Involuntary Servitude

The problem is that the child support procedure is mutually incompatible with current abortion laws.

If a child is created at conception, then both the mother and father can equally be ''held to account'' for the creation of the child, and the consequent responsibilities and costs of the child's upbringing.

However, as the creation of a child is the 100% choice and responsibility of the woman, then I fail to see why the man should have to have anything to do with the child.

Clearly, some ''mothers'' can't handle the responsibility of pregnancy and want to leech money off the man that they had sex with.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Funny how your idea of involuntary servitude only applies to child support. Yet another man who couldn't use contraception, blames the system and the feminists, instead of taking responsiblity.

That is not involunatary servitude. And trying to paint child support as so is just desperate and sickening.

It is to imply that someone is working against their will. Having sex is not against your will.

You're completely missing the point.

Why should a man have to pay for the unilateral decision of some random acquaintance ?

There's no way in a million years that I'd ever pay for the upkeep of some sprog who only existed because of a ''dalliance'' in my past.

The idea that I'd be somehow responsible - despite the fact that she's the one who's in control of her body - is preposterous.

Get over it, and learn some responsibility.

I realize this thread is about other things than just child-support, but there are parallels in my life right now that has made me rethink my stance on this issue.

I was sitting in on some child-support hearings the other day, and it astounded me the number of men that were trying to get lower child support payments, or were already in arrears. The economy is hard, and I do think a lot of people are in a difficult situation, but it was very obvious that some of these men did not want ANYTHING to do with their kids. Never made their visitation, certainly not going after the mother for custody, late or missing child support payments, no attempts to get a job. Those men are the reason that the decent fathers among you don't get any leeway when things are rough. A few bad apples spoiled the entire barrel, and you're paying for it.

Why shouldn't the non-custodial parent be just as responsible as the custodial? Why should they get to walk away and not lose any sleep?

Right now my husband and I are the relative caretakers of a family member's child. This family member, while she has her own problems, has been smart enough to realize that she has to have some responsibility. This isn't about her.

The father on the other hand, while he makes a big show about calling us drunk/high at 3 o'clock in the morning Christmas eve demanding to see his child, has never made any REAL, concrete efforts to do the right thing. (He's an active drug user/maker, and frankly we don't trust him based on his background; still we have afforded him supervised parenting time, he's decided not to take advantage of it. He's almost forty, is "voluntarily unemployed" and lives with his parents. And this baby wasn't an "Ooops", they actively tried to have a child.) He contested the child support. We will have had his child for almost six months now, and still haven't seen a dime, and I doubt we ever will.

It's really not about the money (well, it is a little bit, since we have no children of our own and live firmly below the poverty line), it's about responsibility. The tax-payers are paying for his child, as are we. We are going to do right by this baby no matter how much money comes out of our pocket, because s/he's worth it, as is every child. If he can afford to get high every day, why can't he afford to buy his child some diapers? "Men" like him make me sick.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Funny how your idea of involuntary servitude only applies to child support. Yet another man who couldn't use contraception, blames the system and the feminists, instead of taking responsiblity.

That is not involunatary servitude. And trying to paint child support as so is just desperate and sickening.

It is to imply that someone is working against their will. Having sex is not against your will.

You're completely missing the point.

Why should a man have to pay for the unilateral decision of some random acquaintance ?

There's no way in a million years that I'd ever pay for the upkeep of some sprog who only existed because of a ''dalliance'' in my past.

The idea that I'd be somehow responsible - despite the fact that she's the one who's in control of her body - is preposterous.

Get over it, and learn some responsibility.

It doesn't matter what abortion laws are. When you decide to have sex with somebody you need to realize that sex may, *gasp*, result in children. Both parties need to be aware of this, and if they aren't, we have bigger problems in society than I thought. It has nothing to do with when conception starts. Seriously, people should say to themselves before they get down 'n dirty "A child might result from this. Do I still want to have sex if I know that might be a consequence?"

That's sooo not going to happen.

You do have a point, though, if a women decides to get an abortion against the will of the future-father, it IS a unilateral decision. But neither is it right to force a women to have a child she doesn't want to carry. It's a slippery slope. Men and women suffer different consequences for sex.

If you don't pay for your child, somebody else will have to, most likely the taxpayers. Why should I be responsible for your progeny?

Originally posted by Dontshootthemessanger

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Funny how your idea of involuntary servitude only applies to child support. Yet another man who couldn't use contraception, blames the system and the feminists, instead of taking responsiblity.

That is not involunatary servitude. And trying to paint child support as so is just desperate and sickening.

It is to imply that someone is working against their will. Having sex is not against your will.

You're completely missing the point.

Why should a man have to pay for the unilateral decision of some random acquaintance ?

There's no way in a million years that I'd ever pay for the upkeep of some sprog who only existed because of a ''dalliance'' in my past.

