You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
It makes no sense that the woman gets 100% of a decision that's going to drastically change both her and the man's life.
It must be provable beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman decieved the man into thinking she was on birth control, then this would be vaild. Thouhg if it was not brought up, or the woman says she is on birth control, the man should be able to opt out of child support
Not using a condom inceases the risk of pregnancy. If you don't want a kid you need to take matters in your own hands.
the actions of the man should take this situation into consideration, firstly by assess whether the birth control was applied competently and faithfully and secondly the consequences if they were not. This foresight makes the offspring his responsibility. (Moral/ethical argument vs legal)
No contraception is absolutely 100% effective. Both parties must recognize the inherent chance of pregnancy and agree beforehand what will both do, if it happens. If no such agreement exists, man has to accept his share of responsibility.
If the man was certain that he did not want children, then he himself should have used contraception or abstained, even with the promise of birth control on the other end.
At this point, maybe children should just be considered as the full responsibility of the woman in all cases. It could solve a lot of problems.
"Being under the impression" is very difficult to prove. So, even if this makes sense, it's very hard to apply this practice.
For the best interest of the child (to not grow up with a mother who cannot afford it) the government rightfully forces the husband to pay up if he was the main provider in the relationship.
Contraception fails. Because contraception fails, this is a bad standard. It would mean that many accidental pregnancies would be forced on a mother even with her being on birth control.