Or, and bear with me here, one could argue that the woman is fully obligated to all financial responsibility for the child she chose to keep, knowing full well that she wouldn't have the financial support of the father. If she is negligent, or financially incapable of caring for the child, they can then take it as a ward of the state and charge the woman (the only person who willingly brought a life into this world) for the care of the child. It would be more affordable for the state in fact, because currently a vast number of women on child support are also on other supplemental government programs such as welfare, housing assistance and food stamps. You would still have one person paying in, the state would be relieved of the court costs required to pursue indentured servants, whoops I mean dead beat dads, and the whole system would work fine.

I take offense to the idea that you would assume I am an "MRA" because I believe in equal reproductive rights.

As an aside, I will come back to the case I linked earlier. Of course there is no legal precedent for a right which men have never been granted in this country. Of course it may take drastic action, such as a constitutional amendment.

You are arguing about my legal standing so vehemently that I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you are not doing so from an emotional reaction.

Let me guess, you are an un-working mother, with three baby daddies that you duped into supporting your lazy livelihood through child support and are terrified that you may one day have to work to find your way through the world. I bet your income is supplemented by my tax dollars as well, through welfare programs.

If the above generalizations and assumptions seem off base or rude, maybe you should also reevaluate the assumptions you make about other people.