dwivian: (Rapture Drill Time)
I've been meaning to write this for a while, and I'm about six strong posts behind, so I figured I'd better get started....

Quite a while back I was in a discussion about various kinds of vehicles, and what were legal on which road types (learned far too much about what a rural road is compared to an urban collector). We got into a discussion of what made it right to select or restrict vehicles from certain roads, and I came to a point that got lost, I think. So, I'm bringing it here for further interest and so people can expand or refute it to mutual benefit.

I, strangely enough, am fond of rules. If I know the rules, I know what is acceptable, what is reasonable, what is right. My father often told me I'd be "dead right" one day, because of it. Thing is, rules are my guidelines so I don't screw up too badly, and without them I'm entirely lost (and prone to be a recluse/hermit), so I don't see me changing any. What I *AM* changing is my attempts to make sure everyone else follows those rules, as if I were the enforcement authority. I'm bad about pushing others out of convenient violations into compliance, making them mad at me (and not so much with the rules, for some reason).

Why do I say this? Because I made the comment (paraphrased) "after a fashion, car drivers, as taxpayers, DO own the road." And, well, this is true, because they pay the fuel surcharges, taxes, and licensing fees. These are the rules, and following them SHOULD, in my mind, convey rights and responsibilities.

Here is where the debate can begin.
the rest inside, as this got kinda longish )

bleah.

Jul. 10th, 2006 06:25 pm
dwivian: (NOT God.....)
NOT A RETORICAL QUESTION.
What's the point in not being straightforward? Even when enigmatic I keep to a reasonably clear presentation so I don't add too much convolution to the world. If I won't answer, I'll tell you. If I will, I'll be as clear and reasoned as I can be. If I seem confusing, it is worth mentioning that so I can work harder to fix it, or recognize that I just may be confused myself.

So, what's the point in obfuscation? Does it create some positive feeling to answer a questioner without answering a question?

Oolong tea is insufficient to pierce this mystery, and my left knee and right shoulder hurt.
dwivian: (NOT God.....)
In light of recent challenges to Roe v. Wade, and the current issue of a man arguing against having to pay child support for an unwanted offspring...

I have to dredge up some thoughts and see where they go. Just thinking them doesn't mean I agree, so don't attack me because your reading comprehension skills need refining. Please comment back on any of them with support or issues, as it makes sense to you to do. I'll probably play devil's advocate to your argument so we can figure out where truth lies, so take no personal affront if I comment back.

1. If both parties agree to birth control, any pregnancy that results is an unwanted pregnancy.
2. Child support doen't start until birth, leaving women potentially on their own for pre-natal costs.
3. Sliding scale child support denies the claim that this is money for the child, but instead attempts to enforce some weird family structure that doesn't exist.
4. A woman's right to choose devolves from the idea that no person nor entity like the state can force a woman to be a mother. How then does the idea that a person (the mother) and the state can force me to be a father seem rational?
5. If a woman becomes pregnant by guile or fraud, she should not be able to claim child support by force (the father may volunteer it, of course).
6. If child support is paid, then the father has a right to time with the child unless the state can show how that could be dangerous (not disruptive) to the child. This must be tempered with the possibility that the mother will be JUST as poisonous other times as the father is alleged to be.
7. Is a pre-natal agreement (woman rejects a man's obligation to payments) legal? Seems that they don't hold up in court, even if the parents agree. So, child support is all about the children, right?
8. If it is all about the good of the child, why doesn't the state pay for ALL the costs of the child, as they see fit? Isn't it best for the child for society as a whole to be financially responsible, and not a deadbeat or defrauded father?
9. If, as in the Bjorn case, the transmission of genetic material is a "gift" for the receiver to use as they please, how does this change the view of gifts? If I give you something that requires maintenance (a car, perhaps) am I obligated to fund that maintenance in some part? Can I borrow the car on a regular basis?
10. If the purpose of child support is to remove the cost from society and put it on the heads of those biologically responsible, should the determination of no biological involvement remove responsibility? Can you get your money back from the false accusation? Won't this harm the child? Does it matter?

More thoughts later.

Profile

dwivian: (Default)
dwivian

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
1920212223 2425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 09:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios