[E. Pluribus Unum]

That would be great for the guy - but what about the taxpayer and the child? So if the man doesn't want to support his child who do you think should? Me? Me the taxpayer? Gimme a break.

I said "if you subsidize something, you get more of it."

That would imply that if a woman makes a baby without a husband, she's on her own. No government subsidies either, capische?

I guess you prefer encouraging unwed motherhood.

[fleagle]

Obviously you are quite invested in father's rights issues. I agree that men can get seriously screwed by the family court system. No doubt. However, these children must be supported. I do not think it is unfair in the least to expect a man who fathered a child out of wedlock to help support that child.

How is it fair for the mother of the child to be the sole support for the child when it takes two to tango?