Replies

I think that the people who are moved to violence are the ones who have been cornered into extremely unreasonable circumstances, not the ones who are obliged to pay their childrens' mothers a few hundred bucks per month.

Even though I agree that a man is morally obligated to support his children and that it is his nature to do so, I have deep concerns about legal enforcement of such an obligation. Especially when men are being ordered to get a job or go to jail. It sounds a lot like slavery. If anything, when push comes to shove, the only one who should be the servant of another is the child.

If a man fails to care for his own children, he is already going to lose plenty without losing his property and his freedom. Sure, a man should be held responsible for his own actions. On the other hand, there are plenty of women who feel that what happens inside their own body is nobody else's business. For those, I don't think the result of that which is no one else's business should be anyone else's responsibility.

My concern is not with what the man is forced or not forced to do, or whether or not the main is missing out on something. My concern is with the child. I am lucky: I have a little bit of savings and a support network to rely on. My child will have a roof over his head and food in his tummy.

There are many who are not so lucky. Many end up relying on state aid.

The surest way to end the welfare state is to force fathers, by what ever means are legal and necessary, to pay for the support of their children.

And no, I this doesn't mean I'm for unreasonable support orders. It simply means that the current success rate for collecting support is inadequate.

And for every annecdote of bad orders you have, I promise you, there are 10 hungry children on the other side of the issue.