Daddy Nobucks: When Involuntary Fathers Are Forced to Foot The Bill
bramie keeps suggesting that cost to society, as imputed by conventional, disproved wisdom, constitutes a standard by which to create sexist, unconstitutional, Orwellianized civil law.
Likewise, wmb doesn’t define terms:
yes, children deserve support.
And I deserve free medical. I mean, you’re talking government “support” here, aren’t you? And when that “support” creates the very problem it was initially but vaguely aimed at preventing? When “support” moves from private responsibility to public-sector opportunity and gamesmanship, then what? Because, frankly, that’s where we’re at and under that guise, children “deserve” absolutely nothing but their patent’s misery.
Controversial as this may seem, governments job is certainly not to manage your costs. It’s not to provide for your children. It’s not to make you safe and secure in the face of bad stuff that happens to you because you do stupid things. Ladies.
Or because you elect to do stupid things, fully intending to profit from them. Ladies.
That obligation falls directly on your shoulders and yours alone.
The idiocy of this flagrant nannyism is borne out best, perhaps, in the tale of the vulnerable barhopper impregnated by the rich lout. If you depend on those sorts of feeble canards to establish law punishable by incarceration and loss of property, well, then we’re screwed, if you’ll pardon the pun.
