A man cannot require the woman, with whom he is married, to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship exists other than a casual sexual encounter, to support a child that she unilaterally chooses to have. The argument for the status-quo is; "It takes two to make a baby." That is just rhetoric designed to justify a means. The only thing that a man creates, as defined by the pro-choice movement itself, is an "unviable tissue mass". As a result of the "Roe vs. Wade" decision, it is solely the woman that makes the conscious and deliberate "choice" to cultivate that "tissue mass" into a living and breathing entity. If the woman has the right to excise that "tissue mass" from her reproductive system, without any regards for man involved, then the man should have the same right to disavow that "tissue mass".
Many unmarried men have been told by birthmothers that they don't want their help. Other men may be completely unaware that they are fathers. Sometimes, in a deliberate move designed to deny a man the opportunity of establishing a paternal bond with a child, a birthmother may wait for years before petitioning a court for the instatement of child support. When these cases come to trial, Domestic Court judges are prone to assign these so-called "deadbeat dads" retroactive child support payments. The argument for the status quo is; "Both parents have an obligation to provide support for a child." This premise is erroneous in two aspects:
First, whether a child is supported by it's biological parents is also arbitrarily decided by the "choice" of the birth-mother. Even after the birth of a child, the birthmother still has the option to decline her parental responsibilities through the adoption process. After a birthmother relinquishes her child through adoption, she is free of any further responsibilities to her child regardless of the future hardships that may befall that child.
Second, while both parents supposedly have an obligation to support a child, in many cases the State will provide the mother's part of the parental obligation with cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The State will then confiscate the biological father's income and sanctimoniously chastises him about a parental obligation.
This exposes the true intent of child support in the instances of illegitimacy. While being sold as a bill of goods described as "what is in the child's best interest", child support, coupled with welfare entitlements, offer young women, who have little or no education or job skills, an opportunity for a lifestyle they otherwise could not afford through the means of bringing a child into the world without the benefit of marriage.
It is not uncommon for Domestic Court Judges, as a stipulation of child support, to assign all medical and dental expenses a child may incur to the noncustodial "father", despite the fact that the health and welfare of a child is in direct correlation with the lifestyle and supervisory skills of the custodial parent.
Probably the most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the "earned income tax credit", which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the "working poor" in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a "tax refund" of a thousand dollars or more. On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit up to 25% of his income for child support purposes, receives NO dependant tax deduction.