Alito

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision.

I can see your point, and wouldn't object if the laws changed to reflect this position, but I can also see how the economic consequences might be used as another deterent to what's generally viewed as "immoral" behavior (added to the list of accidental pregnancy, disease, or aquiring a psycho-stalker).

I'm curious if you'd make the same argument for a married couple - Should a husband be allowed to withold finacial support of a child he didn't want with his wife - what would that situation look like? Or would the presumption be, divorce would be result of this situation?