Originally posted by Oliver North
because it places an unfair burden on the woman for what was a mutual decision.
While I agree with that sentiment, I do think that the opposite approach (i.e. having to pay for the child for 18+ years) then places an unfair burden on the party that's not interested in raising the child. I don't really know what I view as the ideal, but the way it is currently I don't think is. It's a bit of a complicated topic, of course a parent (or in particular a child) should be supported if they can not afford the necesseties for themselves, but perhaps that should be achieved through a good safety net, rather than personal payment by one of the parties (the common scenario is that the father is the one not interested in raising the child of course, but I do think, at times, it does happen to women as well).