Re: Child Support Enforcement is a Violation of Men's Rights

More | Report Post

On 3/30/02, Amazed wrote:
> On 3/27/02, Darin wrote:
>> How can you make a man legally responsible for child
>> support when he isn't physically bond by flesh as the woman
>> is? This is a violation of his 14th amendment right to be
>> secure in his person, by adding more to his person than he
>> is legally responsible for. The woman liberates a part of
>> herself at the birth of the child. This can be
>> scientifically proven via visual confirmation of the birth.
>>
>> Roe vs. Wade established that the child is the woman's
>> body, not the man's. This excludes any legal
>> responsibility man has to the child. A man has the right
>> to be secure in his person, just as the woman does. Women
>> were allowed the use of this right in order to terminate an
>> individual after conception, on the basis that the
>> individual does not exist, and that all of the physical
>> matter surrounding this potential individual is her body to
>> do with as she pleases. This, so called, fact excludes the
>> existence of man's body within the woman, and therefor at
>> no point can a man's body be reintroduced into the equation
>> of the individual's existence, because no physical union
>> between the man and the born/unborn individual can be
>> scientifically measured. Even DNA cannot prove this
>> existence WITHOUT simultaneously AFFIRMING conceptual level
>> association, at which point the MURDER of men's children
>> could be establish at a genocidal level in our society.
>> This then concludes that at no point in the individual's
>> existence does the man have any physical responsibility to
>> external flesh. Failing to recognize the individual's
>> existence at conception, has definitely cause a great
>> problem in civilization, hasn't it? All for the rights of
>> a WOMAN! The BIG VICTIMS! Victimhood has produce a new
>> kind of victim. The victim of the victim. Our Government
>> was designed and established to do ONE thing, PROTECT THE
>> RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE VIA THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
>> FREEDOM, INCLUDING MEN'S! My advice to our wonderful
>> Government is to get out of our relationships before it has
>> more than it can deal with.
>
> You can rant and rave all you like but if a man participates
> in the conception of a child, he is as responsible for the
> welfare and upkeep of that child as the mother is, both
> legally and morally. If you don't want to find yourself in
> that predicament, then use birth control or abstain
> altogether. You do have choices here, pal.

Mike writes...
Michael_dean_jr@yahoo.com

Atonal is my thought regarding the author of “pal”... yes
you lack a center and make no sence.

To Mr. Amaised...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
The 4th ammendment... and it has nothing to do with what your
writting about, this is for search and seizure. Redundance...
It does not guarantee what you indicated, however...

