(no subject)

[adalger]

It is enough if the state or the society seeks to attempt to ensure and to increase the likelihood -- really, that's what it boils down to, increase the likelihood -- that naturally procreative sexual relationships will take place in an enduring and stable family environment for the sake of raising the children so that essentially the society itself, your Honor, doesn't have to step in and take upon its own shoulders the obligations to help in the raising of those children.
And so society doesn't run the risk of all the negative social consequences that come from, say, unwed mothers raising children by themselves, and such as that.

This ... has got to be my least favorite quote so far from Cooper. WHY DOES SOCIETY THINK IT DOESN'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP RAISE CHILDREN?

In particular, if he believes the state has a compelling interest to encourage the production of children, why does it not have a compelling obligation to support those children? Given that one of the main causes of failed marriages is financial disagreement -- particularly when there's not enough money -- wouldn't it be in the interests of the state to "step in and take upon its own shoulders the obligations to help in the raising of those children"?