Having known at least a half dozen couples where the "external evidence" supports the claim that the woman asserted that she was either "unable" to become pregnant or that she was "on the pill," when her actual intent was deliberately to become pregnant in the hope that the "father" would marry her, I'd have to give due consideration to the claim that the woman has a bit more "power of choice" than the male in some situations.

In one specific instance among my acquaintances, the female asserted her infertility in order deliberately to become pregnant so that she could have a child to raise by herself. She had no intention of making any claim for support from the father, and so far as I know has made none.

Unfortunately(?) under existing laws, should she ever need to apply for any public assistance (even unemployment benefits), the courts claim the right to demand that she reveal who the father was, and may take the child from her and/or jail her if she refuses to tell. Even though she has now supported the child for a dozen years, the court has the authority to decide that the child "could have been better off" if the father had contributed and can (and has in some similar cases) demand that the father pay "back support" for all the years since the birth of the child. Neither "parent" has much choice if the judge gets to decide, sometimes arbitrarily, what should be done.

John