PJ Media

…there are plenty of men who father many children with different women without ever paying a dime of support.

Utter myth. Men actually pay for kids they never parented in the first place. Do some research, please.

But oh well; at least the US birthrate isn’t in decline like in Europe where they are slowly killing themselves off…..

Another myth. Statistics show that enormous numbers of American men, aware of the reality of family law, are warding off unions (and families) like the plague. Eighteen years of seven or eight hundred unavoidable dollars a month is no price to pay, nor is losing your driver license, constantly risking the loss of privacy or imprisonment, never having a place in your child’s life, having your basic rights taken, etc.

And society that gets stuck paying the bill for fathers who are AWOL and mothers who can’t provide for the kids they produce.

Consider unintended consequences becoming intended consequences then: Society gets stuck paying the bill for mothers who are willfully gaming a really stupid system — that is the foundation for this particular case. “Child support” includes as much as a hundred billion in matching funds paid by Washington to the states; did you know that?

This means that from the State’s perspective, unwed single mothers are the greatly preferred new social unit. Now tell me about costs to society.

That is also the widespread reality of today’s legal conventional wisdom. We are remodeling the entire social fabric out of a great sense of cultural hubris, a hubris that paints women as inherently and dramatically superior to presumed deadbeat dads. When you cultivate a pervasive new moral standard by way of federal financial incentive, that’s when you have “costs to society.”

This statist religion is so inculcated that many of us can’t see just how staggeringly unjust it is to core principles such as Supreme Court-ruled rights to parent, due process, jury trial, presumptions of innocence, preexisting contracts, etc.

What some here are openly advocating is an apparently sexist application of those principles — rights dispensed under the prior weight of what makes the most money, which is typically impoverishing dad regardless. And the mantra is “cost to society” the same bogus myth that gives us all manner of nannyist Orwellianism from cigarette taxes to villainizing fast food. Where do we draw the line, poster?

Cost to society? The real costs to society invariably and inevitably come to those most oppressive and unfair societies. And the most oppressive and unfair legal “society” these days is without question or doubt custody and child support law.

What some are advocating is nothing less than sexually-conditional application of fundamental rights. Nice place you got here.