Not arguing, but leading to the case. Note, I wrote: "What it looks like you are suggesting..." which he was. The very significant difference between what you see as a woman shirking responsibility and a man shirking responsibility is that the carriage and birth involves the woman's body, and never the man's. For a man to dictate/regulate what she can or cannot do with her body (which the fetus is a part of until it can survive independently outside the womb) is a strict no-no in my book (and currently in the law, as well). Therefor, as I said before, my thoughts remain consistent because of this "unequal" factor. When dealing with the bottom line and the countless variables tied to it, it is the same and must be reviewed if you're going to take a serious look at backing the idea of opting out of financial support. EDIT: I would follow that line to say if a man could still opt out of financial support of a child after birth, then (to keep that "level playing field") so too could a mother who carried the child to term; thus leaving the child with the father. As I said before... there are dead-beat mom's out there too. Wow. Okay then. Thank you. I'm glad to see my speech and debate radar is still active. It's also intellectually honest for you to recognize that your position is greatly and understandably influenced by your beliefs about abortion. I for one appreciate the candor. So, please see my above statements for the response to your questions. Edit: sorry... I want to add: I submit that because the legal system cannot (and does not) govern emotional and psychological "reasons" behind the question of "Why?" on such a mass, general scale, this question is moot. The "why" is not a part of the law, but rather a part of the social stigma.