Saiwania wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:So this isn't an issue regarding men who otherwise didn't want children or who were raped and their rapist became pregnant, just your irrational hatred for the poor.
It includes them by definition because that is how I'd arrange it- to base "who should pay" child support on biological maternity or paternity. That is what makes the most sense from my perspective. Making exemptions for rape is only complicating it. Then people will just claim rape even if it might not have even happened just to get out of paying.
I don't view it as punishing people for being raped so much as just recognizing that someone has to financially support the child who now exists and ideally- it should be the people who conceived the child when that is possible. If not both, then just one of them getting garnished before tax subsidies kick in to make up for any shortfall.
“Making exceptions to rape complicates it”
Yeah because fuck rape victims