Reply #161: Allowing men to bow out of their financial obligations toward their offspring

[Pithlet]

puts all the responsibility squarely on women. So, in effect, that is exactly what you are saying when you make the argument that a man should not have to pay child support if a woman chose not to have an abortion.

Look, child support isn't the only kind of financial obligation that comes about involuntarily. Yes, it is true that if you get a woman pregnant and she has an abortion you're off the hook. But that's only because there's no child that needs that support. If everyone in your community decided not to have children, you'd be off the hook to pay for their education, too. But, people continue to have children, so you and I have to fulfill our obligation to society by pitching in for their education. We can scream all we want and say say "I didn't make the choice to have those children, why should I have to pay?" In fact, people do scream that all the time. But, they still have to pay, because the alternative is a gutted educational system. Some people yell "She didn't have an abortion, why should I have to pay?" But, they still have to pay because the alternative is an increase of children living in poverty.

I'm sorry, but the belief that the children's interests are the overriding consideration is a facade? Are you serious? Because if so, that is absolutely preposterous. So, it doesn't cost money to raise children? They don't require food, and clothing, and shelter? If that isn't what is compelling the state to oblige people to pay for the costs associated with their offspring, then what is it, exactly? Are you making the argument that if child support is eliminated - and make no mistake, that's what happens if child support becomes voluntary - then there wouldn't be an increase in the amount of children living in poverty? That that is just a facade?