Once a woman is pregnant, there are choices: to terminate the pregnancy or to continue the pregnancy to term. I don't know about the other countries, but in the United States, the decision is solely made by the mother. It takes two to start a pregnancy, but takes one to decide the outcome of the pregnancy.

Let's say the woman is pregnant. The mother wants it, but the father doesn't. Whatever the father thinks doesn't matter in US law. There is a firm belief that it's the woman's body and hence making the decision is her sole right. In the US, if the child is born, the father is obligated to pay child support.

Why? He didn't want it. He knew he was not ready for it. But he still needs to support the child when it was the woman who decided to have it? Shouldn't this be her responsibility? She had the sole right to decide, then she should have the sole responsibility of the results of that decision.

Okay, how about in this context: The man and woman are in a casual relationship. Let's say the woman lies to the man about being on the pill. The man believes her and has intercourse without a condom, which the woman consents to. The woman then becomes pregnant and decides to have it to term, despite the man's protests. In this scenario, the man should still be obligated to provide support for the child even when he was lied to and manipulated by the woman?

What if their roles were flipped? A man and woman in a casual relationship were having intercourse. The woman isn't on the pill so the man is using a condom. But the man takes it off mid-session unbeknownst to the woman and she becomes pregnant? Wouldn't women encourage her to press charges? Maybe even for rape?

Am I crazy for thinking this law is unfair?

P.S. Irrational pro-lifers who are blinded by their beliefs need not respond.