Edit: sorry I meant to submit a picture link with the text, guess you can only choose one or the other:

http://i.imgur.com/4fRWX.jpg

I don't understand why there are such double standards in regard to the issue of pregnancy.

Why is it that if a woman doesn't want to support a child, she can abort the fetus or give birth and give it away, but if a man doesn't want to, he has to beg and have his fate hinge on the woman, or else be forced into becoming a criminal either by not paying court-appointed fees or tracking her down and assaulting her (or maybe slipping abortion pills into her coffee) to make her miscarry?

They're very upsetting double standards, it makes me very nervous around women. I'm predominantly heterosexual but the nervousness is so huge it actually makes me want to pursue my mild interest in traps/gayishness simply because, in spite of all the HIV in the world, it feels economically safer.

In theory there's nothing to worry about if we're a good judge of character and avoid women who would trap us into becoming fathers against our will, but I don't have confidence in my ability to assess women.

It seems unfair to me to blame men for this. If a woman gets date-raped or spouse-raped, is it politically correct to say "oh well, you should have judged his character better and known he was a rapist before you decided to date / marry / have sex with him" ? Probably not, yet it seems equivalent here.

I think what the law should be is: women are 100% obligated to support any children they have by default, so if they want a man to support a child, they need to get a signed contract which promises them money.

This way, women can wait until a father makes a legal agreement to pay her a certain amount for a child that is biologically his (or even if it's someone elses, or if they adopt, all details that can be explained in contract).

The double standard just really upsets me, and I hate how society villifies 'deadbeat dads'. My own dad didn't want to take care of me, and I feel like my whole family tried to pressure me into hating him, and I might have begun to at various points, but as I learned more about how the system works and how unfair it is, I bear no ill will at all.

Men shouldn't be villified simply because they don't want to financially support or be around a baby or child they never gave informed consent to have. I don't think having sexual intercourse counts as consent to parent. I think that for something this important, that a written contract is needed.

As for people who come back with the "well what if a woman is raped" or "what if a woman has a baby while in a coma and she never consented to have it and couldn't get an abortion"

Well, in those rare circumstances: people convicted of rape should have to cover the fee of an abortion. That is all. Not even rapists should have to cover child support. Getting raped doesn't mean you're forced to have babies and the system shouldn't treat it that way.

In the coma circumstance: we should rule that if a woman is pregnant, by a certain time period (say first trimester?) she has to sign a contract stating intent to keep the baby and carry it to term and financially support it. Otherwise, the government should forcibly apprehend her and abort it if she refuses to make up her mind.

This way, if people get pregnant in comas, doctors can legally perform the abortion without her consent, so we don't have that dilemma of people waking up non-consensually a mother. It's probably a good idea for health purposes too. Due to immobility and lack of consciousness, people probably shouldn't be having babies in comas too. Just look how upsetting it was for Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill.