Right, but you are not grasping what I am saying...Abortion in your eye's only serves to benefit the mother, if she doesnt want to put her body through that then that and she doesnt have to deal with it financially or mentally, it is her choice. she doesnt have to consult or think about the father or the child. However it is taking everything away from the "child" and in lots of cases the heart of the father. Now if she chooses to have the child without consulting the father, it only serves to benefit her and the child. now that the tables are turned, why should the father be legally and financially responsible for the care of the child, even if the mother knew before she decided to have it that the father dis-agreed and would prefer to not be present? I know its a bad situation, but I feel like having the ability to deny responsibility completely for nothing other than personal conviction, without having to take the father into account, warrents an option where the father can do the same if its somthing established early on...As it has been said these law's can be out of date in our modern society, men who don't even have a biological connection paying large sums of money to a woman who quite possibly did it all purposfully. However that case aside, I feel like the Mother made a conscious decision to go ahead with it fully knowing the consequences, and chose not to put it up for adoption...Sorry but it shouldnt go both way's...Not saying that deadbeat dads arent horrible people, but quite frequently these sorts of things carry alot of spite and resentment, and since the courts side with women as a rule of thumb it CAN and DOES take place where a woman simply wants to get the best of an ex she doesnt like and knows she can coast off the kid for a long time....sorry, maybe I am out of line, I just think that equality means equality