(July 8, 2017 at 2:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote: They will anyway, as we've seen..and even if he does pay (and the taxpayer should, and obviously could..imo)....but, again, that wouldn't be anything to do with him. He explicitly stated that he did -not- want to have the taxpayer come in, that he did -not- want there to be a child to support in the first place.
It's not his decision that precipitates that wrinkle, but hers...and that's her decision to make (or isn't it).
He may not want to be a parent, but if he doesn't even want tax payers to pay for the child that he wants to abandon, then that's just too bad. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Even mothers who abandon their kids in fire departments understand that it's a tax payer supported foster care system that supports the child. The kid doesn't just magically go away just because someone wishes it. Someone has to take care of it.
Sad as it may be, our ancestors chose our fates eons ago. The sexual reproductive system is what it is and we have to play the hand we're dealt. Fairness doesn't factor into the equation. A fetus is fully in the mother's custody until it's birthed and it's up to her and only her to decide whether to bring it to term or not.
The bad cards don't lie entirely in the hands of the men, though. Women also have disadvantages to deal with. She doesn't get unlimited number of abortions, and abortions carry physical risk to her health, safety and future fertility. Even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she has to go through the process of carrying and delivering the baby, she has to go through the hormonal changes, and the feelings of losing a child.
