Posted: Jul 17, 2017 1:44 pm
Nicko wrote:purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?
Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?
It is.
It's called being a "stay at home parent". This forum has at least one of them. Having a child with a man who wants to assume this role is an excellent choice for a career-oriented woman to make.
So both parents want to be a "stay at home parent", have a dozen kids or so, and the government should pick up the tab?
Or what if the dad wants to stay at home but the mom says "no, you need to pay or you can't have anything to do with the kid". Or she just says "no" outright to the man being a father to his child. Is that ok in your book?