I use the word responsibility in the following because
it is commonly used, let it be known I do not agree with its
use when referring to parenting; a true privilege.
The act of sexual intercourse does not merit consent in
conception. Intercourse is an act that can contain several
motives. The action itself may result in conception but
conception is not a motive unless the person engaging in the
act does indeed intend to procreate. Otherwise intercourse is
normally and more often than not regarded as a
pleasurable/etc… activity such as massage, meditation,
personal exchange in love. Engaging a motive under pleasure
does not automatically produce intent to procreate
(redundantly noted).
If you are driving your car down the road and you hit
and kill a pedestrian, should you be held criminally liable
for the death? We all know driving may result in a death just
as sexual intercourse may result in a birth. Do we put you in
prison for murder, manslaughter, do we give you a fine for
killing a pedestrian while driving a car, or do we do nothing
but have a hearing? We use something called motive and fault
to determine the action taken.
Just as the pedestrian had a right to life a child has a right
to life. Who becomes responsible for the pedestrians death,
and the Childs birth/death?
Since a woman is given the right to choose; Roe vs.
Wade, and the right to put up for adoption, the 14th amendment
does indeed mandate equal protection under the law. Current
legislation does not reflect equal protection for men; a
competent minded individual can see this.
Both of your feelings surrounding responsibility has
clearly failed. Responsibility does not lie within result it
lays within motive. Motives establish criminal, accidental,
and incidental occurrences. This is where we establish
Justice. Justice that lacks such consideration is known as
injustice.
Without these considerations we have a system devoid of
constraint, this is known as a condition of totalitarianism.
(Let me decide what ever I want and subject everyone to my
beliefs) Not acceptable in the United States or is it?
Since our nation was conceived with self evident truths
regarding equality, we have but one choice; honor equality or
somehow, somewhere fall short. Falling short of such a self-
evident truth will always introduce perversions of truth, the
skewed after math within its wake does have detrimental impact
on everyone’s life. The current condition of our family core
clearly proves this point. The legislation that has been
adopted regarding this issue has indeed forged extremely
skewed viewpoints and values.
To dishonor truth is to dishonor and discredit yourself,
you can push the result deep down inside but it will manifest
within your dreams and loss in happiness. This will cause
perversions surrounding your life. Every coincidental
interaction thereafter will be skewed and illegitimate. From
these situations will be spawned a deeper misunderstanding and
a broader spectrum of loss will be incurred. This is the
exacting condition of our nation in the family core today. We
as a people have continued to honor an old tradition in law
dating back to the days of England and Kings. Somehow we still
mimic this barbaric way of thinking… We believe an estranged
couple may have one of the parties bequeathed or awarded sole
custody of a child, indeed a shared right not to be awarded in
a sole manner to anyone when both parents are congruent
citizens (Constitutional Factoid). Yet we still honor this
legal tradition in award (legally dissecting what is truly non-
dissectible) just as we honored the notion of slavery until
the creation of the 13th amendment we had every stupid reason
in the world to continue slavery (unacceptable today) During
the Victorian ages men where not only given custody of their
children they where actually allowed to submit their children
to work for wages the father collected. Just as it was time to
grow as a nation then, it is time to grow as a nation now. The
condition of equality has become more equal, therefore the
laws must be revised. (Remember the alternate definition for
Constitution? a : the physical makeup of the individual
comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the
structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of
something. Do you as a person know other definitions?) In
today’s society Women work just like men and earn nearly the
exacting amount, they share the same rights now and actually
have been given some rights they don’t deserve or shall we say
have the right to exercise in a sole manner, such as sole
custody of minor children, the right to not only abort a child
but more so the wrongful incidental condition of their
decision when it is allowed to dictate a mans future in child
responsibility. (If Jane decides to abort her child Mark is
off the hook, if Jan decides to give birth to her child Matt
is subject to financial responsibility. Both men practicing
the same act yet one becomes free from the aftermath as the
other is held accountable. Who made the decision?). This is
not to argue Roe vs. Wade, this is to argue that women have a
protection by law to decide if they will give birth or abort,
the methodology behind the argument is mute. The outcome is
pertinent, the outcome or aftermath of the decision does allow
her to become a parent or to deny the responsibility with
abortion. She essentially is given the freedom of choice as to
where her life course is heading, she is also granted the
right to put the child up for adoption. This choice is not
afforded to men after a conception; to make it worse… the
decision is left up to the woman. A man is in effect not
afforded equal protection of law; he is subject to a woman’s
choice. Can you think of a greater impacting decision on ones
life? The biggest decision in a persons life and they are not
allowed to make it? How can it be considered the way it is in
a country that proclaims freedom as their trademark? Think
about it.
This is not debatable; even if you remove Roe vs. Wade
a woman can still put her child up for adoption. She is
afforded choice after choice and her choices are protected and
created by law. Where is the male’s choice (Don’t say in
contraception or abstinence… that would not qualify as
exacting protection of freedom in choices or law)? Where are
his exacting or equal choices or protections of law provided?
Where is the Childs right to have parents who want and love
them? Why is the child going to be subjected to having a
father who doesn’t want them? Who made up such ignorant laws?
This does not represent a Childs best interest. If a mother
decides to give birth to a child and the father is not willing
to father that child the mother in essence is at fault. She is
the sole decision maker in that Childs birth. She in essence
truly bears full and sole parenting privileges because she has
no fathering support and knowingly entered into such a birth.
We are quick to chastise the male but we never look at the
real issue. A person knowingly and willingly brought a child
into this world when they knew the father did not support the
birth. You cannot make anyone want to do something; you cannot
force someone’s will. This is not an action of freedom this is
an act of slave driving or servitude. Since you cannot force a
father to cherish an unwanted child you somehow believe
financial restitution will make everything ok… WRONG. This is
simply another act of slave driving. YOU CANNOT MAKE ANYONE DO
SOMETHING THEY DON’T WANT TO DO. Didn’t you learn that as a
child? Didn’t you learn that we in the United States have
something called freedom of choice and we all have equal
freedoms of choice?
Example… If you don’t want a child, do you as a U.S.
Citizen have the right to choose not to have a child? Yes you
have that choice. Any rational person would agree.
Does this mean if you choose not to have a child you must
restrain from sexual intercourse? No it does not mean that.
There is no law that says you cannot have sex and if you do
you must have a child. If such a law existed it would violate
the 14th amendment regarding the abridgement of privileges and
immunities. Since the act of sex cannot be abridged,
qualifying that action as an act of consent is to abridge the
privilege. You cannot define a motive through an action. You
can define an action through a motive. Current paternity laws
boldly circumnavigate due process. Hence establishing child
support because one has established paternity does not merit
due process of law. Do you know what due process of law means?
Main Entry: due process
Function: noun
Date: 1791
1 : a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings)
carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules
and principles -- called also procedural due process
2 : a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain
provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or
unreasonable treatment of an individual -- called also
substantive due process

