This is what is known as a slippery slope. And I speak with at least a little expertise, since both of my children were born out of what was once popularly called "wedlock". And I wasn't planning on being a father in either case. One child was born in 1979, the other in 1990, hence I ended up paying child support for something like 31 years. (I thought it was 32, but it just seemed that long).
The first mother and I were talking about getting married, and she had confided that she had, with previous boyfriends, been trying to get pregnant for years and had been unable to do so. I took that to mean that she had biological problems and that pregnancy was unlikely. I was, of course, quite naïve in such matters. She ended up pregnant, but we found out about it only after we had already broken up. In that instance, she was being honest, I was being careless, and I don't think I would have had any right to request either an abortion or to try getting out of child support. Her intentions were clear, my participation was voluntary and I got careless. Plus, I broke up with her. She didn't leave me.
In the second case, the woman flat out lied to me about her use of birth control. However, I wouldn't have had any way to prove that, and again, I was a voluntary participant and I knew then as I know now that birth control, even when actually being used correctly, does not always work. And I had a bad lawyer. So I had little choice about paying support even though the kid was not my idea. And had I not, the child would have grown up in more poverty than I could have consciously allowed. Mommy was a lazy b___h. He still turned out okay. As did the first one.
On the other hand, a recent case where a woman somehow "stole" semen from her old boyfriend, impregnated herself with it and that sued for support is over the top. Another recent case was a sperm donor who ended up getting sued for support and loosing. Also over the top.
Which, to me, illustrates the range of issues that are faced, morally and socially and otherwise. It is nowhere near as cut and dried as the cases where the rapist sues for visitation rights, something that is allowed in 30 states. They often win, when in fact they should just be shot.
So the issue is a hard one to parse in the face of the various realities. Certainly a woman who does not want to have a child has the right to say no. But if the couple is married, even that is not a cut and dried issue, I don't imagine. I'll stay away from that. But in the cases where the woman wants a child and the man doesn't, and those facts are made clear prior to the pregnancy, the guy should have some legal options. Not to make termination mandatory, I still leave that up to the woman. But if it is documented that he was in it just for the fun, or the love, or whatever, and not for the offspring, and especially where duplicity was involved, there should at least be discussions such as this.
I'm too prejudiced to be on the jury, however.
