Hm. This is a sticky issue. No pun intended.
Going solely on hauss’s apparent attitude, he’s kind-of an irresponsible jerk. Under current laws, yes, he is required to step up and support the kid.
But … Hm. I’d never really considered fully the inequity of parental roles with regard to this issue.
Let me first say that I’m Pro-Choice, because I don’t believe the government has the right to mandate to a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term… but I’d want any woman I had influence over, who was considering abortion, to consider other options. I don’t find it essentially immoral, just… distasteful. Unethical. Dodging personal responsibility. Of course, I’ve never been in that situation, so it’s impossible for me to say that my view wouldn’t change.
Looking at it from that perspective, potential fathers are really getting screwed here. But how can one alleviate the imbalance without giving rise to a culture of “hump’em and leave’em” types?
Well, I think there would have to be a window of opportunity for this ‘abortion of responsibility’. Similar to that of an actual abortion. There would have to be laws mandating that a pregnant mother, if she expects to receive support with a child, notify the father before the end of the first trimester, else he is absolved of obligation. (Of course, were I in that situation, even given an opportunity to get “out”, I wouldn’t.) I don’t know about the symptoms of pregnancy enough to be 100% of that proposed deadline, though - is it possible for a woman to be three months pregnant and not notice? There could be an exception made, if so… requiring her to notify the father, if she expects support, as soon as she learns of the pregnancy after that time.
It’s important that the father respond, stating whether or not he will take financial responsibility, soon enough that the woman still has abortion available as an option to her. And he has no say in her choice on that matter - no matter how much he may want the child, ultimately, the balance of the power lies with her with regard to an abortion. Those advancing the idea that this suggestion is the equivalent of allowing people to abandon children at 5, 10, or 14 years of age, are being intentionally silly, setting up strawmen. That’s no more solid an analogy than saying the right to abort is equivalent to letting parents legally kill their teenager on a whim. No one, as far as I can see, has suggested an open-ended opt-out period for the father.
For those suggesting that for many potential mothers who don’t believe abortion is right, therefore it is not a real choice … the same is true of this opt-out for fathers. Many believe (obviously, from this thread) that it isn’t right, and therefore isn’t a choice. No matter how strenuously you believe the option is wrong, however - it is still an option. If you are of a moral character that will not let you accept that choice, no matter what - then keep your pants on, male or female, or take appropriate precautions.
Then there was the notion advanced that suggested it would lead to a horde of “players”, men screwing whoever they want, consequence-free. Lying about vasectomies, etc. Well, as the system stands, what prevents a woman from saying “Don’t bother with a condom. I’m sterile.” and the phoning up the father a few months later, demanding her first check? If men were given the same opt-out option, this sort of manipulation wouldn’t work. Lying about fertility to dodge birth control methods is an option available to both sexes, the difference being that women can currently use it for sexual gratification OR financial gain, whereas men have no chance of a financial boon from such a deception. This opt-out idea would remove the chance of financial gain for women, levelling the playing field, and giving the sexes one less reason to lie to one another.
The other effect, of course, would be that women would probably be a lot more cautious about deceptions like “I had a vasectomy” - since the consequence for accepting a statement like that at face value has just increased.
I don’t know - it’s not a perfect system, but it may be more fair. As I said, I’m of the camp that thinks men should live up to their responsibility, but I don’t neecessarily think that should be legally mandated. I know one fellow who was forced to “do the right thing” (and when I say forced, I mean lightly coerced - no gun to his head, and he was stupid for letting it happen) after getting a girl pregnant. They married, and have had a contentious, horrible relationship ever since - she keeps him around for financial support and screws around on the side, using the kids as a wedge against him. Maybe if this sort of system was in place, things would be a little different. Maybe not.