- 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:
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: