(July 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm)Losty Wrote:(July 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Aliza Wrote: I think the only way to allow the father to opt out is if the tax payers are going to be prepared to step in and fill his shoes financially.
I really don't get this. You think the mother has no responsibility? If she chooses to bring a baby into the world knowing the father wants no part in it, then she should be responsible for that baby in every way. If she cannot do that, then she shouldn't have a baby.
I didn't say the mother has no responsibility. I'm saying she has 1/2 responsibility. I'm suggesting that the tax payers need to fill the father's shoes, not her shoes. As pro-choice as I am, if I was put into the situation, I don't think I could choose to have an abortion. If people were to change the law to let him off the hook, I don't think that should compel the mother to become 100% responsible and making her fully responsible takes away from the child's long-term care. If she must pay more than her share, the family must make financial sacrifices. She may not be able to retire as comfortably because she couldn't save as much as she would otherwise have been able to (and become a drain on society). Maybe the kids won't be able to go to college or get the resources and care that they would otherwise have gotten with full parental support. Maybe instead of growing up to be an engineer, the kid grows up to be a mechanic. Both are respectable jobs, but one of those jobs has a higher probability of enabling the kid to better support their family.
If the mother has enough money to really cover it all financially, then that's one thing. But there are a lot of women out there who need that support to provide for the kids. Without it, taxpayers really have no choice at all other than to provide food, clothing, public education, child care, and even college. If not for the benefit of the child, then at least for the benefit of society as a whole so we can maximize our chances of having educated, informed citizens who can participate and contribute to society. Can some women really do it alone? Sure. Can all women? Will all kids benefit from this? At the very least will most kids fare just as well with one income as they would with two? I just don't believe so.
Saying what women should or shouldn't do isn't going to address the fact that women do actually run single parent households that are barely scraping by, and that's with the expectation of paternal support. Removing the expectation of support may sound great and fair to the guys (and it is), but I think the kids would pay the price in the long run.
Fortunately from my point of view, this is just an academic discussion where our opinions carry no real weight. As far as I know, no such law is being considered anywhere around where I live.
