Here's a good example of what gives men such a bad name with feminists:
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. We already have a tough enough time having fathers contribute to the raising of their children, both financially and emotionally. The issue here isn't what's best for the woman or the man but for the child. A woman's right to choose is about control over her body before the child is born. During that time, the potential father has no obligation to the woman or the fetus. (Although some argue he should). Once the baby is born, though, the issue is about what's best for the kid and the kid's life. At that point, the mother can't avoid her obligations to the child, so neither should the father.
Seriously guys, if you don't want to pay for the kid, there's a simple answer: Use a condom.