[scorpion]

The entire argument hinges on the role of the government in forcibly extracting a man's wages in the form of child support. A woman should be able to have a child without the father's consent, she just should not be entitled to his financial support in that case. This is a very simple and equitable way to handle the situation. Women will go on at length about the injustice of not having control of their own bodies. Agreed. I would simply say that it is similarly unjust for a man to lose control of his own body, which is exactly what child support entails: a man is forced to utilize his body to engage in labor expressly to support the woman and her child. If he fails to do so, he will further lose control of his body by being thrown in jail.

If a woman is forced to have a child she does not want, or is forced to abort a child she does want, in both cases she would have no control over her body. Fortunately for women, neither of these scenarios happen anymore. Women now have complete control over their bodies.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and he does not want her to have a child, he has no control. She will have the child and he will be compelled by the state to provide financial support for 18 years. He will be forced to engage in labor to provide this money. He has lost control of his body.

The problem is quite clear: if women are able to control their bodies in regards to reproduction, men should have the same right. A woman should be free to have a child against the wishes of the father, and the father should be free to disavow the bastard child and any financial responsibility for it or the mother. The woman is free to have her cake, she just can't eat it, too.