Alito

[Alex]

I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

Because the right to financial support attaches to the child. It is not the right of the adults to decide whether they wish to assume this responsibility. For the most part, it is impossible for biological parents to sever financial responsibility regardless of the means, methods, or machinations involved in producing said child unless they can first provide a surrogate for that responsibility (generally through adoption). This right of support attached to the child is so strong that even non-biological caretakers can become ensnared in it (for example, if you raise a child as your own for 10 years and then learn that the milkman was actually the father you'll likely still be on the financial hook for raising the child; though the milkman will now be on the hook as well).

Personally, I am in favor of requiring spousal notification just as I am for requiring parental nofication if the woman in question is a non-emancipated minor. It is important that in both cases there be a means for showing cause for exception. In no situation should anybody be forced to have an abortion or to carry a baby to term against their wishes.

It is easy to say "if you're a man, think of the dollar signs before sticking your ding-a-ling in any hoochies." Turning it around, it is just as appropriate to say that if you're a woman, and you're about to let your hoo-hah feel the exquisite pain of someone's love muscle but you don't think you could discuss an eventual abortion with them, you might want to close your legs.

As an aside, in the case of a test tube baby, where there is no "my body, my decision" issue should both parents be required to agree on termination? I have no idea what is actually required now for such.