I don't know how marriage works where you are from, but I'm pretty sure that in marriage all the assets are shared, children too. That being said if the father was against the pregnancy he would also need to get a divorce. Otherwise he would just be the father still, or maybe just the stepfather...
Where I come from, noncustodial parents pay child support to custodial parents, regardless of whether they were ever married. So, if I understand your answer to my question correctly, you would absolve the non-consenting married father from any obligation to pay child support, provided he got a divorce, just as you would the unmarried father. Well, at least you are consistent.
Saying that the father should just suck it up and be the father isn't really fair.
No, I didn't say the father should suck it up and be the father. I said the father should suck it up and pay money so that his offspring is more likely to have a better life.
One could use your same thinking to say that women should just suck it up and have the baby. Basically saying that women can have abortions, but men have no say in whether or not they have to support a child they would rather have aborted is creating a set of laws that makes it okay for women to make the choice to be a parent or not, while creating other laws that force men into being parents whether they like it or not.
The questions of whether a woman should enjoy a largely unfettered right to choose whether or not to abort a pregnancy, and whether a man should be allowed to avoid the economic burdens of a child he does not want, are not analogous because the interests they implicate are not alike.
In the case of abortion, it is the woman's interests in both the privacy of her reproductive decisions and in autonomy over her own body that are primarily at stake. The law recognizes these interests to be so fundamental that it bars intrusion upon them, under almost all circumstances, by government, mate, or parent. This may be a bitter pill for the mate who wants to be a daddy, but he can go spread his seed upon more willing fields if he is so inclined. The adage about possession being nine tenths of the law is nowhere more fully realized than in abortion jurisprudence.
The interests most clearly implicated by the latter decision, however, are quite different. They are: (i) those of the semi-unwanted child in health care, food, shelter, education, and other necessaries which may be beyond the mother's capacity to furnish; (ii) those of the mother in not having to carry the load entirely on her own shoulders; and (iii) those of the father in spending his money in other pursuits. Were (ii) and (iii) all that were at stake, I might agree that a woman who decides to bear a child over her mate's objection should also alone bear the financial consequences of her decision (though, the thought of attaching financial penalties to the decision to forego abortion is a troubling one). But, as I tried to point out in my last post, there are also the needs of the newly formed person to consider.
Short of requiring women to have abortions when their mates insist, are you suggesting the child born to a financially straitened mother and unwilling father should be left to its own economic devices? Or, would you prefer that taxpayers bear the cost of dad's joyful spurt?