Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

As I stated in almost all of my other posts I support my children of my own free will and think all men should. I did not "need" the courts to tell me that. I chose a woman that was smart enough to chose a man to father her children that was going to support her children.

So I am not looking to the constitution to get me out of anything because I am not being Forced to do anything that I do not want to do. What part of that doesn't compute?

Do You have any evidence to refute my claims that Forced child support is Unconstitutional other than Opinions or morality? This discussion is about legalities and not sentimentalities or emotion based opinions.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 





You freely contract in the behaviour that you know what the results are. In that contract you freely accept the consequences of your actions. You freely and with all legal protection have legal options to stop yourself from producing and deseminating (inseminating) material that would lead to said contract.

Not in all cases. A 16 year old babysitter got her 12 or 13 year old charge drunk and after he passed out she "raped" him and got pregnant. The victim of this rape was then forced to pay his assailant. there was nothing freely given or entered into there at all. Oh wait he's a Male so he deserved what he got I guess?


I would argue that in your attempt to point out an exception to her point, you have inadvertently conceded it. If 'sex' is a contract (which it's not) it would be a binding contract for both parties, not merely one. That is how "contracts" work. Not that the sex act can be construed thusly by serious people in the first place. The question becomes, "how is a woman forced to be a parent?" And the answer is, "she is not." Period. This rape case is valid in pointing out how absurd the current system is, but should not be used, imo, to define the issue. The nonsense lies in the notion that an agreement to have sex constitutes an agreement to have children, for men, but not for women. It constitutes no such thing for either. That should be clear.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
You know what your semen does. Period.

Sex is a contract. It has absolutely known and understood consequences for anyone.

Legally speaking, your leaving your sperm is like leaving a "gift."

You want to make out like leaving a "gift" that's a ticking time bomb behind isn't your responsibility.

It is a contract. You understand this contract. Every creature larger than a single celled one gets this concept.

You don't get out of your own decisions by trying to make the Constitution into your condom.

Nothing in the legal system stops you from not having sex. Indeed you are protected from unwanted sex. Nothing in law forces you to not get a vasectomy. You have complete freedom to....hang yourself by being stupid.

The constitution doesn't protect you from your own penis, or your own bad decisions.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
To elaborate upon my previous point; the supreme court decided, upon principles of privacy, that the government could not, legally, force parenthood upon a citizen in Roe v,. Wade. In other words, sex is most assuredly NOT a contract for children. A woman also knows what her eggs "do," but that in no way means she has entered into a contract when she has sex. However there is a simple contract that does suffice, it's called marriage. In marriage the contract is clear, simple and binding. It requires a woman to actually find a mate, not just a sex partner, if she wishes to have children that in turn, have a father. It's timeless, proven, culturally ubiquitous. We've undermined it, along with the principle of personal responsibility, with the current system.

This is simple, really. The choice to have sex cannot be construed to constitute a contract for children for one party engaged in it, and not constitute a contract for the other party. That is not how contracts work. This analogy is whack. It is a biological fact that sex CAN create a baby. This has absolutely nothing to do with contract law.

And to take this a bit further, it is the heights of idiocy to demand that men be responsible for what occurs to a woman's BODY. Is it really so impertinent to demand that she be responsible for HER OWN BODY? I think not.
edit on 7-2-2011 by joechip because: to add



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


I agree with your points. A woman cannot be forced into involuntary servitude Period because she has the unilateral decision to become a mother in the first place and also has the unilateral decision if a man becomes a father.

The thing I find most funny about this whole debate is that women say the 13th Amendment doesn't free a man of his responsibilities BUT if Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned then the 13th is their next go to argument to keep a womans right to have an abortion in effect.

So I ask You, why can it be used to get a woman out of supporting a child but not a man?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
To elaborate upon my previous point; the supreme court decided, upon principles of privacy, that the government could not, legally, force parenthood upon a citizen in Roe v,. Wade. In other words, sex is most assuredly NOT a contract for children. A woman also knows what her eggs "do," but that in no way means she has entered into a contract when she has sex.


