Consent to have unprotected sex is consent to be financially responsible for any child created as a result.
Maggie, "Child created" is obviously involved with an act of having sex. But for the sake of argument, the word "Child" needs defining. I say that because that is a constant point of disagreement between pro-choice and pro-life.
Henceforth, my comments in which I use the word "child" will be defined as: Being born; more specifically, a child born who is the result of unprotected sex, failed birth control, or by mutual effort.
Going back to the act of having sex (unprotected and/or some form of birth control is used by one or both involved)....
In my opinion, consent to have unprotected sex is consent to the risk of conception...not a predetermined agreement about the fate of such a conception if one occurs. Even if protection is used, sex is still consent to the risk of conception.
Now, I'm not saying that an agreement shouldn't be an important discussion between people who have sex, and in particular, unprotected sex. That's certainly a responsible thing to do. We (society) in whatever form, can't force people, in general, to behave in specific ways regard their sexual conduct.
After the fact...
Those who engage in what is generally considered to be irresponsible sexual behaviors, which results in either an abortion or an unwanted child. Either way, someone will pay. But more to the point of your post, if a child (using the definition I posted above) is the result of having sex...then I agree with your comment above. Both should be financially responsible. But to what degree? That's determined by law.