create a baby. Assuming that both parties are consenting at the time of the act, both of them have an equal responsibility to deal with the consequences of that act. If we are going to hold one party (the man) responsible for the consequences of that act, why are we not expecting the same of the other party (the woman)? Yet, our laws give her complete and total control over any decision to terminate the life of that child prior to birth and expct him to pay, regardless of whether he wants the child or not.

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in there, Maggie. A disconnect that expects a man to pay for his mistake while giving the woman a free pass to avoid the consequences at her end if she so chooses. If he's going to be expected to pay, why does he not get an equal say in the matter? Especially in cases where he is WILLING to take primary/complete custody of the child after birth and relieve her of any support requirements? Do you not see the double standard here?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It comes down to this, in my mind, Maggie..... TWO individuals have to engage in an act to create a baby. Assuming that both parties are consenting at the time of the act, both of them have an equal responsibility to deal with the consequences of that act. If we are going to hold one party (the man) responsible for the consequences of that act, why are we not expecting the same of the other party (the woman)? Yet, our laws give her complete and total control over any decision to terminate the life of that child prior to birth and expct him to pay, regardless of whether he wants the child or not.

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in there, Maggie. A disconnect that expects a man to pay for his mistake while giving the woman a free pass to avoid the consequences at her end if she so chooses. If he's going to be expected to pay, why does he not get an equal say in the matter? Especially in cases where he is WILLING to take primary/complete custody of the child after birth and relieve her of any support requirements? Do you not see the double standard here?

Tigger, you of all people should understand that life isn't always fair. ;)

For the most part, our court system holds that an individual has sovereign control of his/her body. That accounts for a woman's right to an abortion irrespective of the father's wishes. Once a child is born, that child's rights cannot be abrogated by anyone. Whether or not it's fair to a man (or a woman) is inconsequential.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Tigger, you of all people should understand that life isn't always fair. ;)

I understand that quite well, Maggie. Even better and better on a daily basis right now, it seems.

For the most part, our court system holds that an individual has sovereign control of his/her body. That accounts for a woman's right to an abortion irrespective of the father's wishes. Once a child is born, that child's rights cannot be abrogated by anyone. Whether or not it's fair to a man (or a woman) is inconsequential.

This is a great example of why I have LESS THAN NO RESPECT for the American Justice/Legal system. I'm going to address this with the belief that you can at least see the massive inconsistancy and hypocricy in expecting a Man to be responsible for the consequences of his decision while allowing a woman multiple opportunities to avoid her responsibilites or to foist them (or at least parts of them) off on others, even if you have no problem with that hypocricy/inconsistancy. The fact that our legal system allows one party to avoid responsibility while forcing the other to assume it, whether they want to or not is ludicrous. It's the very definition of bias towards one side of the situation.

As for the child's right, you know I'm not a big believer in Rights, especially not for children who cannot make decisions for themselves.
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
23,961
Reaction score
21,423
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Whoever is physically pregnant has the right to chose abortion. If a man ever physically becomes pregnant, he is free to chose as well.

Since both are responsible to support their children, there is no inequality.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Whoever is physically pregnant has the right to chose abortion. If a man ever physically becomes pregnant, he is free to chose as well.

Since both are responsible to support their children, there is no inequality.

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?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
She is equally responsible. A mother is just as responsible for child support payments as a father. You're talking about the rights of the mother and the father. Before a child is born, a man can neither force a woman to have an abortion nor force her to carry to term. After a child is born, the child has rights. One of those rights is to be supported by its parents.

If a parent is unwilling to provide a child his or her labor why does it have the right to force them to do their will?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I respect both of your opinions. I'm just not willing to counter them.

Child support after a child is born and the right to abortion are not in the same ballpark, in my opinion. Trying to somehow link the two to bolster one's beliefs is poor form. ;)

I think "strawman" might be the right word here.

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

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm sick and tired of men on this forum who think child support is unfair. No one's going into the tunnel blind, are they? If it feels so damned good to have unprotected sex, then that's the price one must be willing to pay. Gone are the days when a man could simply say, "Hey!! It isn't mine, sweetie." Every time a man has unprotected sex, every single time, he's risking child support payments for the next 18+ years.

So if the above is to believed, why then does the woman not have to provide the unborn her labor?
 
Top Bottom