I supose you're. At the end of the day, most discussions about welfare comes down to how much one trusts ones government. Given current events, I can perfectly understand why you might be sceptic of the government(s). Its also hard to have this kind of discussion, because while I might reasonably have faith in my own government, that needn't be the case for you.
As an example, Germany and Sweden, neighboring countries to my own, has governments that I would never ever trust. Not the current ones anyway. Meanwhile, the government of Denmark, I have no problem trusting.

"I do not see why it should be my responsibility to pay for the poor choices made by others" ~ Is what you said.

"I do not see why it should be my responsibility to pay for the poor choices made by others" ~ Is what the dad would say.

The logic you're useing, can be equally deployed to allow the dad to walk away. If your own logic can be deployed with equal applicabillity to the arguement you're trying to refute, thats usually a clear sign that your logic is flawed.

At the end of the day, somebody has to pay, yes. We're left with three primary choises;

1A) The mom pays. She is able to do so. She is fine.
1B) The mom Pays. She is unable to do so. Her life is ruined.

2A) The dad pays. He is able to so. He is fine.
2B) The dad pays. He is unable to do. Hes life is ruined.

3) Welfare pays. The entire population is insignificantly inconvinienced, to help out the poorest most vulnerable in society.

Now, given that we go with either option 1 or 2, we clearly see that theres a 50% chance of ruining somebodys life. Given that we go with option number 3, theres a 0% chance of that. Sure, you might not be able to buy that extra Mars Bar this month, but dont you think you will manage without it?
In addition, you avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of your proposed strategy, in the sense that women cannot con the system, by getting some clueless tosser to knock them up, just to have the sad spass pay for them for the next 18 years. Sure, you might say, but they can still con the system. Yes, they can still do this via the same route, but if a significant number of people do so, that will be societys problem. Soeciety wont be able to ignore as easily, as they will be able to, if the victims are just a numerous cases of individual men. It will force society to face up to the issue, instead of looking the other way, allowing psycho woman to ruin the lives of individual men. If society thinks its enough, we'll have to something to stop this thing.

In the mean time, we should put an effort into educating our population, so that these kinds of situations dont occur as frequently. Education will ultimately solve neigh every issue.

No, I am not.
I am assuming the dad wants an abortion, and the girl doesn't and that neither is truely in a financial situation where having a child is a good idea. The poor choise here isn't the entire "getting pregnant" part. I am assuming that to have been accidental, the poor choise comes from the decision not to get an abortion, which in this scenario is entirely a mistake on the part of the mother, rather unrelated to the father.

You bring up some strong points I haven't considered. I agree with you that education is the only long term goal.

However my fear is, not in the immediate future but eventually, that the tax route is not infinity sustainable, and could eventually lead us to a position where the government decides what families deserve to live off of welfare and which die off due to the lack of it.

I supose you're. At the end of the day, most discussions about welfare comes down to how much one trusts ones government. Given current events, I can perfectly understand why you might be sceptic of the government(s). Its also hard to have this kind of discussion, because while I might reasonably have faith in my own government, that needn't be the case for you.
As an example, Germany and Sweden, neighboring countries to my own, has governments that I would never ever trust. Not the current ones anyway. Meanwhile, the government of Denmark, I have no problem trusting.

What about when the father is a better figure then the mother. Cousty nearly always goes to the mother without a thought into who makes the better parent.

...Then dont have the baby? I agree, the mom shouldn't be forced into an abortion just because the dad doesn't want anything to do with it, but neither should the dad be forced to pay for it, if he have clearly stated in advance, that he doesn't want anything to do with it.
Any is it any more justified to have the dad pay, than to force the woman to have an abortion? You're infringing on the liberties of one party in either case.
If the woman wants to have the child, sure, go ahead. If she isn't in a financial situation to properly care for the child, thats a bad choise on her part. Nobody but herself should be forced to accept the consequenses of her own bad choises. If she cannot adequately care for the child, the state will simply have to remove it and find a foster family which are willing and able to adequately care for it.

I think you need to serious reevalue how you view people, if you consider it justified to infringe on the personal liberties of a man, but not a woman...

Ideally it would be nice if people had to intelligence to not have children they can not afford, but clearly that is not the case.

Since this is the scenario we are stuck in, I don't imagine many would find it reasonable to force the mother into raising and paying for it on her own. Mainly because she simply would be unable to. This leaves that woman with the inability to care for the child. Three options remain, the father steps in and pays, taxpayers/welfare steps in, or the child is left to die.

I find the first to be the most reasonable because I do not see why it should be my responsibility to pay for the poor choices made by others.

"I do not see why it should be my responsibility to pay for the poor choices made by others" ~ Is what you said.

"I do not see why it should be my responsibility to pay for the poor choices made by others" ~ Is what the dad would say.

The logic you're useing, can be equally deployed to allow the dad to walk away. If your own logic can be deployed with equal applicabillity to the arguement you're trying to refute, thats usually a clear sign that your logic is flawed.

At the end of the day, somebody has to pay, yes. We're left with three primary choises;

1A) The mom pays. She is able to do so. She is fine.
1B) The mom Pays. She is unable to do so. Her life is ruined.

2A) The dad pays. He is able to so. He is fine.
2B) The dad pays. He is unable to do. Hes life is ruined.

3) Welfare pays. The entire population is insignificantly inconvinienced, to help out the poorest most vulnerable in society.

Now, given that we go with either option 1 or 2, we clearly see that theres a 50% chance of ruining somebodys life. Given that we go with option number 3, theres a 0% chance of that. Sure, you might not be able to buy that extra Mars Bar this month, but dont you think you will manage without it?
In addition, you avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of your proposed strategy, in the sense that women cannot con the system, by getting some clueless tosser to knock them up, just to have the sad spass pay for them for the next 18 years. Sure, you might say, but they can still con the system. Yes, they can still do this via the same route, but if a significant number of people do so, that will be societys problem. Soeciety wont be able to ignore as easily, as they will be able to, if the victims are just a numerous cases of individual men. It will force society to face up to the issue, instead of looking the other way, allowing psycho woman to ruin the lives of individual men. If society thinks its enough, we'll have to something to stop this thing.

In the mean time, we should put an effort into educating our population, so that these kinds of situations dont occur as frequently. Education will ultimately solve neigh every issue.

No, I am not.
I am assuming the dad wants an abortion, and the girl doesn't and that neither is truely in a financial situation where having a child is a good idea. The poor choise here isn't the entire "getting pregnant" part. I am assuming that to have been accidental, the poor choise comes from the decision not to get an abortion, which in this scenario is entirely a mistake on the part of the mother, rather unrelated to the father.

You bring up some strong points I haven't considered. I agree with you that education is the only long term goal.

However my fear is, not in the immediate future but eventually, that the tax route is not infinity sustainable, and could eventually lead us to a position where the government decides what families deserve to live off of welfare and which die off due to the lack of it.

I supose you're. At the end of the day, most discussions about welfare comes down to how much one trusts ones government. Given current events, I can perfectly understand why you might be sceptic of the government(s). Its also hard to have this kind of discussion, because while I might reasonably have faith in my own government, that needn't be the case for you.
As an example, Germany and Sweden, neighboring countries to my own, has governments that I would never ever trust. Not the current ones anyway. Meanwhile, the government of Denmark, I have no problem trusting.

there needs to be a random chance when the game loads up the title is "blue banana: the game"

Yes, it's there. My bad! Didnt notice the green balls meant new activity

You are a truly a saint. A sick, twisted saint, but a saint nonetheless.

thank you so much fam
i owe you one