Well yes, but more precisely that was a response to "Because it's none of your damn business". I didn't think it would take too much imagination to see where I was going with what I said, but now that I've clarified a few times, I don't understand what you're not understanding.To be on the topic of abortion and then just randomly say 'what do you think of child support' is a bit ridiculous don't you think?
You claim that a woman's decision on abortion is no one else's business, yet (perhaps) want the other parent to help pay for it as soon as it's born. These two ideas aren't consistent with each other because the woman's decision to keep the baby directly affects someone else, financially. This is my objection. If a father doesn't want to give up his money, it would be in the fathers best financial interest for the woman to get an abortion, and prevent the child from ever existing. By definition, it becomes someone else's business with child support.
No, child support starts at birth in the US. I still believe my point stands.Child support concerns children and not foetuses right? Or does it start at conception in your country?
I think that's a pretty good way of putting it, and sort of conveys the idea I'm laying out. Except what I'm not saying is that abortion alone makes child support non-sensical, I think it's non-sensical specifically under the principle that a pregnancy is 'no one else's business'.