Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

There are regulations in place because there are far too many people who wouldn't take the responsibility of caring for the child in question if they didn't HAVE to. It doesn't really matter who's at fault,

reply to post by daryllyn


Please take the time to reread the above statement from earlier in the discussion. Read it with an eye for how the statement in question uses general terms like "people," implying that the coercion you justify is (or should be) applied equally to both parties. You must be aware that that would mean no abortion, adoption, or safe haven laws for women. Instead of embracing more governmental intrusion, surely a simpler and more constitutionally sound position would be affirming a woman's right to choose, which should also include her responsibility for her choices. It's simple really.

Originally posted by korathin


The 80's was 20-30 years ago. Back when the Berlin wall still stood and nuclear annihilation between the USSR and the USA was a close reality. Why not use statistics from the 90's or the last decade? Why rest your entire argument on unverifiable emotional hearsay and outdated facts? As well as paranoid delusions(Judge was out to get me because of a movie) and pure conjecture(he had to of had mommy issues)?

edit on 2-2-2011 by korathin because: Corrected "USSR"

So, personal experience means zip to you, unless it's posted by a Daddy? Typical...
I don't use more recent stats because they are not available. Your statistic would mean a lot more if it listed cases where the Daddy actually opposed the mother's custody. As I said, and you ignored, my second ex was a Family Court lawyer, and he it was who told me that fathers always win - as his personal experience had shown him. (Despite my experience 6 years earlier, I didn't believe him...
Because of my experience I don't date Solo Daddies, I don't even speak to them. I am not exaggerating when I say that aside from the widowers, they're psychotic scum.
The Bristol case - one of many
So, I am outa this thread.
Vicky

this entire discussion is humorous and similar to revolving incidents. if nature/god decreed that woman bears the child for what ever reason the deconstruction of this bearing will ultimately lead to an outcome that is not equal to a woman admonishing what nature has blessed/cursed her with the responsibility of.

if this is morally adept then it should be possible for a man to fertilize an egg invitro and cause a woman to pay child support for the child that the man will raise by himself.

reply to post by SevenBeans


I don't think there is anything I could say at this point to help you understand what I am saying.

I am not going to continue to debate the matter with you since you are clearly willing to at least TRY to see where I am coming from.

Everything I said was my personal opinion based on observations I have made throughout my life. Last I checked, I was entitled..

And by the way... I did answer your questions. I guess my answers weren't good enough for you notice them.

reply to post by joechip


So what about the man's responsibility? He made a choice that had consequences when he got into bed with the woman. Since he is not the one giving birth to the child, he just shouldn't HAVE to help take care of it if he doesn't FEEL like it? Seriously?!

If you would have read all of my posts you would see that I did in fact mention alternatives such as birth control, adoption and abortion(not a fan, but it is an option). I also mentioned that it is possible to sign away parental rights if one truly wants nothing more to do with the child.

If you father a child, you should take care of it. I think it infringes on the rights of the CHILD to NOT support them financially (or otherwise). They didn't ask to be brought into the world, their parents made that decision for them the minute they hopped into bed together so why should they suffer just because their father (or mother) doesn't FEEL like they should have to do anything for them?

If you would have read all of my posts you would see that I did in fact mention alternatives such as birth control, adoption and abortion(not a fan, but it is an option). I also mentioned that it is possible to sign away parental rights if one truly wants nothing more to do with the child.

reply to post by daryllyn


I read all your posts and I don't see how you can mention these alternatives which, with exception of birth control, are entirely "female" options, which goes back to my original response to you, which focused upon the use of a general non-sex-defining "people" when you argue that coercion is justified.

In other words, and to simplify this for you, how is a female forced to be a parent?

And your contention that a man may "sign away parental rights" is laughable, un-sourced (good luck proving something so patently untrue), and is a misnomer besides because as we should all know, unmarried men have NO parental rights, merely parental (financial, rather) responsibilities.

I will add, my original response, which you seem to have misunderstood, was aimed at getting you, on your own, to recognize the hypocisy in your own statement. The blatant inequality you fail to address, (and indeed, even attempt to hide) with the use of the generic term, "people," I guess people, in that context, are only men really, right? That's what you REALLY meant.

so why should they suffer just because their father (or mother) doesn't FEEL like they should have to do anything for them?

reply to post by daryllyn


I believe this little gem deserves its own reply.

