OK so everyone needs to keep a record of whether they used contraception or not. In fact, probably needs to be signed record by both partners every time they have sex.

Remember court battles over up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in support are at stake here. The above isn't absurd if you consider that. You'd get females alleging that that one time he didn't use it, and the male saying he did.

What I was arguing was cases where the man should be responsible. I never implied that it would be possible in practice. Do you agree that a man who has unprotected sex should be responsible for the child if the woman decides to go through with it?

No. There should be a second decision point for the man before birth as to whether he intends to support it. Then with that knowledge the woman is free to keep it or not.

Practically this is the best possible ending for both parties. Both get to make an informed decision and consequences aren't forced on anyone.

As for the practical legal implications, I would be fine if the law assumed a pregnancy resulted from unprotected sex rather than ineffective contraception. Yes, very small percentage of men would be treated unfairly due to broken condoms (a risk they are always aware of, remember). However, think about the alternative: all males would be able to have endless unprotected sex without fear of consequences. I think the former scenario would have much better practical implications than the alternative.

This kind of thing (1% of people get absolutely destroyed; 99% get away with it) is what I consider the worst possible outcome for any law. Like when everyone shares CDs but one guy gets a $60m infringement judgement. Or everyone makes racist remarks at some point but one guy goes to jail for 2 years over a Twitter comment. THAT is the real injustice in society.

Yes, both sexes should be able to have unlimited unprotected consensual sex without legal consequences. In fact I think that's a principle worth building our society on. Does sex need to have consequences? Like it's wrong or icky or something?

No, you were trying to troll. I called you out and you did a 180. You really do not seem to read thoroughly and jump the gun as there were no insults in  my original comments, unlike the poor attempts you made. 

Don't tell me what I can or cannot comment on thank you very much. I'll provide my opinion when I feel like it and I will call out people like you when it's needed. Good day.

Um, adoption?

Could say the same for a baby in womb.

Well, no. You'd still be making the mother carry it to viability and then give birth.

This doesn't change the fact that child could potentially become violent because he has no actual mother or father. Some never leave orphan homes and become violent which is actually not unheard.

"could" "potentially" "some" "not unheard of"

Plus we have to pay for that and why do that to our government?

OK so you can sidestep ethical concerns if it costs too much?

Why put the child in a place he could come out abused and mishandled like it happens many times at these orphan homes. Plus what if he rejects his new parents and becomes a threat to society?

"could" "like" "what if"

 I believe the woman should have the right to kill there son as she had to take care of the child and the man only gave the seed. The government didn't have care that child for 4-8 months, she did. Why are you invading in her life when it will not affect you?

Why are you trying to take those slaves off the plantation owner? He's been taking care of them all since birth. It's invading his life to say he can't keep them.

Kk well you take way too much tone from text and I asked a legitmate question. If I was trolling or trying to derail this thread then I believe more people would have stood up and said something and a Mod would have taken a look at the situation and tried to take a course of action, and as far as I know one else has said something to me. You took my question out of context and for that I am sry that you saw it that way. 
I feel bad that you honestly thought I was trying to troll this thread, maybe you should read the comment twice before responding to them.

This was my point. You can have sex for pleasure all you want but in the end the main function for sex is to reproduce so don't be suprised if you have sex and then all of the sudden your pregnant.

what a ridiculous comment. the baby growing inside the womans womb has 23 pairs of human chromosomes, it is the product of sexual intercourse between 2 human beings and has all the potential to become a full grown human being. its not up to the woman to decide if she wants to let it live just as it is not up to me to decide if you should be allowed to live.

whats the difference between you and a fetus? you have all your limbs? your brain is fully developed? is that the standard these days for whether or not you have a right to life?

disguisting.