Ah, OK, yes. I too think it is unreasonable to expect men to be emotionally invested in a wanted pregnancy and indifferent to an unwanted one. https://twitter.com/Tigerlore88/status/983871182112940032 …
And yet, the situation is not fair to men. I would support some kind of means testing of the mother for requiring men to support a child they do not want and only up until the child goes to school and the mother can work. A compromise?
-
-
This is also because if a mother cannot support a baby and work and most can't, the state ends up supporting them. I am fine with this if it cannot be helped. It's what I pay taxes for. But a bit much if father could support but chooses to opt out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The family courts seem to work most efficiently when the child's best interests are paramount. There are valid arguments that this efficiency is achieved by the unacknowledged suffering of men. I think any shift that becomes more inclusive is a potential can of worms.
-
Current policy provides incentive to bad actresses to have unwanted babies by multiple fathers. But any attempt to correct creates less financial support for innocent children. Unfortunately the alternatives carry harsh realities:
-
Creating more fairness for men would result in Less financial support for children. Though some claim there would be less needy children if incentive for bad actresses is reduced. I don't know lol. I can't be sure which way results would swing. Status quo seems wisest tbh
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.