Well is most assuredly IS a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...and hers alone.
How you see that as a reason for terminating child support payments is beyond any rational mind, though.
In any case, good luck with using that argument in a court of law.
It's simple.
The woman doesn't get pregnant by magic--except possibly the virgin Mary I suppose. It takes two, her and some man to procreate. That's how it is. When two people willingly and consensually enter into an exchange it becomes in a legal sense a
contract.
So, the two have sex. She gets pregnant.
If it's solely her decision to have or not have the resulting child, then that's the contract both parties agreed to. That shouldn't change once she has the child. The child would be her responsibility from conception to age of majority
and hers alone.
Now, if it's the
couple's right to choose, the man gets a say too, then they decide between them what the outcome will be. Then child support can be--and should be--part of the contract decided upon.
Right now, women get it both ways in their favor. It's the woman's right to choose up until birth when suddenly (and contrary to all contract law
ever) the man is now responsible for paying for the child's upbringing when he had no part in the decision making to have the child or not. That's completely unfair and unequal and needs to be changed.
Or, are you saying you don't give a shit about the man's position in this and that regardless of how one-sided, unfair, and unequal it is he should just shut up and pay?
My argument here is completely consistent and follows well-established contract law. Your version is sort of
I want... based on feelings and nothing else.
