comment: >
  
  Your falsely equating abortion and financial emancipation. Men and women should have the same rights when it comes to financial emancipation. But abortion isn't a right that men and women can share because men aren't the ones who are pregnant.
  Once the baby is born, rights should not be based on whats best for men and women, but whats best for the child. Robbing a child of financial. And lets not pretend as if child support laws are doing a great deal in terms of making men take atleast some financial responsibility for their child. More than 70% of single mothers do not receive any child support at all. 
  Do you really want to increase that number knowing the outcomes to the child. Children with lower financial stability experience lower qualities of life, they are more likely too commit crimes, have less academic and professional opportunities, etc.
  Men and women need to stop playing tug of war where you treat the child as the rope. They did absolutely nothing wrong, didn't ask to be born, and have zero responsibility for the situation created. Our laws should reflect that and should be made in the best interest of the child once born.
  Equal laws in areas where equality is possible. Considering men cannot get pregnant or have an abortion, there are no laws that need to concern men having an abortion. Better yet lets make the abortion laws gender neutral. And make all parenting laws beyond birth gender neutral as well after birth. No favouring mothers simply because they birthed the child. And no increasing that troubling 70% of single mothers not receiving child support statistic. Its ridiculous that 70% of children from single mothers don't recieve any financial support from their fathers.
context: /u/TheAdamBomb92 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Men do have the same rights as women. If a man gets pregnant, he can abort without telling the person who got him pregnant. 
  What you're asking is that the man gets to decide A) if the woman can get an abortion, and B) if they want to pay child support. Women do not have either rights, so you're actively trying to give men more rights than women have. >
  
  Not to pile on, but the fact that this has to constantly be explained whether this idea comes up is… depressing. >
  
  You seem to be confusing two different concepts. 
  1, a woman uses her body and organs to provide for a foetus and has the right to stop doing so.
  2, parents are required to financially support their children.
  Imagine an 8 year child who lives with their dad and the mother pays substantial child support. The child gets ill and needs a kidney from the dad. Should the mother be able to stop paying child support because the dad could have refused to use his organs to save the child? >
  
  When the men can have the babies transferred into their bodies to support, they will be able to have equal rights there. >
  
  Until then it's her body, her choice.
  Child support is about supporting the child. >
  
  
  
  You don't get to decide to have her kidney removed, or her appendix, or her larnyx, or any other medical procedure.    Full Stop.  Likewise, she doesn't get to compel you to have a surgery. 
  
  
  Women don't get the right to be legally absolved from any responsibility for their child, and neither do you.
  You Already have Same rights.
  
  
  Simple as. >
  
  Well…. Nothing is stopping the woman from giving up for baby for adoption, leaving the baby as a shelter etc.  in which case she is no longer responsible for the child. >
  
  The father very much can stop that. >
  
  Both a man and woman have a legal right to medical care from their physician without obligations from a third party. 
  Both a man and women have a right to disconnect their body from anything. Both men and women have the same rights during their pregnancy. >
  
  No this is a situation where equal treatment is not feasible. It will always be unequal however the rules handle it, because biology is dictating that it will affect one person differently than another. >
  
  Yeah, I guess it's one of those things in life that can't be 50/50 >
  
  
  A woman, where legal, can get an abortion without telling the man who she believes to be the father. I'd argue this should go two ways
  
  It does: a man, where legal, can get an abortion without telling the woman who he believes to be the mother. 
  Perfectly equal. >
  
  The law isn’t written to provide some kind of strange fairness route for getting out of parenthood.  
  Abortion exists because a woman has bodily autonomy rights.  She cannot be forced to carry a child to term against her will.  If it pleases you, think of it as an emergency failsafe birth control option that is expensive and traumatizing. 
  Once a child is brought into the world, it’s not about fairness in wanting to parent a child: the law is there to protect the best interests of the child, the one human being who had zero say whatsoever in whether they were brought into the world and the one human being that has no ability to take care of itself.  So parents are required to actually raise their child or pay child support.  
  Now, a parent can surrender parental rights with agreement of the other parent, and parents can put a child up for adoption for another family to adopt them.  This would require both parents’ consent though, as both things are extremely traumatic for a child and there is an obvious societal preference for a child’s biological parents to raise them. >
  
  This CMV comes up a lot more than you'd think. Search abortion later on the sub and I promise you'll find a few, and this are just the ones that weren't deleted by OP/Mods. Might make for fun reading for you and your ideas. Now let's cover the points you made 
  Starting with your title. It doesn't really fit your view or reality. The reality is men do already have all the same rights that a woman does in terms of pregnancy. That's not the part that's unfair. The law would hold true completely for a pregnant man. The issue is men don't tend to get pregnant. But that's not an issue of legal rights, That's an issue of biological reality. The laws are fair and everyone has the same rights. 
  
