And therein lies another problem. That's the entirely wrong way to frame a discussion about child support, which SHOULD be about the child.this is all about her choice, not about a child.
When a baby is conceived, the parents are both legally responsible for the child from that point forward. The man cannot sign a piece of paper disavowing responsibility and sticking the woman with the full cost for raising the child, any more than the woman can do that to the man. Neither has any special rights in that regard; they are BOTH responsible for financially supporting that child until age 18, except under unusual circumstances (e.g. both parents agree to put the child up for adoption).She will have no "choice" if he is not "FORCED" to pay for her "choice". That is the mindset that we have now. This mindset is based off of an error in logic. She is responsible for bringing the child into this world, not him. She can birth control and there will be no child or she can choose to carry the child to term. She wants all the power over her body and if she will abort or not, and that is fine By doing this she has just also volunteered all responsiblity. Can't have it both ways.
Now, if something happens so that it never reaches age 18 (e.g. it's aborted, or it dies in childhood), then of course there isn't going to be any child support because there is no child to support. This has nothing to do with whose "fault" it was that the child never reached age 18; the obligation is simply removed because the reason for it no longer exists.
Both parents have equal rights to unilaterally disown their child and stick the other parent with the full cost of raising it (i.e. they can't do it). And both parents have equal rights to abort any children they happen to be pregnant with (i.e. they can).Seriously. She wants the power of life and death over the developing human. All her choice. All her responsiblity. But the moment she decides to keep the child, and especially if it is against what he wants, then all of a sudden he has an equal responsiblity. The hypocrisy of this mind set is literally astounding. the more I debate this the more shocked I am that so many people can't see how simple it really is.
That's pretty sexist. If the dude can't support the child then he should have worn a rubber and saved everybody time and money.For the child's sake, if she can't support the child she should use birth control and save everybody time and money.