We must put away the foolish notions of sexual
intercourse and grow up. We all know why we do it, when we do
it and we seldom have intercourse to procreate. Since the
woman is left with the ultimate inherent decision regarding
the Childs birth. She indeed is responsible for that Childs
conception. If the biological father has agreed to conceive a
child prior to its conception then and only then can we
establish his motive within the act, otherwise we must surmise
he was after pleasure (more often than not… the truth). Since
it costs money to abort an unwanted child and we know
intercourse can result in conception, an expecting father
should he choose to not accept responsibility; he should
merely be held liable to deposit half the abortion cost or
perhaps all of it in a Federal account that provides an
abortion chit for the expecting mother. For those women who
choose to put a child up for adoption the father should have
first rights to the privilege of the Childs custodial care.
Should he elect to waive this right he may incur no more than
half the cost of pre-natal and delivery care if the adoptive
parents are not paying for such care already. To award her or
the child (she benefits from) anymore is to promote the
possibility of an unwanted child, her motives may not be pure
in birth and that would not promote the best interest of the
child. It is not in the Childs best interest to allow a mother
to decide if a possible father will be held accountable for
the Childs welfare, this is not her choice. Inherent rights
should always be observed and balanced with non-inherent legal
rights whenever possible. This is why we have a Constitution
and this is exactly the circumstances it should be applied
to.
Should she elect not to accept an abortion chit and does
conceive this child she alone should become responsible for
the Childs welfare. This is her decision… so as with all final
decisions, the maker of the final decision does indeed assume
responsibility. Shared responsibility can only be established
if the male has indeed agreed in writing that he accepts this
responsibility also.
Anything less is disrespectful of men and reflects the
exacting condition of the disrespect held for fathers today.
Respect a Fathers decision in the beginning, then and only
then will fathers become respectable parenting partners. This
is where and how we can begin to establish responsible
legislation. This is how we start reintroducing the value of
life again. We introduce it through respecting life in every
aspect, including men’s right to choose their life course
without the intervention of an incidental decision made by a
woman’s “right to choose”. A woman does not have the right to
choose for a man and his responsibilities simply because she
and he engaged in a pleasurable act.
Again, unless a man has agreed through oath,
affirmation, and or written consent to father a child, he is
responsible for no more than half the abortion fee or full,
what have you (arguable by legislators but she is still
halfway responsible and neither committed a crime). Both
persons know that pregnancy may result and as long as Roe VS.
Wade is upheld and a right to adopt out a child exists then a
male has the same right to choose for his person and future.
To honor Roe vs. wade is too presently honor the loss of men’s
rights by allowing a woman to choose for his life and its
direction. Roe vs. Wade does currently give power to women to
literally choose men’s destiny as well as what some consider
to be “child murder”, which is an unconstitutional act.
To discredit these self evident equalities is to
discredit any right or value in opinion you may have. “The
child has rights also” that argument is inconsequential and a
blatant obvious method in blinding a self evident truth. Yes
children do have rights also… children do not have the right
to have both biological parents. Children have the right to
parents who love them and want them, PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
PARENT THEIR BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN not vice versa. To force a
parent on a child is to… you figure it out… If you can see
what happens when you do that… then you can see clearly why we
are where we are today.
So for the person who used the word “pal”… you better
think again, because you obviously missed the point. Think
about the sick situations you will inflict with your forced
reasoning. You typify the common accepted irresponsible way of
thinking; your way of thinking is truly irresponsible because
the after math in your applied thinking is to force children
into the subjection of having parents who don’t want them. (if
you have forced one child into such a life because of your law
you have failed, laws should never force life, rather they
should safeguard it and allow it to flourish when practiced
without dereliction, the act of sex is not a derelict act.)
How would you like to have been raised by parents who didn’t
want you? How many of you really stop and think about what
your saying? You think you’re tough or morally upright? Do you
think you’re thoughts are the answer for responsible actions?
Do you think you have the ability to choose for everyone in
every situation? What really makes you tick or is that… so
sick.
I read from a person who has an opinion… a person who
took the time to express his reasoning and then I see another
comment on his reasoning with an attack of “pal”. To the
person who poises the “pal” attack... the ability to apply
basic psychology within this scenario is almost irresistible.
I will refrain; however I would seriously suggest a little
time out to reflect upon life a little more deeply, as shallow
waters never offers safe sail and often sinks ships.