The idea that I'd be somehow responsible - despite the fact that she's the one who's in control of her body - is preposterous.

Get over it, and learn some responsibility.

It doesn't matter what abortion laws are. When you decide to have sex with somebody you need to realize that sex may, *gasp*, result in children. Both parties need to be aware of this, and if they aren't, we have bigger problems in society than I thought. It has nothing to do with when conception starts. Seriously, people should say to themselves before they get down 'n dirty "A child might result from this. Do I still want to have sex if I know that might be a consequence?"

That's sooo not going to happen.

You do have a point, though, if a women decides to get an abortion against the will of the future-father, it IS a unilateral decision. But neither is it right to force a women to have a child she doesn't want to carry. It's a slippery slope. Men and women suffer different consequences for sex.

If you don't pay for your child, somebody else will have to, most likely the taxpayers. Why should I be responsible for your progeny?

edit on 28-2-2012 by Dontshootthemessanger because: clarity

edit on 28-2-2012 by Dontshootthemessanger because: can't type today!!

You do realize your repeating the same moral fallacy. You speak vaguely about anecdotal life stories that just don't pan out with general reality(maybe you live in a unique bubble universe?), and you mindlessly repeat the same argument over and over again. That sex must have a price, and that men must take care of women and protect women from their own choices. And that women should have rights without responsibility(gendered privilege over men).

It does leave one to question many things. Add on the psychological, emotional abuse your using as a way of "proving your point". And yes, under federal, as well as state guidelines shaming language is a form of psychological abuse. Your using a kind of sarcasm to foster your point without having to make a real point.

It is rather pathetic, and only illustrates what a simple and petty mind you have.

Because let's see you try to empathize with the posters statement then turn around and refute your attempt at empathizing. Very dishonest. And your willfully ignorance(probably intentional) that men are required to pay child support even if it cost's them their lives or results in them becoming homeless(but your answer is "men should keep their pants up"*).

In short I make a factual claim(not an insult) that you are a female supremacist, and anything you say is of no worth and adds nothing to this topic.





P.S
It does matter what the laws are.


*
That seems to be the meme of most social conservatives. Move all the responsibility for sexuality onto men.

I laugh because people like you are making the traditional noose happen.

reply to post by beezzer

Isn't court ordered child support the last option? I mean, if you fathered a child, and voluntarily gave support, then court ordered never becomes an issue. Wouldn't court ordered child support be more punative in nature?

No when a matter is resolved in the court, the child support pretty much becomes manditory. The only option made available to the custodial parent is whether or not to garnish the money from the non-custodial parents paychecks.

In the case of my wife, she married to the father of her child only to learn that during this time he had got another girl pregnant and when she filed for divorce, the judge would not honor her request without a child support order. He had moved to another state and has worked under the table ever since. 18 years later she still hasn't received a dime.

Child support - thankfully I have never had to pay it. Been divorced though.

I have had to pay alimony - what a crap deal that is...

We got married and had no kids, didn't work out now I get to support you for a while....um really.

I can give you one guess how it went when I asked the judge:

"If I have to continue to support her for X years will she have to continue to make my meals and clean my house or have sex with me for a specific amount of time while I support her - or is this obligation we made to one another one sided?"

# it’s not like we were married for 30 years and I left for an 18 year old after refusing to let her work and go to school - we were married for 2 years…this isn’t the 50’s anymore.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by korathin

 

That is a very wordy way of saying that the father should just be able to walk away and never support his child.

The bottom line is that, as men, at least some of us do have a genetic imperative to do that. Gays love saying that you don't get to choose your orientation; as far as I'm concerned, being polygamous hetero is as much an orientation in that sense, as homosexuality is.

Before you scream at me for writing this, understand that I'm celibate, as mentioned. That is because experience has shown me how much pain my orientation can cause, for both parties. My father was compulsively poly, although he was married to my mother for 35 years. My youngest brother is also now paying child support, and was rapidly serially monogamous before that.

It's easy for women to think that men who are in my situation are just assholes, and hate us for it accordingly. You don't have to live with the degree of internal conflict that the more morally inclined among us experience as a result of it. My libido is a curse.

If I really was an asshole, I would have gone and studied the proverbial pickup artist subculture, and learned to manipulate my way through numerous women, as other men have done. I've already been in one relationship as a result of using a small degree of such manipulation; lesson learned.

reply to post by petrus4


Why would I scream at you? There's zero wrong with being polyamorous, just be honest about it and know that your chances of producing a child increase with this orientation. It negates nothing I said, you father a child...take responsibility for it.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

If you are named in a paternity suit,or expected to pay for child support,it would be wise to first demand blood tests,as proof of paternity.If you have any reason to doubt that you are the father.In South Africa you have that option,hope its the same in America?

