Posted: Apr 08, 2014 7:01 pm
mrjonno wrote:michael^3 wrote:mrjonno wrote:scott1328 wrote:I agree that a father should be able to opt out of fatherhood, in exactly the same way a woman can opt out of motherhood.
If the father walking away caused the woman to spontaneously abort and not dump the tax payer (rarely the woman as she won't be able to work) with paying the costs of the baby I might agree.
A non-aborted baby will at some point become a tax payer too. That is, there is no proof that a baby on child support will be a net financial loss to society.
In fact, many countries that have liberal views towards abortion are now struggling with dropping birthrates, and their governments are now begging their citizens to make more babies. Look at Denmark.
I'm not talking about babies in general being a burden on the tax payer I'm talking about unwanted by one or more parents /incapable parents having babies that are highly likely to be a burden. Yes there are exceptions but this is about numbers here
Well either the father pays or somebody else pays. I don't see why one should be worse than the other.