Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

So the only real solution is to try to limit this to a smaller ratio of happening, and what better way to do that then the current system of bias, and it would have to be against men, because well have your really talked to a female ever, there not on the logical side or the most reasonable, or capable to think outside there own needs and wants. And not to mention all the other facts that they are not capable of grasping.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


You cannot go against human nature in terms of incentives...reasonableness has nothing to do with it...a woman will act in her own best interests in most cases, like all humans, and if it's in her best interest to find a stable mate and marry him before making the decision to have a child, that's what she'll do. If on the other hand this is discouraged implicitly, or at least de-valued in real terms, she won't bother. The current system breeds a generation of irresponsible baby-women who use the system rather than build a stable relationship, and why not? It's there, right?

reply to post by joechip

The current system breeds a generation of irresponsible baby-women who use the system rather than build a stable relationship, and why not? It's there, right?

Yes it's there, but it's not there because of the lawyers or judges, and irresponsible baby-women as you say are not the whole story. It takes two to tango, and even in the best of times, # always has a habit of not going as you like. So it is what it is, and what it is....is a personal matter that can not be solved by any higher court, then those that are involved in it. The law will just be there to make sure that you do not forget that and with interest, because for some reason people tend to forget that. And like everything else if you think your being treated unfairly, make your case, the system is not all unreasonable, just mostly unreasonable.

It just completely amazes me the people in this country that simply believe, that you should ignore the laws of this (once on its way to being a freed) land. The Thirteenth amendment is not only about slavery, but Humanity. All the effort put forth through generations of battling and bleeding just to forget. Insanity. And YES child support enforcement stand in direct conflict with (I believe) section 18 u.s.c. 1581 and 1584 It's not should you pay support but does any 1 or more have the right to force you to pay. And the answer being, not by imprisonment or a state of peonage. To do so is to cause involuntary servitude. YES IT IS!! Say what you want about dead beat parents or as most commonly heard (deadbeat dads) Try to Imagine for a moment . Man and women Married, a child, life's great Man gets hurt can no longer work. Oh S*** try to resolve problem, loses home, woman leaves man (good 4 her she can find a man thats able to work) man is able to return to work. too late of course, now pay child support. There is a problem with this, in most cases. This is no longer your child. The newby is now installing his values, his love, his spoils on your child. If your lucky you may get 4 to 8 days visitation with YOUR child. Figure his. And This Is Not A Hating On The New Guy Thing. I have been the new guy, and I felt sorry for the father. My point is , THIS should NOT in ANY manner be a legal matter IT is INHUMANE. And is therefore is AGAINST the u.s.code. that is in place for ALL AMERICANS.

Both parents should give 110% all the time to achieve the best for their kids.
However, there is no doubt that the current system favors women over men.

reply to post by TwoLineMan


Women are Favored by the SYSTEM in which SI**Y A** men created. I believe they figured give them a little and Maybe they will give men A little more. My mistake perhaps they are not Siss* men . Just not real smart

Here is a question, why do men need to pay child support period?

If two parties share joint/ shared custody, and responsibility why don't both the parties take care of their own financial situations in regards to the child.

Or if the man actually has the child more, why should he have to pay support?

Child support rarely goes to the child or supporting the child.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Here is a question, why do men need to pay child support period?

If two parties share joint/ shared custody, and responsibility why don't both the parties take care of their own financial situations in regards to the child.

Or if the man actually has the child more, why should he have to pay support?

Child support rarely goes to the child or supporting the child.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

reply to post by lostfreedom
[moI
In most cases there is joint custody. HOWEVER not shared custody. Not to say this don't happen, and this would be a great thing for all parties. Judges and referees seem to frown down on this, I believe because (some say,, you guess who) that it causes a sense of confusion or disturbance, for the child. It appears that a child would be better off (according to the courts OPINION) that a childs home be with one parent, rather a Stranger there or not, so that the child would feel a sense of security. Thus creating a gap between the other parent. Trust me as your child gets older, you will see them less and less. Keeping that relationship going will seem near impossible. And very well may be. That doesn't mean not to try.
As for the man always having to pay support, it's not always so. Usually the person with the most spoils, or making the most income pays support. I have noticed that more women are allowed to GET FIRED from there jobs and become stay at home moms. Thus forcing them to file a motion with the courts to have child support increased. Note I have never seen this happen for a man. The court will throw you in jail. Get out 1 to 3 months later. better get a job before that next court date Rolls AROUND OR YOU'LL BE BACK IN JAIL.