  Is a fairly quick issue. Which is more important. The sanctity of bodily autonomy or the rights of a parent? It's that simple. Which is more important, which supersedes the other? To what extent is a parent forced to give their body for their child?
  
  Lots of people do things we don't want them to with their body. Consume alcohol, weed, get tattoos etc etc. How much control are we ok with forcing someone to give up of their own body. 
  
  Child support. You mentioned it in both points but here is where you really talked about it. Child support is for the child. Full stop.
  
  The irony is for a fair society both options punish a woman. Making a woman who had an abortion pay for a non existent child is just punishing abortions. Absolving a father of child support is punishing both the mother for having a child and the child for being born. Like you're giving men a financial threat over women while handing the control of a woman's body to a man. Not even a husband. Literally a one night stand can hold this over someone according to your new fair rules. 
  Plus that money now comes from somewhere because we have only 3 options. A) No one pays and the child pays with a harder life, B) Father/Mother pays the primary caregiver, C) Society pays through taxes in welfare. It's your choice which of those 3 you're most ok with. You said no to B. So are you advocating for A or C? Or are you offering a way out of the deadlock? >
  
  
  you can't prove who the father is until the baby is born
  
  You can, the father legally just isn't the parent until the child is born. 
  
  Men should have the same rights as women when it comes to pregnancy.
  
  What you're looking for isn't the "same rights", you're looking for rights that would be equal in magnitude as the woman's rights. 
  
  should she not pay the exact same amount of child support that a man would have to pay in this situation?
  
  Woman do pay child support in a case like this. The main issue is lawyers here, lawyers will drum up an argument over the situation to get paid and stretch that argument for months on end. So it's unlikely the woman is actually handed this burden due to the clear bias in family court. 
  I can't disclose any names, mostly because I don't have any, but I'll give you an example. One of my clients is a divorce attorney and deals with high profile cases. An A list model came to him while he was at his old firm and she said, "I just don't like him anymore, I would like to get a divorce". He wound up leaving that firm because other associates kept swaying her against that answer, essentially she would have been fucked financially speaking, but she told the truth in the beginning and eventually wound up twisting the truth and borderline lying. 
  
  A father, once proven by DNA, who did not want this child, should have the legal right to be absolved of ANY physical or financial responsibility for this child
  
  This wouldn't be fair in practice, you may be able to make this argument in an abortion debate, but only for the sake of substantiating a separate principle. 
  Droves of men would use this as a scapegoat to leave their child without consequence. I'm not sure how old you are, and I don't mean this to be offensive in anyway, but I'm assuming you're on the younger side and haven't seen the reality of how many men would abuse this.
  
  If a woman chooses to carry to term and the man has repeatedly told the woman he wants absolutely nothing to do with this baby, isn't it only fair and equal that he should have the right to do that?
  
  It is equal in a way, but it would just be extremely unfair in practice. That's the issue with giving men rights that are equal in magnitude to women in this case. Sometimes rules must be made that seem unfair, but the reality is that it protects people from extremely unfair practices. >
  
  If cis men don't want to bear the financial responsibility for a child they fathered, they can and should take precautions like vasectomies, wear condoms or use hormonal contraceptives. They can also chose not to have sex. 
  If they do want a child, they can pay a surrogate. They cannot force another person to grow a baby any more than they can force someone to donate a piece of their liver or their blood to keep someone on death's door alive. 
  Child support is determined by court depending on who the primary caregiver for the child is. If this is the father, then the mother has to pay child support. (there is bias, this is another problem though) >
  
  If cis women don't want a child, what's stopping them from taking the relevant pregnancy prevention? You didn't mention that. >
  
  
  DNA testing can be completed as early as 9 weeks along. 
  
