It's actually very simple and very legal to have biological children of your own without having to pay any woman child support whatsoever.

Impregnate a woman who is married to someone else.

The legal regime in most of the world has all but endorsed this as a way for a man to have children without any financial liabilities. As a husband is presumed to be the father of any children his wife bears, he will have to support your child. Even if it is proved that the husband is not the father, he will still be ordered to pay for your child's upbringing. If the two get a divorce, he will have to pay support for your child. And this won't change if you decide to become involved or not involved in your child's upbringing.

In fact, this is the only legal scenario that a man who fathers a child cannot be ordered into indentured servitude. If a young boy is molested by an adult woman, he can be ordered to pay her molester for his molester's child. If a woman fishes a condom out of a dumpster, and impregnantes herself without sex, you are still liable for child support. One can surmise that if a woman can acquire the semen of a man who had sex with her best friend, she can impregnante herself, and subject him to child support rulings.

But a man who has an affair with a wife can have his paternity revealed in open court, or on Maury, and he and the wife can boast about his child with impunity, and have the husband ordered to pay child support with full recognition from the court that this the lover's child, and not the husband's.

It is for these reasons that, whenever women condescendingly say that "you should have kept it in your pants" if you didn't want the legal obligations of fatherhood, they are presuming too much. Because you could keep it in your pants all year, and still be ordered to uphold the legal obligations of fatherhood, without having sex at all.

Likewise, you could be blowing your load up in housewives by the hundreds, getting them all pregnant, have them openly admit their husband's aren't the father, and potentially not have to take on any obligation of fatherhood for any of them.

This is the status quo these days, because the courts are still operating under outdated and naive assumptions about the nature of marriage, and the nature of women. But the truth is that, for all of the draconian laws that attempt to reign in "deadbeat dads," the laws facilitate and even encourage men to "love 'em and leave 'em," leaving some other man and the state to pay for it all.

...So long as the man is having intercourse with another man's wife in a legal marriage, that is.