If you are,its just one of those things,im a woman,maybe my perspective is different,but i dont see it as servitude,nor does my husband.Kids are VERY expensive to raise,to feed and clothe,medical insurance in case they get sick(btw,here its the same,Medical Insurance comes with your job,some companies only have one scheme,you are bound to that one)..My husbands whole salary practicaly goes into raising our kids.He gets a small salary,but he was aware that if you want to father a child,you should be able to support that child.And so we sacrifice what goodies we would want for ourselves,so our kids can have what they need,and occasionaly,just something they would like to have.They did not ask to be here,after all.

Not criticising you,just,if dont want the financial responsibility or hardship of supporting a child,make sure you use condoms,have a vasectomy,whatever,take all reasonable precautions.

reply to post by Golf66

I agree with you there,that seems horrendously unfair.If you and your wife was briefly married and had no kids,you should not have to pay alimony,i mean,for what? She managed to keep herself alive,clothed and fed till you showed up..I am a woman,and i cannot even get my head around that one..
Unless you forced her to quit her highly paid career,and she can prove you forced her,thus putting her out of pocket,its ludicrous.Anyway,she still would have had the option of telling you: "As If!..please leave,and dont come back".

Originally posted by RaxoxaneI agree with you there,that seems horrendously unfair.If you and your wife was briefly married and had no kids,you should not have to pay alimony,i mean,for what? She managed to keep herself alive,clothed and fed till you showed up..I am a woman,and i cannot even get my head around that one..
Unless you forced her to quit her highly paid career,and she can prove you forced her,thus putting her out of pocket,its ludicrous.Anyway,she still would have had the option of telling you: "As If!..please leave,and dont come back".

To be fair in my case I made my peace with the ex and as I matured (this all happened about 18 years ago) came to understand in this circumstance I think I should have had to pay something. The reason being we had agreed that she could go back to school for her Paralegal degree and got divorced after she started.

She wanted support for 3 years - the judge gave her support for 18 months explaining that she needed to take a max course load as she would not have to work to support herself.

She wanted 3 years to take 12 hours a semester on my dime. I wanted to pay nothing of course - I think he may have got it about right hitting in the middle.

However, in general even if people are married for a long time why is it that one party (either man or woman) has to support the other at all.

Kids, yes that is an individual's responsibility - the marriage agreement doesn't imply a contract to support the other for a period of time or life in some cases if the contract is broken. If it does wouldn't both sides have to give something to the other?

I mean if the major bread winning partner has to give financial support to the (presumably) homemaking partner shouldn’t the homemaking partner have to provide some homemaking services to keep it fair?

Being military I have had a few friends get blindsided when they retire by their even long time ex's and lose 50% of their retirement benefits.

The rule is if you are married to your spouse for 10 years of a career she (regardless of how long you have been divorced) is entitled to 50% of your retired pay when you finally retire. Now that is a crock of #e my friends.

Had a buddy retire as a SGM, which is about 3.5k a month in retirement. He served 26 years - he was married for 10 years and 1 month of that, which was incidentally the first 10 so 16 years later he retires, new wife new family and wonders why he's getting half-pay. He and new family are of course livid and ex wife laughs all the way to the bank.

His ex is also a professional - a degree and a job that pays more than his military salary ever was - but the rules remain ala 1940...

reply to post by Raxoxane


In my case, she decided she wanted no future with me while she was pregnant because she was still in love with her ex who was an alcoholic with drug problems and later died of his alcholism. She was seduced by the child support system and when she was pregnant she threatened never to let me see my child. We had were no longer together at the point when I learned she had been sleeping with her ex at the same time as me so I had no issue leaving her, until a few weeks later she told me she was pregnant with my child. When I learned this I did everything in my power to keep my foot in the door, I even moved in with her and thats when her bi-polar abusive behavior started to show. She became so abusive during her pregnancy because in my opinion she was trying to justify her not wanting the father of her child (me) in her life, she was trying to paint me as the bad guy who doesn't care and tried to skate against responsibility. The abuse became so bad I eventually moved because there was no way for me to defend myself from it. After my child was born she took her ex to paternity test and denied me a paternity test, so I was going through the legal way, getting a court order. But after she confirmed he wasn't the father she went and filed for child support against me. I had still not had a paternity hearing.

Then I was served to show up in child support to make arrangements to pay child support. I said to the child support officer, why do you want to look at my finances, YOU have not established paternity yet. I have been trying to establish paternity and she had blocked me. So they ordered a date to establish paternity, once that was established they immediately started garnishing my wages.

My problem is not about giving financial support to my children I would give the world if I could, my problem is with supporting a liar and a mentally unstable manipulative mother who will stop at nothing, even hurting her own children to get what she wants. The honest truth is that I fear for my child's life and yet I am expected to finance the problem.

