Why should we pay for the 'sins' of others?

In her letter titled 'A case for divorce' (The Sunday Times, August 23), Josephine Gatt-Ciancio of Kalkara said "bachelors over 25 years of age should pay a tax so that money can be used to aid unmarried mothers", as unmarried mothers should not carry the burden of the child alone.

Can she explain why innocent bachelors who have not sired any children should pay for the sins of others? And why only bachelors over the age of 25? Does Ms Gatt-Ciancio really believe that men are only sexually active over 25 years of age?

I agree that unmarried mothers need financial help to raise the child, but the onus should fall on the man who helped conceive that infant, and not on "bachelors" who had nothing to do with, or even know, the woman.

It is up to the authorities to enforce a paternity order to make the 'father' pay maintenance for the child. Statistics show that many girls/women claim not to know who the father is.

As it takes two to tango, those unmarried mothers who claim such amnesia should forfeit any government aid until their memory returns and the man responsible for the child's birth pays for his pleasure.

Why should innocent bachelors (and the taxpayer) subsidise another man's sins?