Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (53915)	8/6/2002 9:00:38 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The child wouldn't be born into poverty if the mother either had the resources to raise it adequately herself or decided not to try to raise it without the father's assistance, either aborting it or giving it up for adoption. It's a harsh choice, yes, but is it more harsh than condeming a man to 18 years of poverty? I see a number of young men whose hope of going to college, of advancing in life, making something of themselves is destroyed by the burden of paying child support. For someone with minimal job skills, the obligation to pay support is often the difference between success and failure in one's economic life. The best choice, IMO, is not to put any of the parties -- mother, father, OR child -- through that situation.