Next time you want to make an intelligent point
regarding this issue think about these things…

“As long as we have a nation of willing adults… children
have the right to have parents who love and want them.”
“Children do not have the right to be parented by their
biological parents; Parents have the right to parent their
biological children”
“Parenting without love is… needed to know more?”
“Forced parenting responsibility is direct proof of a
forceful fool who doesn’t understand a “Childs best interest”
or a parenting role; they only understand how it should be for
them and seek to glorify themselves at the Childs expense and
the parents’ misfortune”
“Parenting is a shared privilege; defining it as
responsibility discredits its true and full definition, the
law has no place in granting sole custody when two congruent
citizens are currently parents”
““For Kids Sake” (let us exploit them for our newly found
enforcement jobs and political agendas)”
“Any law that consequently removes parental rights
without criminal conviction or finding of incompetence is
unconstitutional and a criminal act not only to the child but
also the parent by those who enforce it upon the parent and
child.”
“Somehow I think it to be in your best interest little
girl to take you away from one of your parents. They aren’t
criminals but I just want to take one away from you… is that
ok? – A message Judges send to children in an offbeat way”
“To allow estranged adults to separate is to allow them
to follow their will, to separate adults from their children
is to dismember the family core. A president once asked what
was wrong with today’s family core, was he that naive?”
“Respect is earned through admiration; admiration is a
derivative of life; life is admirable and without liberty
there is no life. Those who do not respect the equal liberties
of others are simply criminals with no respect or admiration
of anything but themselves.”
--ME

