I see where you are coming from. So the woman has health risks in carrying a baby to term, therefore the man should pay a percentage of his income until the child becomes an adult.
Ok, so I get how it is justified. I still find it BS, personally. First of all, that's saying that a richer man's child's mother is taking higher risk than a poor mans being that he is paying much more in child support than the poor man. If it is really a compensation for risk, it should be a flat value for all people, not an income percentage.
No, this has nothing to do with the reasons of child support, just the risks of sex. There is 3 parts of the act of sex and pregnancy.
1.) the act.
2.) the results of the act
3.) the responsibility of the act.
To prevent one person entering into the agreement of the act with out risk, is not why we have child support laws. If you dont want children, dont have sex. If you want to have sex, the act of sex produces a child. The risk of the richer man vs poorer man ends here. If the richer man does not want to have a child, do not have to have sex. The risk to a richer man is greater at the act of sex, but not afterward.
The results of the act is 100% risk for the mother, regardless of wealth. There is zero effects to the male about the results of sex that ends up in pregnancy, from a pregnancy stand point. Until the child is born, there is zero results to the male.
The responsibility of the act is why we have child support. The child is going to happen. 100% of all abortions happen because the lack of a support network. In order to provide that support network and reduce the amount of abuse, abandoned, or aborted children. The male must add responsibility to the act. The law is meant to support the child after the act is done and the results happend, and make sure the support network is supplied to prevent abuse, abandoned, and aborted children.
All the risk in pregnancy is falls 100% of the two people that did the act, caused the pregnancy, and have to be 100% responsible for that act.
So when the state forces child support, they are forcing the male/female to take 100% responsibility for the act they committed.
If we take the child and pregnancy out of the equation and replace the act with any other state control activity, we can see the fault with your logic.
If two people wonder down the street and breaks every window on that street, are they responsible for that act?
1.) act of property damage.
2.) the property was damage and the cops where called.
3.) they are both responsible for that act.
With both having the same backgrounds, they would have to share the crimes between then and the punishments for such crimes. The act, the
results, and the responsibilities for the act are different events.
Once the act is over and the results are known, the law has to enforce the responsibilities of such act.
Bottom line, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex. But since a woman can have child with out her full consent, it is very harder to place the responsibility on a general population with out blanketing the out come.