  A DNA test can be done before the birth.
  As for absolving the father of child support. That harms the child mostly, which begs the question. Why do you want to punish someone with no agency and no fault in the situation? >
  
  It's not about punishment at all, if a woman can abort a child she doesn't want, then why can't a man walk away legally and be free of any responsibility to a child he doesn't want? >
  
  A woman can get an operation.    She can't walk away from a child scot-free. >
  
  There’s also pharmacologic abortions…. >
  
  
  The woman inherently has a way bigger stake in a pregnancy than the man,  since it's her body being used with all the possible medical complications attached. Pregnancy can literally kill you, no one should be able to force someone else to go through with that. It's not fair, but it's life.
  You're comparing two different things. Abortion is about bodily autonomy and should be decided by the person whose body it is. Once the baby is born, it's a matter of who is responsible for the child, meaning both parents. The man shouldn't just be able to shed all responsibility for a child that he helped create. Allowing a man to get rid of all responsibility is basically punishing the child who has done nothing wrong. Not to mention this can be a way to force a woman to get an abortion, which is messed up. Some women don't ever want to have an abortion on moral grounds, which is understandable, so they don't have this choice in the first place even though it's legally allowed. Again, it's not fair, and it never will be, simply because of the asymmetry of pregnancy. This is about the most fair that we can make it. The wellbeing of a child is more important than the wallet of the father.
  
  And that's not even mentioning all the practical issues of allowing a man to 'opt out'. In what time frame would he be allowed to do this? Until a day before birth? This could mean the woman keeps the baby because the man said he would not opt out, only to do it anyway after the abortion time frame has passed. In the same time frame as abortion? What if the woman the decides to keep the pregnancy a secret until the time frame has passed? Can the man get an extension? What if the man opts out but keeps that a secret? Can the woman force him to opt back in? How do you even prove such things? There's so many practical issues with this.
  Use a condom. >
  
  
  Men should have the same rights as women when it comes to pregnancy.
  
  men are not forced to provide their own blood or organs to their own fetuses or children, even if the child needs a donor.
  In that sense, men get the same (or even better) rights to bodily autonomy than perspective mothers do in regards to their children. >
  
  On your first point, neither are women if abortion is legal? >
  
  Yes, which is why abortion exists, not as some gotcha to men >
  
  After seeing what my wife went through, I’m of the opinion that it’s not my call. That’s why when we discussed a second child, i deferred to her. She had to do all of the work, so it wouldn’t be fair for me to put her through nine months of pregnancy if she wasn’t up for the task.
  If we were talking about putting a child up for adoption, then I’d feel differently since the father could just take total custody and remove the mother as a legal guardian. >
  
  I see your point to be honest, I didn't even consider adoption either. >
  
  Well at the end of the day it unfortunately doesn't matter cause its the woman's decision, but if I were to answer the scenarios
  
  In the case that the man wants it and woman wants then no.. can't really do anything about it cause its her body... if they somehow end up birthing the baby then yeah that would seem fair 
  I agree more with this scenario and it seems more practical. If we can somehow figure this out it should be a thing imo since whatever she does with her body is ultimately up to her here >
  
  the problem with that is that its easily circumvented, and child support is needed to keep the child from going into foster care, and since taxes pay for foster care its either screw over one person or screw over everyone. >
  
  
  
  
  The man assume none of the health risks of pregnancy.
  Fetal DNA test can be done around week 11.
  That depends on your jurisdiction- many times child support is a function of income or n which case the actual value may change but the equation shouldn’t. Ie 10% of 97 vs 10% of 79.
  2.
  No, the health risks for pregnancy lay entirely on the one actually pregnant. 
  No. You took the risk of of a child when you agreed to have sex. The woman has additional risks due to actually carrying the fetus. >
  
  No…? This isn’t how this works? I don’t understand why we’re more worried about what women do with their bodies and we don’t bat an eye to things like circumcision (something that happens to us, as men, involuntarily. Not really an equivalent but my point is that abortion doesn’t really pertain to us)
  Like, you understand there’s reasons for abortion beyond avoiding responsibility / motherhood, correct? Financial turmoil, serious health issues, even death… it takes guts to be a mother and I think when you view it like that it makes it easy to see, and this is just ignoring the fact that the baby is literally growing inside of THEIR body, not yours. 
  I’d understand your point if it were a late stage abortion or something (which by the way aren’t typically done without a good reason, so this isn’t even really possible) where there was a clear expectation to be a father and they pulled a 180. But that’s not what what we’re talking about. 
  Also, on the next point, you’re talking about birthing a baby solely for a paternity test. Do you understand the issue? If it turns out you aren’t the father, she didn’t want to have the baby in the first place, who is taking care of the baby? Foster care? You pretty much create a scenario where a woman is made to carry a baby to term for the father to take for himself, and that’s only if he’s the actual father. She’s not a robot lol. 
  On the second point, also no. What is the world coming to where we’re arguing fathers should have the god given right to walk out on their children? Those children are your responsibility just as much as hers, it doesn’t really matter if you didn’t “want them”. She’s not committing the ultimate sin by deciding to give life to a baby,  you’re kind of a dirt bag for not stepping to the plate, whether it’s being their as a father or financially supporting them. They are children. 
  All in all I’d just try to see it from their perspective. >
  
