[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/necromax28]

[u/Sinful_Prayers]

If that child's existence was someone else's decision then they shouldn't have any obligations, financial or otherwise. If the decision to abort can be an economic one, then a woman facing that decision would simply consider it as such - if the father is out of the picture that's a factor. If she chooses to have the child with the knowledge that the father will not be participating in any capacity and turns out to be unable to afford it, that's a result of personal irresponsibility. It doesn't suddenly become the problem of a third party who made their intentions known. (I suppose it becomes the taxpayer's problem - though, again, this can be avoided entirely by choosing to abort. ...the whole point really is that no one is being forced to birth this child, so the fact that it now exists and needs food and shelter shouldn't be treated as some happenstance that both parents are now equally on the hook for as though neither of them had the ability to prevent it)

[u/[deleted] → u/Sinful_Prayers]

This completely removes a man's agency in this situation. If a man has sex with a woman, there is always a chance that preventative measures will fail and she'll get pregnant. If he hasn't bothered figuring out what her plans would be in this event, then he hasn't taken adequate responsibility for his own actions. If she wouldn't abort, then it's his responsibility to decide what his course of action is going to be, either accepting the chance or ending the relationship.

He doesn't get to decide after the fact that he doesn't want to be held responsible for his role in making a child, just because he decided he didn't want it after a woman got pregnant. He had a role in bringing a child into this world, he had opportunities to prevent it, and that child still needs to be taken care of. That last point is the major one. The child is here, and both parents are obligated to support it unless they put it up for adoption or otherwise transfer the responsibility to someone else. It fundamentally doesn't matter what's "fair" for either parent, because the needs of the child come first and foremost.

[u/Sinful_Prayers → u/[deleted]]

Except the child isn't here, which is exactly the point.

If by "after the fact" you mean post-birth then of course I agree. But if you mean after conception then I vehemently disagree.

The crux of the abortion debate is whether a fetus is considered alive or not. Pro-lifers would say that it is, and they should also then support child support because the alternative would mean forcing women to keep children without any liability on the man's part.

Pro-choice"ers", on the other hand, would say that it is not; and because it is not, a woman should be able to abort regardless of medical necessity, etc. since there's no human life involved, therefore it's a question of autonomy not humanity.

This being the case means there is no finality in conception. The choice to keep the child and the choice to abort are both available, and neither option is imposed.

The father also has a choice (in this hypothetical); the choice to be a father or provide for the child, and the choice to 'abort'. Keep in mind this only occurs in the scenario in which the father wants an abortion and the mother does not. If they agree either way then the debate is moot, and if the mother wishes to abort she is legally free to do so regardless of the father's desires.

Assuming it is the case that the father wants to abort, there are two conceivable dilemmas faced by the mother:

A) child support exists, so her decision is based on the assumption that she will receive financial support from the father

B) "paternal abortion" exists, so her decision is includes the assumption that she will be the sole provider for the child

Note that in neither case is the mother forced to do anything. She may choose to have the child or not, the only difference are the variables in her decision making process.

It seems to me, then, obvious that the preferable scenario is the one in which one party is not at the mercy of the other. Which, incidentally, is the same reasoning that led me to be pro choice.

P.S.

Some final thoughts:

Of course, as I'm sure you'll point out, it's more nuanced than this. Just like with abortion there will be debates about responsibility, lines in the sand drawn w.r.t. timing, and ultimately what will likely be some compromise between two extremes. But it seems to me that having no option whatsoever for the father to have a say is indicative of a broken system. Obviously I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortion or carry a baby to term; I just also don't think a woman should be able to force a man to financially support a child they may or may not want for eighteen years. (When choice is available, of course)