Yeah, people should agree on what kind of sex they will have before they have sex. That agreement doesn't need to be an explicit line of statement of intent regarding babies, because some things are obvious.
Things like vaginal (or even anal since it's close) sex with a condom on - no babies. If anything, if in such a situation one of the partners is going to do something to make this sex result in pregnancy, they should be the one who have to make a declaration. Handjob, blowjob, sex with condom and taking that off to come somewhere else - same thing.
I'm not arguing about custody, but about whether a law that attributes parental responsibility to men in cases such as those, is justified. BTW I dont think those rulings helped an iota the establishment of the image of women as equals in society, in order to get rid of discriminations. What these two did - getting pregnant on purpose and having the man take responsibility as well, is what some women NEEDED to do before in order to get a man, because that was their only place in society and only decent means of survival.
And it's not like their actions aren't seen as wrong, premeditated fraudulent intentions WAS ruled in the second case, fraud due to forgered signature is pretty obvious in the first one. It's that the men still had to pay. Maybe the man from first case would win custody and she will have to pay - but then again pay what, she was bankrupt, so he will have to not only pay but also take care of the children or let his new wife do that, which isn't really the point.
