Hmm, okay, harking back to Vandole's thing on the social effects of not having the woman's choice decide the responsibilities of the man; that such a law would cause more single mothers and be bad for society.
The problem of pushing the responsibility of contraception onto the woman is easily solved; or, rather, almost easily solved. The use of contraception implies the non-desire to have a child; if you consider the non-use of contraception as the desire to have a child, then we have our implied answer right there - If a man doesn't use contraception, then they are implying much more strongly that they either don't care about the result, or that they wish to have a child. As such, they've already voiced a "yea" on the choice issue, and accept responsibility. The issue comes in when you say that "Oh, she told me she was taking care of the contraception....", but that's similar enough to other issues that I think we can find analogues, atleast as food for thought.
In any event, assume that this is an accidental pregancy in spite of deiliberate contraceptive use by the partners.
The rest of this strikes me as treating the symptons rather than the illness, and in any event, it's damaging to our society to give one person such control over another. For another - why are we trying to say that responsibility does not depend on gender, while still saying that choice does?
If the men are going to be less responsible, then women would need to become more responsible, either as themselves, or in the men they pick. Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing?
That our soceity is so damaged by this - unfortunate. But, I have to say, I feel as though it is a much more fundemental issue to our society that freedoms are not infringed. Fine - a woman might find herself pressured by whatnot to not abort - that's still a decision, and it's her decision. It's also then her decision to not give the baby up for adoption.
Hmm - although - although. If, in the act of sex, both parties are implying a consent of the inherent risks involved - But, does this properly take into account of the imbalance of risks, even in the face of the imbalance of choice? If the man's consent entails less risk than the woman's, how much less meaningfull is that consent?
Hmmm. Fuzzy thought train leads to this, which feels balanced:
It's the man's duty to make sure that there are contraceptives being used, and that they are suffecient (which would mean something like >95% functionality; ei, no timing methods), but, so long as the man fulfills this duty, then he washes himself of the forced responsibility after the woman's choice.
No, still doesn't feel quite right, this solution. But, I still think it is more wrong for the law to bend one person to another's will when no crime is involved, than for there to be single mothers. I don't quite know why I think one is worse, but I do.
More pondering is necessary.