I think I see the argument here.
It's not enough to just leave birth control to chance or happenstance -- or to a woman just saying that she's on the pill or the diaphragm is in or whatever. Any guy who does not want an unplanned pregnancy should use a condom. Period
. Now, we all know that condoms do not work 100% of the time. However, they do work 85% of the time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom
<-- dunno how accurate their info is but sure as shootin' condoms are better than absolutely nothing). Plus, they help prevent STDs. I am not saying that birth control is only one person's responsibility. Of course not. But for a party with an interest in there not being a pregnancy, step up to the drug store counter and buy the damned condoms already, and use them. It's just common sense, to do what you can, if you don't want a baby.
It's in everyone's
best interests to use a condom, and for men who don't want to bear the financial burden of an unplanned pregnancy, their choices are (a) don't have sex with women, (b) have sex with women who you can 100% trust to be either sterile or on great birth control that's as close to foolproof as possible and/or (c) use a condom and exert at least some control over the situation. Or, of course, get a vasectomy.
Where I have the problem is where a man may attempt to manipulate the situation for his own ends (I am not suggesting that this happens all the time or even the majority of the time). After all, he is not carrying the child. And if he uses the unplanned aspect of the pregnancy as an excuse to try to get out of financially supporting the child, then the person who is hurt the most is the child, who certainly did not ask to be thrust into this situation. Regardless of being wanted, and regardless of whether a condom was used and failed, or whatever, the child still needs food, clothing and shelter. That is, if a child is born at all.
That being said, I also have a problem with a woman carrying a child to term in an effort to manipulate the man into paying and remaining a part of her life (again, not the majority of the time at all). Essentially what I'm saying is that I don't want to see kids used as weapons in a gender war.
But this kind of comes back to the pregnancy part of the equation. There is no question that (duh!) men and women are different in this area. This is where there can be (at this stage of our technological and medical development) no equal treatment because the parties, by definition, are in unequal circumstances that cannot ever change. Only women get pregnant. Only women go into labor. Only women give birth. And, only women get abortions.
But both parties can offer financial and emotional support to a child. Both can exercise their parental rights and live with or frequently visit the child. Or they can relinquish their parental rights to each other or to adoptive parents. There, yes, they can and should be treated as equally as possible. But this also means that men get on the hook for child support. Why? Because when labor comes, and the child is born, who does the state know is the child's parent? The mother
. The state only knows about fatherhood if it is admitted/asserted or there is a DNA test. But motherhood is open and obvious. So women are always on the hook for the baby, whereas men aren't, necessarily. Hence the law -- the intention is, actually, to provide equal protection, and to get the man on the hook, too, because the ability to provide financial and other support is not gender-based.