This is right on target.
Nobody is forcing the woman to abort. The woman has the choice now to keep
or abort.
The mans choice would be to either sign away rights to child and not pay
support (and not ever be required to pay child support) or be a parent and
pay child support. The woman could then decide to keep the child or to give
it up for adoption or to abort or to hold her hand out for child support
just like our EXs do but only if the father agrees to child support. The
governments only part would be to uphold the agreement made between the
parties.
Sounds very fair, I guess it will never work.
Without injustice we would never need lawyers.

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in message
...
Sorry, Matt, I just don't see that, but then if you have sex out of
marriage
and a child results, you've rolled the dice and lost anyhow. I don't see a
man having any right to force the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

But then, I can understand a woman who would choose on her own to
terminate
her pregancy either -- I certainly don't believe government should have
ANY
role in either deciding about the termination of a pregnancy, nor child
support.


"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
This is completely relevent to this group.

When a woman exercises her unilateral choice to give birth to a child,
and at the same time wants to force paternity on to an unwilling man,
then the specific purpose for doing that is to receive "child support"
money.