  /u/TheAdamBomb92 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Men do have the same rights as women. If a man gets pregnant, he can abort without telling the person who got him pregnant. 
  What you're asking is that the man gets to decide A) if the woman can get an abortion, and B) if they want to pay child support. Women do not have either rights, so you're actively trying to give men more rights than women have. >
  
  Not to pile on, but the fact that this has to constantly be explained whether this idea comes up is… depressing. >
  
  No this is a situation where equal treatment is not feasible. It will always be unequal however the rules handle it, because biology is dictating that it will affect one person differently than another. >
  
  Yeah, I guess it's one of those things in life that can't be 50/50 >
  
  This CMV comes up a lot more than you'd think. Search abortion later on the sub and I promise you'll find a few, and this are just the ones that weren't deleted by OP/Mods. Might make for fun reading for you and your ideas. Now let's cover the points you made 
  Starting with your title. It doesn't really fit your view or reality. The reality is men do already have all the same rights that a woman does in terms of pregnancy. That's not the part that's unfair. The law would hold true completely for a pregnant man. The issue is men don't tend to get pregnant. But that's not an issue of legal rights, That's an issue of biological reality. The laws are fair and everyone has the same rights. 
  
  Is a fairly quick issue. Which is more important. The sanctity of bodily autonomy or the rights of a parent? It's that simple. Which is more important, which supersedes the other? To what extent is a parent forced to give their body for their child?
  
  Lots of people do things we don't want them to with their body. Consume alcohol, weed, get tattoos etc etc. How much control are we ok with forcing someone to give up of their own body. 
  
  Child support. You mentioned it in both points but here is where you really talked about it. Child support is for the child. Full stop.
  
  The irony is for a fair society both options punish a woman. Making a woman who had an abortion pay for a non existent child is just punishing abortions. Absolving a father of child support is punishing both the mother for having a child and the child for being born. Like you're giving men a financial threat over women while handing the control of a woman's body to a man. Not even a husband. Literally a one night stand can hold this over someone according to your new fair rules. 
  Plus that money now comes from somewhere because we have only 3 options. A) No one pays and the child pays with a harder life, B) Father/Mother pays the primary caregiver, C) Society pays through taxes in welfare. It's your choice which of those 3 you're most ok with. You said no to B. So are you advocating for A or C? Or are you offering a way out of the deadlock? >
  
  You seem to be confusing two different concepts. 
  1, a woman uses her body and organs to provide for a foetus and has the right to stop doing so.
  2, parents are required to financially support their children.
  Imagine an 8 year child who lives with their dad and the mother pays substantial child support. The child gets ill and needs a kidney from the dad. Should the mother be able to stop paying child support because the dad could have refused to use his organs to save the child? >
  
  When the men can have the babies transferred into their bodies to support, they will be able to have equal rights there. >
  
  Until then it's her body, her choice.
  Child support is about supporting the child. >
  
  
  
  You don't get to decide to have her kidney removed, or her appendix, or her larnyx, or any other medical procedure.    Full Stop.  Likewise, she doesn't get to compel you to have a surgery. 
  
  
  Women don't get the right to be legally absolved from any responsibility for their child, and neither do you.
  You Already have Same rights.
  
  
  Simple as. >
  
  On point number 2, correct me if I'm wrong, couldn't they leave the baby at a shelter? Adoption? Relinquish birth rights? >
  
  No, you can not abandon a baby against the father's wishes.   That form requires two signatures. >
  
  Well, yeah, you can... Who's stopping her? Who would know? >
  
  You would let someone take your child and abandon them?
  You wouldn't notice your child missing?
  The father absolutely has a say in weather or not their child is given away. >
  
  Both a man and woman have a legal right to medical care from their physician without obligations from a third party. 
  Both a man and women have a right to disconnect their body from anything. Both men and women have the same rights during their pregnancy. >
  
  
  A woman, where legal, can get an abortion without telling the man who she believes to be the father. I'd argue this should go two ways
  
