Jlaff said:
Your facile approach to this whole issue betrays your lack of ability for critical thought. In your mind, 9 months of pregnancy is of equal worth to whatever uncapped financial obligation is imposed on a father? An obligation that in some jurisdictions can extend to 22 years, and may amount to as much as millions in child support? Is the father some sort of tortfeasor in your mind that must compensate the mother by way of "damages" through support now for impregnating her? Is every woman who brings a child to term not doing so willingly in this millenium? Unequal treatment by the state has been judicially defined as "imposing a burden or witholding a benefit" from/on one class of person and not another ("class" being sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, etc.) see Big M Drug Mart Canadian Supreme Court. If a custodial parent is not required by the state to provide their child with progressive financial support where that amount is tied to that parent's income, but a non-custodial parent is, you have an unequal burden and thus discrimination and unequal treatment. I won't even get into the injustice of failing to provide fathers with a "legal abortion", but clearly I would agree with those who oppose your view on that issue. Please find me the case where a single mother making 6 figures was jailed for buying her children's clothes at Walmart or depriving them of an Xbox One AND a PS4. |
This is because of the problem of deadbeat parents, post-divorce. They had to be "harder" on non-custodial parents simply because of the long history of the deadbeat dad (though i don't doubt there were more than a few deadbeat moms as well). I understand that the laws certainly look unfair, but consider this: if we loosened the guidelines for child support payments, how many people would choose to pay the bare minimum? If there was an option to find a legal way out, how many people would just take it, and then the old deadbeat parent problem comes back.

Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.







