I don't think mandatory child support should exist and here is why

If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and he ditches his parenting responsibilities without the woman copying him, he is a deadbeat dad and society demands that he pay child support.

If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and both parents decide to ditch their parenting responsibilities by setting the kid up for adoption, neither parent is viewed as a deadbeat parent and society thinks this is okay and neither parent has to pay child support.

I'm thinking, it shouldn't matter if your wife decides to abandon her parenting responsibilities and her decision shouldn't impact whether or not you should pay child support.  Either you should be legally required to take care of your kids or you shouldn't. 

If your legally required to take care of your kids, then adoption would be prohibited as this would be both parents being "deadbeat parents", or it would only be allowed if both parents paid child support.  I don't think society wants to force parents who set their kids up for adoption to pay child support.

If your not legally required to take care of your kids, then why are we making deadbeat dads pay child support if they don't have to take care of their kids with child support or a parental presence?

Adoption is  when someone takes legal responsibility to raise a child . That child is no longer a child of the parent who gave up rights. They get no visitation or have no say in the child's life. If you are a parent and you decide you just don't want to be around your kid you should still pay the other parent who is doing the work unless you give up your parental rights and you no longer get to see or have a say in the child's life. If you are paying child support you have a right to see your child. Most states are now seeing that fathers are just as responsible and capable of being the main custodial parent and are entitled to child support.  

All your arguments re: adoption ignore that the care of the child is legally transferred to the adopting parent[s]. Thus, the legal care normally expected of the birth parents is absolved. Morality is thus covered by the law.  None of that says the one of the adopting parents could become a deadbeat, and the deadbeat status, and it legal ramifications still apply.

So if a deadbeat dad decides he doesn't want rights to the children to avoid paying child support, this is fine?  What does it mean to give up rights to a child?

If either parent wants to avoid doing things for the child they can give up the rights. It means you are no longer a legal guardian of the child. The child isn't yours anymore, legally. 

So, if a deadbeat dad gives up the rights to a child, he doesn't have to pay child support?  I think most deadbeat dads would agree to that deal.  They don't care about seeing their child; they just don't want to pay any more money to their wives/girlfriends.

Deadbeat parent. they don't because they like to use the kids against the other parent.  We have a woman right now who tried to adopt out her youngest and when bio dad was contacted he was like I have a kid, not I want her. They almost did it anyway until he got a lawyer. Mom is fighting to keep dad from getting the kid just cause. She should loose her rights far as I say but I don't have a say. She will get to keep the kid and dad will have to share and deal with the *itch till the kid is probably a teen and goes to dad anyway since mom doesn't care. 

Why would a single mom want to use the kids against her husband if her husband isn't a deadbeat?  She needs all the help she can get with raising kids from consenting sources.

Kids get used in divorces all the time. When they don't it's usually because the parents are mature adults or they both wanted the marriage to end.