Pro-choice is about a women's right to control her own body. It is not about what happens when the baby is born.
I did not take child support. I could have forced the issue, but frankly I was always the breadwinner, I saw no reason to make him destitute to pay for our child.
But have him totally relinquish future need to support. Nope.
There was a time when I needed several ankle surgeries to get back to work. I was off about a year. I had to cobra my healthcare .Had he not been a "legal" parent, I would not have had the ability to switch our son over to his health care. As it was, a unique opportunity presented itself, and I was able to keep him covered with me - but not at cobra prices.
This is not what is in the man's or woman's best interest....it is what is in the child's best interest.
And as someone stated earlier, if mom goes searching for welfare and ongoing support? Why should the state pay for a child when there is another parent to possibly help with the bills. Hell, the ability alone to place the child on a good health insurance plan (read not Medicaid) is a good thing. As a taxpayer I would say...you better be going after both parents to support this child before the state gives out my tax dollars.
But yeah, I elected not to receive support for my child, as I was always the breadwinner. But give away total future rights for my child - are you nuts?
What about social security benefits? Why the hell would I give up his rights to his social security benefit?