So, the fact that you and your co-parent/spouse are willing parents means that you can't really put yourselves in the shoes of a man or a woman who doesn't want to turn their life over to a child whom they helped to create by mistake.

Furthermore, you are framing the process of impregnation as though the man inherently bears more (rather than equal) responsibility for the pregnancy having occured in the first place than the woman does. That simply is a fallacy. Unless the woman was raped or coerced, they both behaved irresponsibly.

The issue of abortion is connected to -- but not entirely dependent on -- the issue of forced parenthood. The broader problem is the lack of choices for both parties who made a child.

These should be the choices:

1.) The parents get married and raise the child

2.) The mother chooses to have an abortion, and the father is supportive of her

3.) The mother chooses to have an abortion, and the father morally objects but legally cannot prevent her from doing so

4.) The mother chooses to deliver the child, and both parents mutually agree to give the child up for adoption

5.) The mother chooses to deliver the child, and the parents agree to share joint custody (physically and financially) of the child, as determined by the courts

6.) The mother chooses to deliver the child, and wants to raise it as a single parent; within a legal window of time, the father signs away his parental rights/responsibilities

7.) The mother chooses to deliver the child, but she wishes to give it up for adoption; the father steps in, and decides to raise the child, so, within a legal window of time, the mother signs away her parental rights/responsibilities

That's seven viable choices for both parties.

You seem to want there to be only five choices:

1.) The mother gets an abortion, with the father's support

2.) The mother gets an abortion, without the father's support

3.) The mother delivers the baby, and both parents mutually agree to give it up for adoption

4.) The mother delivers the baby, and both parents agree to co-parent and share custody in a reasonable manner

5.) The mother delivers the baby, raises it as a single mother, and confiscates the father's wages for the next 18 years

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your perspective -- or if I missed an option. And no, "he never should have impregnated her in the first place" ISN'T a valid option...since we're talking about the choices they should be faced with *after* they have both made a MUTUAL mistake.

In three of those five of your options (#1, #2, and #5), the woman has sole jurisdiction over both of their fates. The man only has jurisdiction in two of those scenarios (#3 and #4) -- and in both of those scenarios, it is symbiotic with the woman's decision. That is tantamount to coercion.

In all seven of my options, the woman still maintains full body sovereignty in terms of her pregnancy as well as sovereignty over the matter of in which direction she will take her life. In the five scenarios where no abortion has taken place, the man also maintains sovereignty over the matter of in which direction he will take his life.

So, yes, me "and the other men on this thread" are advocating for financial and emotional stability on behalf of BOTH the biological parents and the biological child...because, too often, those factors will go hand-in-hand.

Your entire argument seems to be predicated on your oozing resentment toward men who impregnate women when the two of them have failed to think through / talk through their decision, beforehand; and that the state should levy a punitive consequence on the man, seemingly because "he should have known better than she should have" -- without any regard to the emotional and psychological damage that could be created for the child as they grow up caught in the middle of toxicity generated by two involuntary co-parents.