Under American law the financial support belongs to the child, not the parent. The end result is that neither parent can unilaterally get out of payment without a court order. I understand the argument but I side with the court on this. No matter what the argument is before hand once a kid exists both parents have a duty towards it.
What you stated does not change the fact. Your case would render the court/State hypocritical if they allow the woman to murder at will while forcing the man to pay up if that same woman decides not to murder at will.
Its discriminatory regardless of what actors are involved as well as rendering the child caught in the middle.
Not quite.
The support belongs to the state.
Which is something that people really do not understand about the child support system.
The money taken does not go to the child or the guardian of the child.
It goes to the state who takes their cut before deciding who to forward some of the money to. Sometimes they do not forward it at all but the money still has to be given to the state.
That is why they can put you in jail for not paying child support but can not place you in jail for not paying your credit card. One is a debt to the state with is a criminal debt and the other is a civil debt.
The set of incongruities needs to be resolved.
Genetic fatherhood begins at conception.
It makes zero sense to say that the man’s genetic fatherhood is irrelevant when he wants to protect his baby from being murdered between conception and birth and yet relevant when it comes to extracting 18 years of cash from him.
The obvious resolution is laws that ensure that the man can legally protect his baby between conception and birth.
Totally false.
The woman has the option after birth to drop the baby off at any fire station or hospital and walk away with no penalty or fuss. She can even later declare she "can't cope" and put the kid into foster care or up for adoption. This society has granted the woman many choices.
The man has just two: pay child support or go to jail.