Hiding behind a woman's uterus to squirm away from being a man again. Amazing. You try to get away from your own decisions and consequences by trying to make it out that women having rights is oppressive to you, and then try to save your own hide by throwing women out in front as a distraction.

I mean, some brats hide behind their Mommies when they do stupid things. But I guess you consider it a man's prerogative to hide behind a woman's uterus while trying to lie your way into being a victim of your own decisions.


This is NOT what this decision meant. Lies, damn lies, and statistics indeed.

Your wanting to protect your WALLET isn't the same as a woman legally being allowed to own her own body.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


No, that decision again is NOT about "involuntary servitude."

It is about women having complete unabridged rights to their own internal organs, and that their internal organs are not public or communal property.

Twist and turn, lie and manipulate.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


That's a great point and I will cite an article showing that indeed this argument is being made by proponents of abortion rights...and it includes, ironically, involuntary servitude for the entirety of the child's life in the argument, not merely the forced pregnancy.
www.cal.net...


Now involunary pregnancy is most assuredly a short term slavery : one has a parisite living inside one's body, draining one's bodily resources, and threatening one's continued health and even one's life. Involuntary parenthood, the arduous task of rearing a child one does not want, is long term slavery : about twenty years of laboring to provide for the support and education of that child.

Equal protection under the law, people. Equal protection under the law.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   


!=




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You have complete equality on this matter in the way you are suggesting.

You UTTERLY own your own penis and testicles, and the contents therein.

Even if in this case, you're trying to pretend that owning your penis somehow is a legal oppression of you.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by joechip
 


You have complete equality on this matter in the way you are suggesting.

You UTTERLY own your own penis and testicles, and the contents therein.

Even if in this case, you're trying to pretend that owning your penis somehow is a legal oppression of you.


IF I own my own penis and testicles AND the contents therein as You suggest then how can a woman take the contents therein and use them for something that I did not authorize? Hmm this is a slippery slope We're on here.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   


It is about women having complete unabridged rights to their own internal organs, and that their internal organs are not public or communal property.


Wrong.

lsr.nellco.org...



In drafting Roe, Justice Blackmun did not turn to any protection for bodily integrity, but rather staked his opinion on “a right of personal privacy.” Still, even as the Court and commentators agonized over the parameters and justification of the “right of personal privacy” in the aftermath of Roe, the federal courts, both high and low, forged extratextual protections for the bodies of American citizens at the mercy of the state in the areas of prisoners’ rights, police assault, and medical treatment.


Roe v. Wade was not decided upon any right of bodily autonomy. The same personal privacy that includes a woman's right to decide whether to become a parent or not would by all rights apply equally to a man's choice. It has to to with governmental intrusion into what the court had decided was a right to personal privacy. The 13th amendment is perhaps an even stronger constitutional argument, and both apply equally to all citizens, male or female.

Your ignorance on this subject is not surprising, given your proclivity for insults and attacks. Do your homework, you embarrass yourself and the entire community...
edit on 7-2-2011 by joechip because: to add.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

That is all I am asking is "equal rights" Not for men to have more rights than women or for women to have more rights than men.

There is no equality in "I can have this baby and your going to pay whether you want it or not" While retaining the right to say "I'm aborting your baby whether you like it or not"

There is nothing equal about that at all it is the same oppression that women faced for years.

the right to kill a man's child is against his will B.S. let a man walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach and forcibly kill her child and watch him be crucified.(which he should be)

By the way I am pro abortion (I think everyone should have one) so don't think I'm some right to lifer

edit on 7-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Because you "gifted" the contents to her. You still have legal responsibilities about and around that gift.

I like how you guys keep trying to get away from a VERY simple legal concept. One with much precedent.

How many ways can you lie, manipulate and make yourselves look like immature fools?

I wonder - if your son does this to your grandchildren, how loud will you cheer for the freedom of his wallet?

Oh, and the Blackmun's views on Roe Vs. Wade has been expanded upon and their is many other legal precendents from that point on in the USA. Such as the Casey vs. Cruzman case. Which indeed speaks of bodily integrity.