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of
its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will.
But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because
law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to
Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” –
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1.
This amendment does not reflect what the first person
wrote about; it does however reflect equality and better
defines his stand. I challenge anyone to read the Constitution
and see what it says… I know many of us don’t really know
anything about it because I hear and see misquote after
misquote and misunderstanding. Not even the majority of
legislatures that create our laws know what this document
says. The Constitution is a timeless document and no part of
it is dead. Although some feel parts of it discredited other
parts… they don’t. Their interpretation is simply disjointed.
Read article 4, section 2, first sentence… pre-dictation
of the 14th Amendment, no?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. –
U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 2, first sentence.
I have a challenge to anyone, should you disagree with my
entry on this site…
Take the time to prove why current Child Custody Laws and
Support Responsibilities are congruent with the Constitution.
If anyone can prove that current child custody law and child
support laws within the 50 states and federal governments’
guidelines are constitutionally valid when held to the
Constitution and in self evident truth… Not only will I tip my
hat to you, I will be your voluntary slave for one year.
Anyone! Give it a try… try to legally prove that all 50 states
and the federal child guidelines are truly legal and
Constitutional. Anyone… ?
I have had this challenge noted on 20 or more forums… no-
one has even tried. If you disagree with me put your money
where your mouth is and prove it. Simple little statements
about getting over it and ranting and raving don’t cut it, if
you think what I wrote is wrong… prove it, don’t jab and prove
your ignorance. Practice elucidation or be silent, in other
words if you can’t explain your position with noteworthy
backing… shut up.
I have received countless backings regarding the above
finding including present day Supreme Court rulings. 2002
Georgia and the 14th amendment, the case regarding child
support and the unequal application of law held for a mother
no-less. The 9th circuit court of Washington knocks down
Washington States Child Guidelines in Custody ‘99… questioning
the States power in granting sole custody to either parent and
deciphering the new laws as “suggestive” towards award. The
State of Washing supposedly having the cutting edge of new
laws regarding this issue still fails in its Constitutional
adherence… proving once again the reasoning for article 4,
section 2, and sentence 1.

The high courts of our land are now challenging the
agenda and the children of its product are becoming of age. I
as child of this legislation am enraged by its pompous
presumption in power. No legislative law had the power to take
away my fathers right to father me. It is in that very action
I have strived to understand everything around me. I have
looked under every stone in my path; I have been left to my
own dependency. Within that I have found many truths,
ironically I fear some may have been lost in me without your
presumed exercise in powers. I have lost many years of my life
never knowing love or unity. I have finally found these things
and they have shown me the criminal acts in the legislation.
The citizens of this nation are blameless as they thought they
elected competent trustworthy legislators who knew the basics
of the Constitution and values of its content. Legislators
have skewed the citizen’s views with their legislation; they
have given out unequal rights. They have created the current
gender wars and devalued marriage. They have begun creating
citizens who are detached because legislation has openly
forced division in families. We see an agenda, the agenda is
not pretty, and we see a government that is fat. We see
departments of bureaucracy defending their existence; we see a
government never seen in the history of all mankind. We see
nation of people that is becoming nothing more than a
government of civil servants and penal servants. The time to
end this is now. The threat in its growth is found in the
division of the family core, the root of everything valued
within our lives is now being destroyed by our government.
Stand up and fight for our freedom and take back our
nation. Write your high court Judges and give them support in
defending the Constitution! Vote for sincere politicians who
can recite the Constitution and know it well. Notify your
congressional officers that you will no-longer tolerate
government in family matters.
Remember- we are the descendants of those who wanted and
valued freedom, our ancestors fought a bloody war amongst
themselves and the English to secure a truer freedom for all.
We are of the same blood, we have the same desires, and we
have the same strength. Legislators may have unwittingly found
a way to reduce the common citizen’s powers through deceit in
division of family (breaking their bonds in unity)… but
remember that some of us see this. If anyone is scheming to
capitalize on this condition… stand by.

Re: Child Support Enforcement is a Violation of Men's Rights, 12/30/11, by Matt schilling.

Equal Rights Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST