[Lorianne]

I reject that. That is not the "only workable solution". That's ends justify the means logic. The obvious endgame of such logic is unilateral unconstitutional actions against women.

There are lots of "disincentives" we could use that are not unilateral. For example, I don't accept the premise that a man has no obligation to work towards the support of his children, but women do.

I also do not accept that women are unilaterally responsible for the creation of children. That logic will place us right on the mandatory abortion road ... which is what all this deliberate OMMISSION men, even one single time in a discussion of welfare, is all about. That is the endgame.

[SauronOfMordor]

There are lots of "disincentives" we could use that are not unilateral. For example, I don't accept the premise that a man has no obligation to work towards the support of his children, but women do.

The guys who are able and willing to provide child support, do. If a guy is not providing child support, it means that he's either unable (low wage, in jail, or dead) or unwilling. If he's unwilling and underclass (which most of the welfare dads are) then it's really hard to do something about it. What are you going to do, put him in jail? If you garnish his salary, this creates an incentive to work off the books or self-employ in a cash business of some sort

There is no getting around the fact that it's the women who have all the choice in whether to have sex with someone, get pregnant, stay pregnant, or keep the kid or put him up for adoption