Lies...lies....and still trying to pretend your wallet deserves Human Rights.
edit on 2011/2/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Further I am fairly certain you are distinctly misuing the concept of "privacy" as it is meant within that decision.

Not surprising that you would misuse it intentionally though. Anything to serve your purpose - lies or truth.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   


the right to kill a man's child is B.S. let a man walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach and forcibly kill her child and watch him be crucified.(which he should be)
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Here's where we may disagree (which I'm certain we will be able to do without resorting to insults). I do accept and support the findings of Roe v. Wade. Namely that the government has no constitutional authority to deny a woman a right to an abortion. My view, being consistent with the logic employed in the decision, maintains that a woman has the constitutionally protected right to make reproductive choices, just as a man does, free from governmental coercion. The obvious, singular, and natural responsibility for these choices falls upon the person who made these choices. A man, having no uterus, does not have the natural, singular "choice" to have a child, therefore, legally, (and I agree, morally, it may be difficult to accept, and can be heartbreaking) has no say in whether a woman has a abortion or not. An unmarried man can not claim "ownership" of his sperm, or it's results, nor should he be held liable as owner, when the situation is reversed. I assume you get my point here, the privacy inherent in the scotus decision does not even address "ownership" either of the fetus or of one's own body.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I don't have a son I have two daughters and this is what I'll tell them. "You should've picked a better man to father your children." Bad decisions have bad consequences. BUT if I did have a son and his wife ran off and left him holding the bag I would tell him the same thing.

On another note if either of my girls lost custody to the father I would tell them to pay child support.

You see I own up to my mistakes(It's a morality thing with me) but I don't expect for others to own up to theirs. Because if I put myself into a situation that turns out bad I realize that I myself am the only one to blame. To force My morality on others while not wanting them to force theirs on me would make me a Hypocrite and that is one thing I refuse to be.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 





Further I am fairly certain you are distinctly misuing the concept of "privacy" as it is meant within that decision. Not surprising that you would misuse it intentionally though. Anything to serve your purpose - lies or truth.


You are not new to ats. Prove it. The onus is clearly on you. I cited my information. I did my research. As I said before, you embarrass yourself.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by matrix12
dude i feel your pain!!!!!, i have to pay 300 a month for one kid, i have custody of 3 kids which i have raised since birth , plus i got with a girl that has 5 kids, and we get no child support at all for the 8 kids we have in total!!!! but i still get slammed with that 300 a month life is not fair, and the mom that i pay to uses the money on twinkies and beer.

I call b.s, as the saying goes. Almost certainly untrue, especially the last line.
Word to the wise, someone who is a mother (especially of 5 kids) is a woman, as the word "girl" means someone under 18. If you think otherwise, you must be very old, lol: as the term "girl" meaning any woman between the ages of 0-60, went out of use in the mid-1960s..
Vicky:


I would call BS too on something posted like that had I never got to experience life in the Southern portions of the USA which is where I imagine the poster is from judging from that reply.

Everyone I know in the South has a "brady bunch" family with different, unrelated kids everywhere in families, with ex-wives and ex-husbands picking up different kids at different households at all hours of the day and night passing by each other like an F'N day care center everywhere!!! Keeping the good-guys-in-blue busy and tied up with handling continuous domestic dispute calls!!

Birth-control in the south is as rare as finding in Harvard University guys with mullets wearing john Deere caps while spitting mouthfuls of chewing tobacco spit out on the class floors. THATS how RARE it is to find responsible young adults who take precautions (birth control) from undesired child birth in the South. This isnt the norm anywhere else that I have been or seen.

Odd, (and VERY irresponsible) but TRUE.
edit on 7-2-2011 by pplrnuts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

no we don't disagree. I don't even know why i posted that the way I did. The point I tried to make was the one we have been on the whole time is that a woman has the right to abort a man's baby if she doesn't (and he does)want it but also has the right to keep it if she wants it (and he doesn't) but can also then force him to pay. That is not equal rights in anyone's book and that is what is B.S.

also the attempt to use the 13th for ones self but deny another the use of it in the same setting is BS and not even close to equal.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join