I pretty much agree with most of what you have to say here, with the addition that the notion of mandatory child support is completely at odds with the expressed positions on parenthood vis a vis abortion rights. If it is your body & your choice, you can damn well pay for it. With the great power to decide whether or not to carry a child to term comes the responsibility to pay for it. The funny thing is that people on that side of the ideological spectrum have actually called me a hypocrite for opposing aboriton but not adopting unwanted babies, but no doubt would be completely unable to see the connection between the sole power of decision-making on the reproductive issue and the obligation to assume the sole responsibility for taking care of the offspring. A woman can basically opt out of the child care process at any point, presumably up until it gets old enough to know who she is, but the man can be forced to be the primary financially responsible party at her discretion, and can't compell her to even carry "their" child to term. How does expelling a fetus from your vagina engender a relationship with, obligations on the part of, a man when no such legally recognized relationship existed five minutes before? Equal protection means the man has equal rights to opt out. I actually knew of a case of a teenage boy (through a commonly aquainted priest) who got his girlfriend pregnant and they had an agreement to give the baby up for adoption. He had signed the paperwork on the agreement, but when the baby was born, she changed her mind, decided she wanted to be a mommy, and his future was canceled by the hormone-driven whim of a teenage girl. He had to give up college and all prospects of a career in order to undertake the financial support of a child that legally should no long have been his. And given the numbers and stats on the outcomes of children of unmarried mothers, they weren't doing the little bastard any favors either. Three lives screwed up, because a female child is the only one legally empowered to make the decision. I wonder how easy it would be to make such a selfish choice if she knew there was no free ride, and SHE'D be the one who had to get a job?

While morally, I agree with the obligations of a man towards his biological offspring, legally, I cannot accept such practices in a country that asserts the right to equal protection under the law AND where one gender has the right to abdicate their those obligations at will.

As for the plight of the men deprived of custody, I don't have much to say beyond "put a ring on her finger" and "don't go sleeping with a woman you are not absolutely sure you can trust in that regard."

It might be harsh, but the only way to cure a whole host of social ills might be by linking obligatory child support to marriage. And a flat rate, regardless of the father's income. A child has the same needs regardless of the parents' financial situation. A basic minimum requirement is all that they should be obliged to pay. Otherwise, if we are going to be fair, the tax deductions for offspring should be greater for rich people. But that's the problem with the whole rotten structure of child support and custody practices in this country - at every point you turn around, it is in direct contradiction to some other social, moral or legal principle. Either a child costs $X a year or it costs X% of your income. When it suits the feminists, the percentage is used to extract more from a successful father. When it suits the government, the flat rate is used to extract more money from the wealthy, who nonetheless, spend much more money on their children. If you want the benefits of your child having the lifestyle of a rich man's kid, marry the man and put up with him. Or keep your legs together. Life's tough that way.