If he knew one was rotten and took the chance than the man should be sewed. He man conscience decision to play with someone life knowing that the customer fully trust the baker. Therefor, the baker should pay for his crime.

The problem still comes to down to whether or not a person should be forced to incur a financial responsibility for a child. In reality, it will always be the man paying the child support as contrasted to women who are almost never expected to pay even in the rare case that they do not receive custody. It is a double standard, and the best way to eliminate it would be to end child support as a practice. A man or woman has no financial burden to raise a child. Both should be allowed to offer a child for adoption or perform an abortion (in the case of both parents not wanting to raise a child), or to avoid any financial responsibility of raising a child if they do not wish to raise that child. Becoming a parent and being a parent should be a 100% voluntary action ... not something forced upon people by the state.

You are right, I have not seen my wife suffer through a difficult pregnancy, but I have seen my best friend psychologically destroyed by a burden to raise a child that he never wanted. Unfortunately, the law really doesn't care about him, the mother holds all the power to bring the pregnancy to term, end it, or whatever she wants to do basically. All he can do is shut up and take it.

I can't imagine what it would be like to experience a difficult pregnancy, but I also cannot imagine the pain/fear/anger my friend went through as he was stripped of his freedom to choose the course of his life. If given the choice, I can promise you that he would gladly suffer through the physical pain of child birth in order to rid himself of the incredible burden that has been placed on him against his will.

Did he have sex against his will? He can try to sue his parents for not explaining the risks involved in having sex. If you feel you're old enough to take the risk, then you're old enough to take responsibility. The state certainly didn't force him to have sex.

Pleading ignorance or non intention doesn't work. How about he thinks about the child that needs a father. That's the risk you take when you have sex, your life will change completely and is no longer just your own.

Getting off from being a parent with just a bit of child support is still too easy a way out imo.

Anyway I believe you that the system is biased. If the father has custody then the mother has to pay child support as well.

To put it bluntly, his parents (or more like "parent") were awful, and they had no business raising a child. The child that "needs a father" would be better off with parents that actually want children ... not people who are strong armed by a female centric legal system into fatherhood at gunpoint.

Child support is not an "easy way out." His wages will be garnished for the next eighteen years (thank god he didn't marry her otherwise he would have alimony on top of that). Failure to pay can lead to prison terms ... anything that will likely lead to prison time is not getting off easy in my opinion.

Even if we assume the best case scenario (he manages to pay child support while still maintaining a decent life) he will have this huge burden going forward that he will not emerge from until he is in his forties.

It is a sad state of affairs that this is what passes for justice and equal treatment under the law. Reverse the genders of the situation and she would have all the options I highlighted at her disposal.

Now is a good opportunity step up, break the cycle and be a good father for his child.
Sure, sometimes a child can be better off with a surrogate parent but the biological parent is still the better option. It's cruel to put the child through years of self doubt trying to figure out why his father thought he was too much of a burden to care for him.

It happened, it can't be undone, he is resposible, should the child be punished for it?

If the mother doesn't want to be a mother then the father has the option to take custody of the child and get the mother to pay child support. It all takes a lot more time with the current system then the other way around, yet he still has the options. Apart from abortion ofcourse. Equal treatment doesn't work in this case where one party grows a human life inside them.

What about his feelings? It seems that you are suggesting that the only person of concern here is the child. What about the life that he wanted to live? I have encouraged him to find any way he can to escape child support and to escape this transparent attempt to manipulate and control him that this toxic woman is conducting. Why should he sacrifice his life and his happiness just so a woman (who has no respect for him and his feelings as indicated by this event) can raise a child?

Yes, I have the deepest sympathies for the child, and it was not his fault that he was born into this situation, but my friend wanted no part of this. It was the mother, and the mother alone that held all the cards, and she decided to have the child; the father's choice be damned. If anyone is complicit in the suffering of the child it is her, the father's choice was well established from the start.

He is responsible? He did not want the child, but that doesn't matter to anyone apparently. The only person with a choice here is the mother. She has all of the power in this shakedown, and the state is her muscle.

Despite her abhorrent behavior, if she wanted to give up custody I would argue on her behalf that she should not have to pay child support either. Neither sex should be required to subsidize another human life against their will.

Did she sabotage the condom, did she rape him? I assume he was a consenting adult in the act, so he needs to take full responsibilities for the consequences. You can't ask someone to change their moral fiber or biological nature just to suit his feelings.
That's life, you can't always get what you want. Sometimes doors close, sometimes new ones open. Best to make the most of the hand you're dealt. Change is scary yet he might grow to like being a dad.

I've seen what happens to single mothers where the father does everything to dodge child support. It's not pretty and the only ones that benefit are lawyers.

If anyone is complicit in the suffering of the child it is her, the father's choice was well established from the start.
That is the most absurb reverse logic I've heard. Wearing a condom is not a EULA absolving him of any consequences. I assume it wasn't her choice either at the time. And when it comes to abortion, that's not something anyone can decide beforehand. I'm not against abortion, but I certainly won't ask anyone to kill their own child, which is the way a lot of people feel about it.

His only way out is to do a paternity test and hope it's not his.

The problem with this is the fact that the father does have a choice. He chooses to have sex with the knowledge that his choice could lead to pregnancy, which could subsequently lead to a child being born. He is fully aware of the circumstances going in. So it is not against his will, and the consequences certainly are not unfair. If he still decides to have sex - with this knowledge - then he must also accept any consequences resulting from his decision, whether he likes it or not.

It does not matter what the man wants or feels. It only matters what he does. Responsibility is determined based on actions, not the mentality of the person who performs the action; for example, a person is not forgiven for involuntary manslaughter just because he "didn't really want to kill the victim". If he didn't want to be a father, then he should not have engaged in sex. I know this seems impractical since sex is such an intrinsic part of human instinct, but human instinct does not invalidate accountability. The same rules of responsibility still apply, regardless of the fact that he was really excited that one night. There’s no excuse.

It seems like you're trying to use the woman's abundance of options to somehow prove that the man has no options or no choice. But this is flawed: even though the woman had an extended period of time to make a decision after conception, the man still makes an informed decision during conception, and should therefore be responsible for the consequences resulting from his decision. The woman’s choices do not diminish the significance of the man’s decision, nor the implications that follow from his decision.

1. It is the same thing. Having sex (or selling the cake), he knows there is a 1% chance of his condom failing (or selling a bad cake) since no condom is guaranteed to be perfect; therefore, he knows that there is a 1% that there will be undesired consequences (same for the baker). If he still chooses to have sex (sell the cake), then he should still be responsible for the very unlikely consequences. That was my point. I don't think the knowledge of the partner/customer matters as it relates to the responsibility of the male/baker. 

2. I don't see what the existence or lack of a transaction this has to do with the baker/male being responsible for the consequences of their actions.

3. Assume the baker did not manufacturer the cake, so it can be equivalent. The baker would still be responsible for whatever happens. So it doesn’t really matter if the male/baker manufactured the condom/cake. 

I don't see why the responsibility is different.

In the end, none of the above really matters since it looks like you agree with me. You state "if both sexual partners know that the condom could break, and both choose to go ahead with the sexual activity, then the responsibility should be exactly the same as if both chose to have sexual activity without a condom." However, everyone knows (or should know) that a condom could break; none are perfect. So I assume you must agree with the fact responsibility from protected sex (under any sex) is the same as the responsibility from unprotected sex. This was my point.

The baker is 100% at fault. He sold goods to a customer knowing their was a chance they could come to some harm.