reply to post by lostfreedom


I forgot the money is not for the child. Sounds funny I know ask a judge and he will tell you the same thing. The moneys you pay for support is PAYMENT TO THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (AS FOR SERVICES RENDERED) TO DO WITH AS THAT PERSON SEES FIT. Sounds like B.S. huh, it is. If you can not believe that. Stop and think does any enforcement agency, judge, referee etc. ask her what she or he has done with the monies. NO! Does any 1 other than your own self go to see whats bought for the child*******NO! Fear not this happens to a lot of peoples! You will get older and you will die. Stop with the depression.

reply to post by lostfreedom


Well of course it is for services rendered because the State Owns your child and they don't want to pay anyone else to raise it so they force someone else to make the payments.

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – A family court judge in New Zealand has had enough with parents giving their children bizarre names here, and did something about it. Just ask Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. He had her renamed. Judge Rob Murfitt made the 9-year-old girl a ward of the court so that her name could be changed

As a representative of the state, Judge Rob Murfitt owns Talula Does The Hula. Our story from New Zealand does not tell us what Talula Does The Hula was renamed. That’s not important. The important lesson is that the state OWNS you and your children. If you step outside very narrow boundaries you will be forced back inside the lines. One way or another.

Goes Yet further to prove a point. The United States people stand in idol, while their very existence created by the American People, for the American People, is destroyed. We believe ourselves to be Humane, To protect Animals, Trees, Oceans, etc. Better the World, my a** !! We can not even stand up for our own rights. The Government is Supposed to work for us, But them there slick talkin political types convince these here peoples to vote a draft dodger in to office.(president guess who) who makes a laughing stock out of the entire country. And this is done while there are still draft dodgers in prison. I have come to see. that eventually, this country will no longer be free.It will fall into socialism, followed by communism. Live on like it's free, then learn the truth the hard way. freedom don't work!

reply to post by Adamanteus

The important lesson is that the state OWNS you and your children. If you step outside very narrow boundaries you will be forced back inside the lines. One way or another.

Nope, the important lesson is that nobody owns your children. Not the state, but also not the parents. Thats why you cannot name your child whatever you want, but it has to be inside the lines. It is called custody, not owning, and being in custody of someone does not give you the right to give him/her funny name. Your child is not your pet.

reply to post by Maslo


The real question would be who has the right to decide that you gave your child a funny name? You may say that, you know its a stupid name. Well I think Bob is a stupid name. And I imagine other people find it stupid as well. Now that I think its a stupid name, does that mean that all people because some people think his name is stupid, should not name there child Bob. Thats funny. I guess nicknames as well as alias should also be controlled by the government. As many of them are also stupid or funny names. Sometimes used for the purpose of humor. I actually wonder what were they thinking, naming their children CAIN and ABEL? Then I think, they are only names .

Originally posted by Maslo
Nope, the important lesson is that nobody owns your children. Not the state, but also not the parents. Thats why you cannot name your child whatever you want, but it has to be inside the lines. It is called custody, not owning, and being in custody of someone does not give you the right to give him/her funny name. Your child is not your pet.

Your parents gave you a stupid name didn't they?

No one is forced to have a kid,.... if one does the deed he needs to man up and face the responsibilities. I have 2 kids and see no problem with forced child support.

There's a pretty cheap, usually reversible if need be, operation out there for those who don't want it to happen,.... just saying.

Peace

We need to take care of our own kids and not just leave it to the state, i.e. everyone else, if we decide we're done with it.

reply to post by slane69


Does your righteous rant include women? Does it address the inequality in the law? Does it take into account the constitutional issues raised by the OP?

NO.

All your post does is reiterate the moral point made before, and beat the dead horse of "male" responsibility. For women's choices. Thanks but no thanks. Your comment shows a lack of respect for the issues topical to this thread.

Stop relying on the US Constitution for your decision-making.

Legislation in most states says that children are property of the government and that parents are merely legal guardians.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by korathin

 

All sounds good in theory but like all things it would be a whole different thing in practice.