IF the mother doesn't "FEEL like they should have to do anything for them" what happens? That's right, nothing. The mother is NOT sent a bill for their care, be that care from the state, foster parents, or adoptive parents. Her driving license is not revoked if she cannot afford to pay, she is not criminalized and incarcerated, her passport isn't revoked, in short, she walks away from the situation entirely free. And that's whether she planned well, and had adoptive parents lined up or not. We can equally imagine her dropping the baby off at a hospital or a fire station.
Now this is key: It was her BODY that got pregnant. We have determined as a society that the reproductive choices over that body are entirely hers and that she should be free of coercion, both from her alleged partner, and from the government. Are we all on the same page here? Good. Now if the owner of the BODY that is pregnant cannot be held accountable for the pregnancy against her will, how on earth can you logically argue that the man who has no choice in what happens to the BODY should continue to be?

The situation is unequal, as the woman is the owner of the body, is it really so outlandish to ask and expect her to honor her unequal rights with the resulting unequal responsibility? Can you not see that not only is this NOT done, but the exact opposite is?

Originally posted by daryllyn
I don't think there is anything I could say at this point to help you understand what I am saying.

I understand you PERFECTLY.

You apparently think men should be held responsible under threat of jail for the results of a woman's unilateral choice.

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am not going to continue to debate the matter with you since you are clearly willing to at least TRY to see where I am coming from.

I see exactly "where you're coming from."

Originally posted by daryllyn
And by the way... I did answer your questions. I guess my answers weren't good enough for you notice them.

No, you didn't, try one more time... is a man equally responsible for an abortion taking place as soon as he "jumps into bed (if that's what the woman ends up doing)?"

Originally posted by daryllyn
So what about the man's responsibility? He made a choice that had consequences when he got into bed with the woman.

Pregnancy is the possible result of sex, a child requiring 20 years of support is not a result of sex it is the result of a Woman's unilateral choice.

Originally posted by daryllynIf you father a child, you should take care of it. I think it infringes on the rights of the CHILD to NOT support them financially (or otherwise). They didn't ask to be brought into the world, their parents made that decision for them the minute they hopped into bed together so why should they suffer just because their father (or mother) doesn't FEEL like they should have to do anything for them?

Your "logic" is laughable. I can "jump into bed" ten times a day and never end up with a child (only the unilateral choice of a Woman can create a child).

Second, what happens when a custodial Mother doesn't support her child? The Father is forced to pay more (and/or she gets welfare, public housing etc. etc.) What happens when the non-custodial doesn't support his child? His wages/tax returns are garnished, he is sent a bill/put into debt/charged interest, has his drivers and professional licences revovoked, has his passport revoked, he is demonized in public and called a deadbeat, and he can finally be thrown in jail.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Your statistic would mean a lot more if it listed cases where the Daddy actually opposed the mother's custody.

There is a huge bias for Mother's in contested custody cases, and there are stats galore on this. In addition, many Men are convinced by their attorneys that fighting for equal time with their kids is futile (generally doesn't happen unless Mother is unfit or the Mother agrees to it).

Originally posted by Vicky32
As I said, and you ignored, my second ex was a Family Court lawyer, and he it was who told me that fathers always win - as his personal experience had shown him. (Despite my experience 6 years earlier, I didn't believe him...

Was he being sarcastic or perhaps a habitual user of some hallucnigenic substance? My best friend is a family law attorney and says that in contested cases where both parents are deemed competent etc. etc. the typical decision is that Men get the kids every weekend or every other weekend.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Because of my experience I don't date Solo Daddies, I don't even speak to them. I am not exaggerating when I say that aside from the widowers, they're psychotic scum.

What a bizarre bias.

reply to post by Vicky32


Constructive argument with you is futile. Your very own statement already proves you've been wronged, and are bitter.

and my own experience, in running a support group for non-custodial mothers.

Even though the stats I submitted were from an unbiased source, you wish to cling to your one sided view, and one sided stats. And thats fine, that your prerogative, but because you failed somewhere in life, and cling to yor little support group doesn't mean that the fathers in the world are all bad. But, your bitterness and negativity has clouded your judgement of people in general. So keep clinging to that little support group, cause in the end, its all you got~ Pathetic really, such a waste of a life!

reply to post by SevenBeans


What I am saying is that she didn't get HERSELF pregnant and cannot ever get pregnant without the help of a man (even artificial insemination requires the product of a man). Why is he not at least partially responsible?

The child cannot be born unless the mother decides it is so BUT conception would not have occurred without the help of a man. Without conception, there would be no "unilateral" decision for the woman to make.

I am having a hard time understanding why this fact is being dismissed. Maybe you could help me understand why it should have nothing to do with the man when he is part of the cause.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Here is an answer to your question that you keep griping about:

The man is not responsible for the woman's decision to have an abortion because the current laws don't allow for him to be.

But without the "help" of a man, there would be no pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, there is no "unilateral" decision to be made. Your argument would make more sense to me if pregnancies spontaneously occurred for no apparent reason without any connection to anyone but the woman, but that just isn't the case.

Originally posted by daryllyn
What I am saying is that she didn't get HERSELF pregnant and cannot ever get pregnant without the help of a man (even artificial insemination requires the product of a man). Why is he not at least partially responsible?

He is... for a PREGNANCY (for a lump of tissue that she can unilaterally throw in the garbage for absolutely any reason).

He is NOT equally responsible for an abortion taking place if she chooses to abort and he is also NOT equally responsible for the creation of a child, if she makes that equally unilateral choice.

Originally posted by daryllyn
The child cannot be born unless the mother decides it is so BUT conception would not have occurred without the help of a man. Without conception, there would be no "unilateral" decision for the woman to make.

Right... and if I don't give you a match you can't unilaterally choose to light me on fire (but I'm NOT equally responsible for being burned, just because I gave you a match).

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am having a hard time understanding why this fact is being dismissed. Maybe you could help me understand why it should have nothing to do with the man when he is part of the cause.

I think you're having trouble because you want two things to be true at once. (1) A man is equally responsible for creating a CHILD therefore he must provide support. (2) All a man helps to create through sex is a lump of tissue that a woman can unilaterally throw in the garbage for absolutely any reason.

It's one or the other, not both. The law says it's (2) therefore it's completely unethical and logic-defying to hold the man equally responsible under threat of jail, for the creation of a child requiring support.

Originally posted by daryllyn
The man is not responsible for the woman's decision to have an abortion because the current laws don't allow for him to be.

The choice to create a baby is the flip side of the same choice... how can he be equally responsible for one side of her choice but not the other?

reply to post by SevenBeans


Well I can see that we not only disagree on the issue at hand. I can see by your statement referring to a pregnancy as a "lump of tissue" that you don't think that it is alive. I have a hard time with that. I have been pregnant three times (I have lost two "lumps of tissue", one of which was a twin and have experienced two live births.) and have a very hard time not believing that life begins at conception. The heart begins to beat a 21 days past conception, there is often already a heartbeat by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant.

I am done with this thread. There is nothing that I can say that you won't rip to shreds.

I disagree with everything you have said, with every fiber of my being (especially my uterus), and thats perfectly fine with me.

Originally posted by daryllyn
Well I can see that we not only disagree on the issue at hand. I can see by your statement referring to a pregnancy as a "lump of tissue" that you don't think that it is alive.

The law defines it as something that a woman can unilaterally throw in the trash for any reason (I know that it's alive).

Originally posted by daryllyn
I have a hard time with that. I have been pregnant three times (I have lost two "lumps of tissue", one of which was a twin and have experienced two live births.) and have a very hard time not believing that life begins at conception. The heart begins to beat a 21 days past conception, there is often already a heartbeat by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant.

Life does begin at conception, but the law says it isn't a "child." It is not life worthy of protection, therefore the woman can unilaterally throw it in the garbage for absolutely any reason.

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am done with this thread. There is nothing that I can say that you won't rip to shreds.

Obviously, because your argument is completely non-sensical.

I have seen No valid argument in the accusation that the 13th amendment doesn't protect someone from being forced to pay child support that was not someone's opinion or personal moral belief, opinions and moral beliefs do NOT trump the constitution of the United States of America (Thankfully) .

The United States Constitution
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Definition:"Involuntary servitude" is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs

Fact:Child support is for something "other than the worker's financial needs."

Definition:Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of Threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force

Fact:Failure to pay Child support will result in the threat and action of loss of Drivers License and incarceration if not paid after being court ordered.

Summary: Forced Child support forces someone to work for something "other than their own financial needs" under threat of loss of Liberty.

AGAIN I ask.
If someone has an argument OTHER than "moral obligation to the child" to show where this is in fact NOT unconstitutional please enlighten me.

reply to post by Adamanteus


Congratulations and kudos for adding another excellent constitutional argument against the "draconian" (and I quote Pres. Clinton here, who agreed with Chris Matthews on the term, but accepted "draconian" measures as necessary and just in his justification of the '96 welfare reform act) child support system.

Other arguments equally valid include Roe v. Wade, which was decided upon principles of privacy in regards to reproductive choice, not bodily autonomy as was wrongly decided in this case:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My evidence that the case was decided upon a misreading of Roe v. Wade can be found on pg. 68 of the thread.

The Bradley Amendment is generally accepted to be a "bad law" and makes a mockery of "due process."
ancpr.com...

The Equal Protection clause can also easily be argued. It was in fact used to justify unmarried men's forced participation in the system in Gomez v. Perez, as it was decided that children of unmarried parents had the right to "equal protection" of the child support system. However, it seems obvious to me at least, that this usage of equal protection represents deliberate obfuscation. It's apples and oranges in that the child in question doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to two parents in the first place. Yes, it's desirable, but hardly a right. It stretches the application of "equal protection," which the framers would never have imagined could be used as legal justification for denying the same "equal protection." It also accepts the notion that a father is made a father by a mother, and a mother is made a mother by herself only. The only party not considered worthy of equal protection are the unmarried men.

Thanks for an excellent thread.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Adamanteus

 

I payed child support for three kids,2 different mothers. Not only did I pay for the support,that didnt go to my children,I payed for fees to process the paperwork,and fees that wernt stipulated under child support,like clothing,medical,food,etc.... all the things a normal father who loves his kids would do,regardless if someone is telling you ,you need to do this,and its the law. Child Support is a billion dollar industry. If you pay your support,it most likely takes two weeks before that actual money is even sent to the mother/father. Meaning,it sits in the agency's account collecting interest. Think of how much money is collected in that way. The laws are different,from state to state,country to country. My suggestion is to join a fathers advocacy group.
Groups

By the way,Fathers are being looked at with kinder eyes,by judges nowadays.
Happy ending to my story,I fought both ex's to get all my kids.Not only was my chances 1 in 20k to get one child,I fought for all three. Guess what,I dont receive ANY child support from the mothers,nor do I want any. I dont want or need the system in my life.

What a whinger!
Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever, and thanks for confirming my suspicion as to why most men want custody of their children.
Actually, from what I have read about the USA (Phyllis Chesler's book for one) you're havering when you say your chances were 1 in 20 to get one kid. Chesler's study showed that males have an 80% chance of getting custody. Unless things have changed radically since the 1980s, you'd have had to be an axe murderer not to have got your kids.
The chances are, they won't thank you for ripping them away from their mothers just to save money.

Vicky

%80 chance for the father to get the child is wrong. It is in the best interest of the child to stay with the mother. And that is the exact words of the courts, here in Pennsylvania anyway. Believe me, i've been in many battles over custody of my oldest son. (His mother and I get along great now and I have nothing but the utmost respect for her) I'll tell you what, my oldest sons mother was committed into a mental ward so I filed for full custody. I won because she was in a mental institution. As soon as she was released she filed for full custody or Primary residence as it's called here in PA. She got the full custody! The judge would not even listen to what I had to say. Every time I attempted the judge would cut me off to say "In the state of Pennsylvania it is in the best interest of the child to reside with the mother". Even after being in a mental istitution! My lawyer was PISSED. Now you tell me that men have an %80 chance of getting custody. BS. I would be willing to bet all I have the Chesler is a feminist.