If you think abortion is moral, there's nothing wrong with what he did. He never misled the woman into thinking he wanted to start a family. If you think abortion is immoral, again, he stated clearly from the start that he had little interest in the woman as a girlfriend/potential wife, and it was the woman's fault for sleeping with him. She could've given the daughter up for adoption. She didn't. She could've chosen not to sleep with him, it was clear to them both that she was just a random groupie who didn't mean anything to him.

The double standard that lets women get off the hook for everything and men take the blame for everything is so inscribed in the legal system - women can get an abortion, men can't abjure child support - and in our collective consciousness that even in a place reviled for its sexism, people automatically blame men. In the old days, it wasn't like this. Well into the early 20th century, mothers who gave birth out of wedlock weren't entitled to child support.

In the mid-century, women who had sex upon the promise of marriage - like people today who invest in get-rich-quick schemes - were mocked for their stupidity upon abandonment. Today, if you sleep with a man who tells you explicitly that he doesn't want to see your face in the morning, and get pregnant, somehow he's responsible for everything.

The man did nothing wrong. He didn't promise her love or marriage, and offered to pay the full cost of the abortion. His excessive guilt is the product of a neurotic culture.

Is Wilt Chamberlain obligated to financially support every one of the 20,000 women he slept with? Is a prostitute obliged to love every one of her customer for ever and ever? Wake up sheeple. The mother was a slatternly groupie, she doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy.