Sushi night....

Sushi March was fun! We had digitaldevil there for the first time, and elfgirl joined me with the group after discovering that she liked some pieces we tried. As last time, the lovely lasarigue was with us, and we split a tray of "Chef -- go have fun and make stuff". Next time we will pick some of our favorites, but it was beautiful! The dragon was the best (a roll with a tail on one end and a head with salmon roe eyes on the other, and splashes of red color on each segment like back spikes) in appearance, but there was this other roll that was AMAZING. Joy, good food, and friends. What can you do?

Next Sushi night is April 6th (First Thursday), though I might get dragged there earlier if someone really wants to go. Da elf may not be as excited, but I'm okay with that. ::grin::

interesting points....

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.