@RolyWatts
*@AE18 you sound like you are coming from an MRA perspective.
He had a choice. The choice not to impregnate someone. He could have not had sex, he could have had a vasectomy, he could have at the very least doubled up on contraception. As women shouldn't for their own sake rely on men for income, men should not rely on women to ensure they remain childless. I know it is not entirely the case in this post but men who refuse to practically or financially support their children should be forced to do unpaid labour. If the state is supporting that child in anyway the absent parent should reimburse the state with work. Might get them to take a bit more responsibility for where their sperm ends up.*
Hahahaha I've been called many things but never an MRA 😂 Not quite, in almost all scenarios I am a raging feminist and it's hard to get me to even tolerate most men.
However, I don't think anyone that doesn't want a child should be forced to be in their lives. The only reason this is a problem for men more than it is for women is because (sadly for us) it happens to women's bodies, the side effect of which is that beyond having sex, men have no choice in whether to keep the child.
I do not think the responsibility for contraception should fall solely to women - I have suffered with every kind of hormonal contraception and spent a frankly ridiculous amount of time ranting about the lack of funding for male equivalents. However, that isn't relevant. The point is if a conversation is had and it is agreed that the woman has it covered, then I don't believe the man is at fault if a pregnancy occurred. The same would be true in reverse. I could see your point if the man was just not taking contraception, not asking, or lying about taking it, but there's no reason to think that's the case.
If the woman changes/stops her discussed contraception and doesn't tell him, then I don't think he should be responsible for the resulting pregnancy because he has been misled. If they use contraception and it fails, then yes I think he should provide financially, but not practically if he makes it clear he doesn't want to be involved from the start. It is her choice whether or not to have a termination, knowing that.
If a man makes it clear that he does not want the baby and the woman decides to keep it anyway, then I don't personally think his financial input should be proportional to his income if it is higher than a threshold, I think it should be an amount that is deemed enough to cover half of the costs of raising the child and then he should be left to get on with his life (as is pretty much the case).
He has not left her in the lurch, he has offered her more than enough money to comfortably feed and care for the child he doesn't want. Given the circumstances that is enough.