vadark said last night: If he wants to terminate because he's not ready to be Dad, people just say "well, you should have kept your pants on". They won't even consider the circumstances of Phase 1.
I just wanted to address this sentence as this seems to be the only 'answer' to seeker's question we're going to get.
He doesn't get to choose to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is happening to someone else's body. He had the same choice to use a condom in phase 1 as any other person. Any time a person has sex, with or without a condom, there is a risk of pregnancy (albeit a much higher risk for the latter) - and boys are taught this in SRE at school.
The reason he is still expected to pay maintenance for a resulting child of an accidental pregnancy is for that ^ ^ same reason. Whether planned or not, he willingly provided half the dna to create the pregnancy.
This is not due to a 'feminised society' - it is equality for women. Men have an equal part in the conception of a child, therefore they have an equal responsibility to provide for the child. Women, due to biology, already have to bear the physical brunt of childbearing - believe me we do not have it easy.
No man can really be genuinely tricked - as he has the ability to wear a condom or walk away. IME it's the man that often tries not to use a condom - because it can (apparently) impair his enjoyment of sex and he has fewer consequences to deal with in the event of a pregnancy.
I think if we boil this down to the basics, vadark is just pissed off that men are now legally obliged to pay maintenance for children they helped to bring into the world. (Although not all do. )
1. That women have to make men sign a legal form saying that they will pay for any children born of a sexual liaison and that compulsory paternity testing must be introduced for all children.
2. That children must spend alternate weeks with each parent, that men will finally have to pay 50% of the 'running costs' of a child they have fathered, and that in the event that one parent moves away, they lose all contact with the child, thereby denying most people in the Armed Forces lifelong contact with their children. This will also reduce the economic mobility of both parents and will allow an abusive partner to have continued control and opportunities to further abuse their partner.
3. Women who are abandoned by their partners when they are pregnant should have no recourse to public funds if they can't afford to raise the child alone, whereas men can go about being forced to remove condoms at will and without consequence, as long as they haven't signed the document mentioned in point 1.
While I can't be certain that I am correct, he has stated that he thinks Mike B is on the right track, and these points have been taken from Mike B's consultation document. However, what would I know? I'm aphasic or stupid.