I would back this for the same reason you would like to see a test lawsuit. Besides everything else, if it's a giant insurance company being hit for support by a woman in a situation like the TLP describes then there is more chance of a test case coming about.
I was an adolescent male in the UK when the Child Support Agency was founded and fathers of unplanned children started killing themselves over crippling maintenance payments. On a cold, unfeeling matter of numbers, the level of maintenance could be calculated in exactly the same way as the CSA do (which has been modified downward in the light of past mistakes) and premiums set by how responsible the man in question is. Getting someone pregnant after a vasectomy is still possible and may still result in huge maintenance payments, but with the extremely low risk involved, an insurance company would probably charge a pittance to pay the maintenance for you.
On an emotional level, it sucks to even think of such a concept, but so does every other approach to this situation that I've ever seen.
|
