"R" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support.

Paying "child support" says NOTHING about parenting any child.

The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Not only is she in the driver's seat when it comes to post-conception choice
for BOTH of them, but she is also in the driver's seat when it comes to who
gets to spend BOTH their incomes. Sounds fair to me.