Your very argument is "without forced child support and/or alimony more kid's will pop out to be left for themselves and it will cost more in taxation aka welfare" is counter productive. Since women know they can get money by getting pregnant by a guy with some money they are more inclined to turkey baste or unilaterally decide to stop taking her birth control without mentioning it to her significant other.

That was not my argument, my argument was that the fact that it does happen you cant assume that it wont happen, if your more lenient on it, or if your not wont matter all that much. I'm saying is that it will happen either way, it's more to do with biology then anything else really.

But yes your right that whole females getting pregnant for the money part has to be diminished, it has lead to a whole industry really, were it feeds on the ignorance of men and the fact that females cant control there biological impulses nor do they know how to express those impulses other then, what you see, and are to emotional and the judges and lawyers know this. I'm afraid only if your Donald Trump can you afford to deal with all that. Now if he could only aford to deal with having a couple more wives then the average guy would not have to deal with a couple more females.

But this aint the middle east or the down south, so cant do that.

While if she knew she wouldn't get any support without continuous consent she would be more willing and insistent on waiting for marriage and far more careful so as to not bear the financial burden alone.

Um once again easier said then done, you factor in biology, the whole recession thing, and just the different types that wont make a great match at all, then well you have what you see today. So really what you see is what is possible. In fact you would have both to really blame for such things, a male who did not think it through and a female who just took advantage of that. So really this is a personal problem that express itself at a higher rate, because of all those factors like biology and recession and just need and wants.

By forcing all liability on the party with the least amount of rights and choice in the matter you are only supporting and expanding upon what you will fear will happen if the Constitution is properly enforced.

There you go again "forcing" no one is dragging people by there hair at shotgun point to do the things that they do. I'ts more like enforcing so if they do it, then yes it becomes a problem that has to be enforced, because lets be honest if it happens then that by default means that none of the party involved wanted to take responsibility, hence there current predicament.

So the only real solution is to try to limit this to a smaller ratio of happening, and what better way to do that then the current system of bias, and it would have to be against men, because well have your really talked to a female ever, there not on the logical side or the most reasonable, or capable to think outside there own needs and wants. And not to mention all the other facts that they are not capable of grasping. So learn to avoid it and watch out for it is the best course, that I see. Really if they could of paid on equal footing or have been on equal terms, then most likely this whole problem would not have happened.

Whatever. Because really no matter what is said you will try and turn untruths to truths and truths to untruths, so everything confirms to your narrowly biased worldview. You make as much rational sense as that feminist troll.

Case in point :"Really if they could of paid on equal footing or have been on equal terms, then most likely this whole problem would not have happened."

Hate to break it to you but the wage gap is mostly caused by women not working as hard or taking time off(In Gen X), picking less profitable careers. In Gen Y there is a very real wage gap of Gen Y women earning almost 1.25$ more then Gen Y men because of gross gender discrimination in the educational system.

Dude your still not getting it. All your "bash the male" style of justice will get you is the really scummy scum involved in a kind of hyper-gammy while smarter males stay away. Leading to de-evolution, propagation of mass poverty and a huge socio-economic mess. In short your guaranteeing a future that looks more like Idiocracy then Star Trek.

It's like your eyes are closed, your ears refuse to listen and your mouth only speaks lies. Can't change the system because of the recession? I hate to break it to you but 80% of the job's lost where male job's. Female controlled sectors of the economy are still solid and expanding at an alarming rate(within another 20 years most lawyers, Doctors and other skilled professions will become female dominated professions). It is like your stuck in the 50's-60's.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by slane69

 

Does your righteous rant include women? Does it address the inequality in the law? Does it take into account the constitutional issues raised by the OP?

NO.

All your post does is reiterate the moral point made before, and beat the dead horse of "male" responsibility. For women's choices. Thanks but no thanks. Your comment shows a lack of respect for the issues topical to this thread.

I am beginning to think that "guy" is a multi of that feminist troll. Is their anyway to get the administrators to look up that "guy's" IP address to confirm it? How they ignore new information in favor of pre-convinced bias is a clear indicator as well as a few Freudian slips(The comment about the "deep south" rings some bells). And his fixation with "leave women alone" similar to how that feminist troll advocated the same-thing + sterilization/self mutilation(something which is against the terms of service).

I don't like coincidences and similar behavioral patterns.

Originally posted by korathin
. So the feminist controlled government

Wow, there's paranoid fantasy for you! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this...
No government in the world is feminist controlled.
Vicky