This is essentially "womansplaining." However, it simply crystallizes the misandrist framework from which you appear to be operating.

Statistics become less meaningful when we're dealing with human lives. And I certainly don't doubt that it can be difficult for a woman to have an abortion or for a biological parent to give up custody of their child. I'm not insensitive to the strong bonds of parenthood (whether they're pre-brith or post-birth)...but, if what we're really supposed to be looking out for is the best interest of the child, then I don't see how subjecting the child to financial instability coupled with potentially toxic relations between the child's involuntary co-parents would be in the child's "best interest."

I've thought about what my life might be like if my working-class parents had given me up for adoption, and I'd been raised in a relatively wealthy environment. It's one of those scenarios where you just can't know until it happens to you. I'm sure it would have increased the odds that I could have been more psychologically healthy, as a kid and a teenager. But after decades of my parents being in my life, losing the affection I have for them would seem unthinkable, at this point.

So what it comes back to is this: life is traumatic. Life is difficult. Everyone is going to be faced with agonizing choices. The role of government, in my view, should be to maximize everyone's options beyond just what other individuals would prefer that they choose to do -- and, by providing those options, we can hopefully increase the probability of better outcomes.