  It does: a man, where legal, can get an abortion without telling the woman who he believes to be the mother. 
  Perfectly equal. >
  
  The law isn’t written to provide some kind of strange fairness route for getting out of parenthood.  
  Abortion exists because a woman has bodily autonomy rights.  She cannot be forced to carry a child to term against her will.  If it pleases you, think of it as an emergency failsafe birth control option that is expensive and traumatizing. 
  Once a child is brought into the world, it’s not about fairness in wanting to parent a child: the law is there to protect the best interests of the child, the one human being who had zero say whatsoever in whether they were brought into the world and the one human being that has no ability to take care of itself.  So parents are required to actually raise their child or pay child support.  
  Now, a parent can surrender parental rights with agreement of the other parent, and parents can put a child up for adoption for another family to adopt them.  This would require both parents’ consent though, as both things are extremely traumatic for a child and there is an obvious societal preference for a child’s biological parents to raise them. >
  
  
  you can't prove who the father is until the baby is born
  
  You can, the father legally just isn't the parent until the child is born. 
  
  Men should have the same rights as women when it comes to pregnancy.
  
  What you're looking for isn't the "same rights", you're looking for rights that would be equal in magnitude as the woman's rights. 
  
  should she not pay the exact same amount of child support that a man would have to pay in this situation?
  
  Woman do pay child support in a case like this. The main issue is lawyers here, lawyers will drum up an argument over the situation to get paid and stretch that argument for months on end. So it's unlikely the woman is actually handed this burden due to the clear bias in family court. 
  I can't disclose any names, mostly because I don't have any, but I'll give you an example. One of my clients is a divorce attorney and deals with high profile cases. An A list model came to him while he was at his old firm and she said, "I just don't like him anymore, I would like to get a divorce". He wound up leaving that firm because other associates kept swaying her against that answer, essentially she would have been fucked financially speaking, but she told the truth in the beginning and eventually wound up twisting the truth and borderline lying. 
  
  A father, once proven by DNA, who did not want this child, should have the legal right to be absolved of ANY physical or financial responsibility for this child
  
  This wouldn't be fair in practice, you may be able to make this argument in an abortion debate, but only for the sake of substantiating a separate principle. 
  Droves of men would use this as a scapegoat to leave their child without consequence. I'm not sure how old you are, and I don't mean this to be offensive in anyway, but I'm assuming you're on the younger side and haven't seen the reality of how many men would abuse this.
  
  If a woman chooses to carry to term and the man has repeatedly told the woman he wants absolutely nothing to do with this baby, isn't it only fair and equal that he should have the right to do that?
  
  It is equal in a way, but it would just be extremely unfair in practice. That's the issue with giving men rights that are equal in magnitude to women in this case. Sometimes rules must be made that seem unfair, but the reality is that it protects people from extremely unfair practices. >
  
  Can definitely see your point on how many men would abuse that situation in all fairness. ∆ >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Cor_ay (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  No…? This isn’t how this works? I don’t understand why we’re more worried about what women do with their bodies and we don’t bat an eye to things like circumcision (something that happens to us, as men, involuntarily. Not really an equivalent but my point is that abortion doesn’t really pertain to us)
  Like, you understand there’s reasons for abortion beyond avoiding responsibility / motherhood, correct? Financial turmoil, serious health issues, even death… it takes guts to be a mother and I think when you view it like that it makes it easy to see, and this is just ignoring the fact that the baby is literally growing inside of THEIR body, not yours. 
  I’d understand your point if it were a late stage abortion or something (which by the way aren’t typically done without a good reason, so this isn’t even really possible) where there was a clear expectation to be a father and they pulled a 180. But that’s not what what we’re talking about. 
  Also, on the next point, you’re talking about birthing a baby solely for a paternity test. Do you understand the issue? If it turns out you aren’t the father, she didn’t want to have the baby in the first place, who is taking care of the baby? Foster care? You pretty much create a scenario where a woman is made to carry a baby to term for the father to take for himself, and that’s only if he’s the actual father. She’s not a robot lol. 
  On the second point, also no. What is the world coming to where we’re arguing fathers should have the god given right to walk out on their children? Those children are your responsibility just as much as hers, it doesn’t really matter if you didn’t “want them”. She’s not committing the ultimate sin by deciding to give life to a baby,  you’re kind of a dirt bag for not stepping to the plate, whether it’s being their as a father or financially supporting them. They are children. 
  All in all I’d just try to see it from their perspective. >
  
