So indentured servitude paying for a child that they had no option over is not an extreme intrusion?
From a lawyer smarter than myself:
"However, should the woman decide to continue her pregancy against the wishes of the man, current law permits her to impose a large share (often more than half) of the direct costs of child support on the man without regard to his interests. Public prosecutors will aid her to collect the money, using the strongest sanctions available in our society (up to and including imprisonment). (In fact, the man will suffer more than pecuniary damage, because the public authorities will hound him and prospective future mates will shun him.)
"In every other area of the law (contract, tort, even ordinary family law), actors are obliged to mitigate damages from conflicts.
"For example, consider A, an invitee of B, who while parking his car in B's driveway inadvertently crashes it into B's house causing a water leak. Besides other damages, A will be liable to B for water damage--but only up to the point when B reasonably could and therefore should have shut off the water. Under our law, B may not allow the water to run until her house is entirely washed away then demand that A build her a new one. (Of course, B may summon the aid of a plumber at A's (eventual) expense.)
"If A and B agree together to demolish and replace B's house, they may both be held to their joint undertaking. But B may not oblige A against his wishes to finance a new house when he is responsible for no more than modest damage to the old one.
"The duty to mitigate damages is supported by strong public policy. Most importantly, it averts waste. Also, it minimizes fraud, and it restrains intemperate acts of vengeance which might provoke feuds. The duty to mitigate damages should apply in every dispute.
"When a different sort of encounter between A and B results, not in water damage, but in pregnancy, B should face the same duty to mitigate damages. If A does not desire a pregnancy and the eventual child, the law should require B to mitigate damages (induce abortion) or assume sole responsibility for the costs of continuing her pregnancy.
"That's not symmetric!" you cry, "only the woman has to make a hard choice and face the pain and risk of abortion."
"Nonsense. First off, you've neglected to mention the pains and risks of continued pregnancy, which exceed those of induced abortion. Second, once the pregnancy occurs, some pain and risk are inevitable. They're a "sunk cost." Only the additional pain and risk of continuing the pregnancy can be avoided. So the woman doesn't face a hard choice with regard to pain and risk. Her choice is only as difficult as her personal desires make it.
"If the man didn't want a baby, he should have kept his trousers on."
"It takes two to tango. If the happy couple's contraception fails (whether by accident, negligence, fraud--it doesn't matter) then the pregnancy is clearly the result of misfortune not mutual intent. The duty to mitigate damages applies in precisely this sort of situation--when things are not going the way all the parties want them to. Public policy counsels us against permitting one party to unilaterally impose stiff costs on another.
"Look, forbidding abortion and requiring child support are flip sides of one policy--they stand or fall together. If we force women to carry (nearly) any pregnancy, then we may logically force men to pay for their share of the consequences. But once you admit the choice of terminating an inconvenient pregnancy, you lose your rationale for forcing a party who doesn't desire that pregnancy to pay for its consequences."
