On the concept of "financial abortions"/ fathers opting out of parenthood

Oh I am gonna make some enemies with this one. so reading mango_mochi's post I pondered: Do men actually get choice at all in whether or not to be parents? Do the present and all future choice about whether or not they want that child and how much support they give mean precisely dick in the face of hers? I'm well aware women get the lion's share of shit when it comes to childbirth. I am also aware that right to abortion and child support are fundamentally different. Child support lends itself to the rights of the child not so much of the parent watching them. But is the argument being presented that a man's choices end at his ejaculation? Because if so then I have a few points of contention to that. That a woman can choose to bring the child to term or to abort it and no one dare question that decision least they be a misogynist monster. But if a man sincerely did not want a child when the woman he had sex with did then "too bad, he should have kept it in his pants". Why do the same standards not apply here? If the mere act of having sex is consenting to parenthood should pregnancy occur, that applies to both sexes. But consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood. Birth control can fail. Vasectomies can be botched, Shit happens it's life. Both people knew the possible consequence and both share in the responsibility if those consequences come to fruition so why should half the party have no say in the matter? And every single argument I've heard for this conceptual double standard on the rights of the father could be flipped right on it's head as an anti-abortion spin. "she should have kept it in her pants" "this only helps irresponsible women get away with being irresponsible" "women should get their eggs frozen and tubes tied if they didn't want kids" I'm just kind of pissed that guys who did not want to be dads are called deadbeats even though their choice at fatherhood whether they do or do not want to be one is apparently supposed to be nonexistent by nature. Whether or not she wants to be a parent is her choice. whether or not he is a parent is also her choice. And look I ain't arguing that we start criticizing women who've had abortions or to take a woman's right to choose away either. That is not what this is about. And I won't even open the can of worms that was the Hermesmann v. Seyer decision. Here's my idea on the topic of a woman wanting to go through with the pregnancy while the man does not: A few weeks into the pregnancy, a man should be able to sign a document that tells a woman "I do not want this child and do not consent to fatherhood. If you still choose to go through with this pregnancy you do so with the knowledge that I am not going to provide support or care to it". And she goes to make her decision from there. If she does get an abortion he pays half the cost of that. And if not then he gives up his parental rights before any critical point in the pregnancy. She decides what to do with that information before the typical medical and financial complications of pregnancy arrive. I do not have a solution for when the man wants the baby and the woman does not. Maybe some type of egg incubator where the fertilized egg is left to be grown, fed, and nourished on the father's payroll. Or am I just being stupid as usual. In the meantime wear condoms, take your pills, and make sure you and your sexies are on the same page.

Here's my idea on the topic of a woman wanting to go through with the pregnancy while the man does not: A few weeks into the pregnancy, a man should be able to sign a document that tells a woman "I do not want this child and do not consent to fatherhood. If you still choose to go through with this pregnancy you do so with the knowledge that I am not going to provide support or care to it". ^^^The problem with that is if the father doesn't provide for it, chances are tax payers will. -_- So in a way, if he has a job and pays taxes, he'll be supporting the kid anyway LOL.. but then so will tax payers. That's why something like this would never be passed into law. Why should the government support some man's or woman's fuck-mistake? I mean... anymore than they already do for some folk.

I think his idea was quite good. If she wants the child and he doesn't then she should pay for it herself or her family should support her. He's giving up any and all parental rights, while still leaving her plenty of time to choose abortion if she can't afford it. Sounds reasonable to me. If she has it and the tax payer foots the bill it's on her.