Originally posted by Raxoxane
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

If you are named in a paternity suit,or expected to pay for child support,it would be wise to first demand blood tests,as proof of paternity.If you have any reason to doubt that you are the father.In South Africa you have that option,hope its the same in America?

If you are,its just one of those things,im a woman,maybe my perspective is different,but i dont see it as servitude,nor does my husband.Kids are VERY expensive to raise,to feed and clothe,medical insurance in case they get sick(btw,here its the same,Medical Insurance comes with your job,some companies only have one scheme,you are bound to that one)..My husbands whole salary practicaly goes into raising our kids.He gets a small salary,but he was aware that if you want to father a child,you should be able to support that child.And so we sacrifice what goodies we would want for ourselves,so our kids can have what they need,and occasionaly,just something they would like to have.They did not ask to be here,after all.

Not criticising you,just,if dont want the financial responsibility or hardship of supporting a child,make sure you use condoms,have a vasectomy,whatever,take all reasonable precautions.

This my friends is a perfect example of a traditionalist matriarch. Now if abortion was outlawed(even incases of rape etc), then I could agree more or less with this statement. But, living in the world that we do, the only one who had a say was you. Because for all we know, the extraction of the necessary DNA could of been done in his sleep without his consent.

And why you are not working to contribute to the raising of your children is beyond me, and hiding the issue behind children is a very under handed thing to do.

In America, Paternity Fraud is a complicated issue. Well not really all that complicated. A couple years back a lot of states set out to fix a wrong in the system, but feminist's protested. Saying it would make women's lives too difficult, and a few states like California refused to do anything because they would lose a lot of money.

You see for every dollar the States collect in child support, the Federal government gives them 1 dollar to spend on whatever the States want. Hence why I view your notions as evil and people like you as evil. Because the Judges try to jack up the Child Support amounts to the point that a good number of payees are borderline homeless. Add in the epidemic levels of divorce in America, + all the other anti male gendered discrimination in America....

As far as I am concerned you come across as a lazy female supremacist who uses her husband as a domesticated animal, a beast of burden, a slave.

reply to post by korathin


I think she stated she was posting from South Africa, so while I can agree with you on this point I think I should also point out that the system in South Africa or wherever she is posting from may be very different from that here in the US. Just to be fair.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by korathin

 

That is a very wordy way of saying that the father should just be able to walk away and never support his child.

I see it as a very wordy way to say he's right and your obviously wrong. Perspective I guess is in the eye of the beholder. Btw....... He's right, your wrong.

It is a women's right to choose correct? The "father" has no say if the mother keeps or aborts the child correct? The government doesn't bother concerning themselves with that small detail correct?

That being the case, I'm sorry but it is ultimately the mothers responsibility to either stop having unprotected sex with random guys they don't wan't a family with or get themselves on birth control, after all, it is YOUR choice, it's never ours.

Thanks.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


You say that the individual mandate under health care reform is like Nazi Germany? So you're saying that people shouldn't have to have coverage, they can just leech off the health care system for free and let those with insurance pay for it? What about forced ultrasounds? To me that's a more totalitarian move than health care reform is.

But actually, I'm tired of all the comparisons to Hitler we see on ATS and elsewhere. It's a rhetorical strategy called Reductio ad Hitlerum. Anything one doesn't like is automatically likened to Nazi Germany. It's an easy epithet to throw around and doesn't give serious thought to what Nazi Germany actually was.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Funny how your idea of involuntary servitude only applies to child support. Yet another man who couldn't use contraception, blames the system and the feminists, instead of taking responsiblity.

Responsibility is a two way street. A child should be cared for financially,mentally and physically by BOTH parents.
There are things,such as female contraceptives.Feminists are asking for it,free of charge on taxpayers dime.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


First off I just want you to know that all women are not like the woman you had such an awful experience with.

As far as I know with so much focus on child abuse prevention, these days even the threat of abuse in front of a child is grounds to gain custody from the abusive parent. But you would have to go to court about it.

I divorced my husband when my daughter was 6 due to his abusing me...and in front of her. I knew he wouldn't hurt her..just me and I didn't want to put her through being a witness in a trial. I wanted what was best for her. I was the custodial parent and he had visitation..not according to the court mandates but according to her wishes. So far as child support goes, in Illinois at that time it was mandatory 20% of the non-custodial parents income. I did not ask for anything more....ever. He and I worked hard to ensure that she didn't have to see what she saw when we were married, we are now good friends and she's now 22.

Not everyone is as difficult as what you've experienced

reply to post by thehoneycomb


I'm surprised nobody has stated the obvious. Children are used as leverage... by the State as well as by their families.

"I've got kids... I should have priority." "You have children... you must follow these rules/laws."

That's part of the reason some of these people are incessant breeders... TO GAIN PRIORITY. They use their kids as GD bargaining chips. While in the same context... the gov't uses those same kids to control/manipulate household behaviors and lifestyles.