  If cis men don't want to bear the financial responsibility for a child they fathered, they can and should take precautions like vasectomies, wear condoms or use hormonal contraceptives. They can also chose not to have sex. 
  If they do want a child, they can pay a surrogate. They cannot force another person to grow a baby any more than they can force someone to donate a piece of their liver or their blood to keep someone on death's door alive. 
  Child support is determined by court depending on who the primary caregiver for the child is. If this is the father, then the mother has to pay child support. (there is bias, this is another problem though) >
  
  If cis women don't want a child, what's stopping them from taking the relevant pregnancy prevention? You didn't mention that. >
  
  
  DNA testing can be completed as early as 9 weeks along. 
  
  A DNA test can be done before the birth.
  As for absolving the father of child support. That harms the child mostly, which begs the question. Why do you want to punish someone with no agency and no fault in the situation? >
  
  It's not about punishment at all, if a woman can abort a child she doesn't want, then why can't a man walk away legally and be free of any responsibility to a child he doesn't want? >
  
  A woman can get an operation.    She can't walk away from a child scot-free. >
  
  There’s also pharmacologic abortions…. >
  
  
  The woman inherently has a way bigger stake in a pregnancy than the man,  since it's her body being used with all the possible medical complications attached. Pregnancy can literally kill you, no one should be able to force someone else to go through with that. It's not fair, but it's life.
  You're comparing two different things. Abortion is about bodily autonomy and should be decided by the person whose body it is. Once the baby is born, it's a matter of who is responsible for the child, meaning both parents. The man shouldn't just be able to shed all responsibility for a child that he helped create. Allowing a man to get rid of all responsibility is basically punishing the child who has done nothing wrong. Not to mention this can be a way to force a woman to get an abortion, which is messed up. Some women don't ever want to have an abortion on moral grounds, which is understandable, so they don't have this choice in the first place even though it's legally allowed. Again, it's not fair, and it never will be, simply because of the asymmetry of pregnancy. This is about the most fair that we can make it. The wellbeing of a child is more important than the wallet of the father.
  
  And that's not even mentioning all the practical issues of allowing a man to 'opt out'. In what time frame would he be allowed to do this? Until a day before birth? This could mean the woman keeps the baby because the man said he would not opt out, only to do it anyway after the abortion time frame has passed. In the same time frame as abortion? What if the woman the decides to keep the pregnancy a secret until the time frame has passed? Can the man get an extension? What if the man opts out but keeps that a secret? Can the woman force him to opt back in? How do you even prove such things? There's so many practical issues with this.
  Use a condom. >
  
  
  Men should have the same rights as women when it comes to pregnancy.
  
  men are not forced to provide their own blood or organs to their own fetuses or children, even if the child needs a donor.
  In that sense, men get the same (or even better) rights to bodily autonomy than perspective mothers do in regards to their children. >
  
  On your first point, neither are women if abortion is legal? >
  
  Yes, which is why abortion exists, not as some gotcha to men >
  
  After seeing what my wife went through, I’m of the opinion that it’s not my call. That’s why when we discussed a second child, i deferred to her. She had to do all of the work, so it wouldn’t be fair for me to put her through nine months of pregnancy if she wasn’t up for the task.
  If we were talking about putting a child up for adoption, then I’d feel differently since the father could just take total custody and remove the mother as a legal guardian. >
  
  I see your point to be honest, I didn't even consider adoption either. >
  
  Well at the end of the day it unfortunately doesn't matter cause its the woman's decision, but if I were to answer the scenarios
  
  In the case that the man wants it and woman wants then no.. can't really do anything about it cause its her body... if they somehow end up birthing the baby then yeah that would seem fair 
  I agree more with this scenario and it seems more practical. If we can somehow figure this out it should be a thing imo since whatever she does with her body is ultimately up to her here >
  
  the problem with that is that its easily circumvented, and child support is needed to keep the child from going into foster care, and since taxes pay for foster care its either screw over one person or screw over everyone. >
  
  
  
  
  The man assume none of the health risks of pregnancy.
  Fetal DNA test can be done around week 11.
  That depends on your jurisdiction- many times child support is a function of income or n which case the actual value may change but the equation shouldn’t. Ie 10% of 97 vs 10% of 79.
  2.
  No, the health risks for pregnancy lay entirely on the one actually pregnant. 
  No. You took the risk of of a child when you agreed to have sex. The woman has additional risks due to actually carrying the fetus.