If I follow the argument correctly....
If a man has sex with a woman, and does not exercise his ability to use birth control, and she becomes pregnant, she then has the power to "force" him to become a parent.
I've only had unprotected sex twice, and I've got two beautiful kids that I'm really happy with as a result. I've been responsible, nobody is asking me for child maintenance.
The biology might explain why the double standard is necessary, but it doesn't stop it from being a double standard.
It's not a double standard, the woman gives birth, it's her body. She should have the final say over what happens to her body. Irresponsible men should stop whining and stick something on it.
If the man wants the child to be put up for adoption and the woman does not, the man is on the hook for child support as I understand it. If the woman wants to put the child up for adoption and the man does not, he can take custody of the child as a parent, but the woman is not financially responsible. Is that correct?
The courts aren't in the parenting business. They are in the business of ensuring that parents don't abuse parenting.
That's not to say, of course, that the court system is perfect. It isn't.
That is incorrect.
I know two women who did just that -- wanted an abortion, father wanted baby, woman had baby, father raises it -- both women pay child support.
Such things as marriage, parenting, divorce, raising children, were in the domain of Churches and Synagogs and Temples until our gov violated the old Institutions of religion, so now the State Courts are playing God with our society and with families and the Courts are not fit to be playing God.
Don't be ridiculous, if you don't want to become a parent either use contaception or abstain from sex. I fail to see how a man can become a parent against his will if he follows those two simple rules
I took this example from your website
So in essence you're saying that if the child support paying parent is
sick and cannot meet his/her salary, then the child support has to be lowered accordingly, all the while the kid(s) still need to be fed and
clothed, despite the parent being unable to work full time for whatever
reason. Is this fair to the children who are bereaved of their well being?
Which brings me to my next question: have you ever considered the
additional government workforce that would be needed in determining who was sick/unable to meet their full child support obligations at one
time or another in order to lower their support payments? It will cost
you twice as much in labor cost if not more.
We're not finished though: what about the parent who is out the
child support money due to lesser support payments? What if they cannot
feed their children, what if they cannot pay the rent, what if they cannot
pay their children's healthcare payments?
Have you allocated enough funds for the state of Maryland to support
these families who will be negatively affected by your child support plan?
It's like you wanting to bake a cake with only 2 ingredients - a recipe
We must wonder where such an idea comes from, as it surely must have been the 11th commandment which God forgot to write in stone.
Which begs the question of why you keep responding on this thread... but ok.
It might raise the question, but it does not beg the question.
Please help me understand what TO BEG THE QUESTION means. I have looked it up and understand it is greatly misused, but I don't understand the explanation of what it means.
The meaning you give is the newest. [ie. "to raise a question"] It is gaining ground, and one or two recent dictionaries claim that it is now acceptable - the New Oxford Dictionary of English, for example, says it is “widely accepted in modern standard English”.
beg the question
1 (of a fact or action) raise a point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question:
some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behaviour
2 assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
beg the question
If a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question
Spending the summer travelling round India is a great idea, but it does rather beg the question of how we can afford it.
To discuss the company's future begs the question whether it has a future.
Having "Custody" really must mean providing the custody, so if the custodial can not afford to provide all the child's needs then they have no business being given the custody.
If one parent has the money and the other parent has the child, then that is mixed up, because custody needs to go to the one with the money. That is if our one true concern is truly in supporting the child and not to punish the parent.