Because it's still his child. She didn't get pregnant by herself. The child needs care - why should it suffer just because one parent doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions?
I'm not talking about absolving men of their responsibilities to their children. I'm talking about a man and a woman coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement regarding family planning. If she wants the child and he wants an abortion, he can't force her to have one. But to then deliver the child, and turn around and demand that the man pay child support is selfish and greedy. More to the point of this conversation, it takes away the man's choices, while leaving the woman's choices 100% intact.
The way I see it, leving the man's finances out of a situation like that is a win-win. The woman gets her baby, and the man keeps his money. He should be able to go to family court, state his case, and let the court decide whether or not child support should be waived.
On the flip side of the coin, when the woman wants to abort, but the man wants the child, I think either civil or family court should make itself available to address the issue of compensation due the father for the loss of his child. While a child cannot be replaced by the court, they can certainly compensate the man for his investment (time, money, etc.) in the relationship, as well as for the emotional trauma of losing the child that he helped to create.
The man gets compensation, and the woman get to make her choice. Again, its a win-win.
Child support isn't about funding a mother's lifestyle, it's about supporting a child.
Riiiiiight. And people use the company cell phone only for business calls. In spirit I agree. In practice, things are quite different.