The idea that a man can opt out of caring for a child, just because he wasn't planning to have it, is one of the most astonishing, ridiculous things I've ever heard in my life.

Now, let's replace the words "man" and "he" with "woman" and "she"...

The idea that a woman can opt out of caring for a child, just because she wasn't planning to have it, is one of the most astonishing, ridiculous things I've ever heard in my life.

The problem with your constructed phrase is in "just because she wasn't planning to have it," which is flat out incorrect. Her plans have nothing to do with her ability to opt out, and certainly aren't a "just because" - her ability to opt out is based entirely on her right to her own biology.

Women don't have to resign themselves to biology; men shouldn't have to, either.

We're not there yet. We'll get there. Once we do, all these problems will be solved quite neatly, since there will be no children unintended by any of their parents.

...it's a children's rights issue and children have the right to receive support from both parents...

Thank you. We need to keep hammering this point in until somebody gets it. Nobody seems to be.

The point is, this case is fraud.

I don't believe anybody has argued that she thought she was fertile and lied about it in this case, so no, I don't see how this could possibly be fraud on her part. At best, it would be negligence or malpractice on some doctor's part, but even that is unlikely to stick.

So, let's take a hypothetical situation in which a woman did trick a man - I'm sure it happens. The scenario of having the man sue the woman for his money does not work unless she's independently well off - in which case she almost certainly didn't pull such a stunt. As you say, no dice. Plus, such a deception would be virtually impossible to prove in a court of law - it would just be a he-said she-said case, unless there was some signed, notarized document, a la meg's solution. (Which would be great, but currently illegal - maybe all you men's-rights types should be campaigning for "pre-coital agreements"; I think you'd get a lot more traction.)

Women have the right to abort and to put up for adoption.

Uh, I don't know where you live, but around here a woman cannot unilaterally adopt out their child if the father wants custody. Frankly, I would treat adoption has a whole other situation, and both parties should have the same options, given that at that point the baby is out of the woman.

I think this is about the equivalent, right? No physical risk to Sarah, no child-rearing afterward. Just, unless she's pretty callous, a lifetime of emotional involvement and--you really can't get away from this--many long years of financial obligation to a growing child, the result of a pregnancy she would have chosen not to continue. But the choice wasn't hers to make. It was completely up to Joe.

And the problem here is what, exactly? Are you so deeply into your opinion that you can't see that that wouldn't change anything - i.e., the child still has a right to be supported? The same thing can already occur in an adoption scenario. Seriously, though, once we reach that level of technology, unwanted babies will already have been a thing of the past.