Again, you are repeating this ideal "this is how it is, and how it must be, and how it always will be!"
It proves nothing, it convinces me of nothing. I've given you the logic behind my decisions and ideals and you have yet to even begin to directly address them rather than plug your ears and state over and over and over this mantra that you just repeated in the top of your post.
"It just isn't true" isn't a convincing argument, and it isn't a reasonable one either.
You keep saying that if the Father requests an abortion, and the mother says no, then she's SOL and can be 100% responsible for the child.
The father doesn't request an abortion, he just walks away. It's not the father requesting an abortion, it's the father saying "I have no intent to support this child."
The mother is free to do as she wishes from there, to get an abortion or not, it is up to her.
You don't give a shit if she doesn't want to have an abortion
I literally say again and again that it is entirely up to the mother to get an abortion or not. The only change is that now the father has the option to say "I do not want to support this child" before the child reaches the stage where an abortion is no longer possible.
That's it. This isn't forcing the mother to do anything, this isn't making the mother pick a decision.
What you are saying sounds to me, again, like "the mother not having the guaranteed income from the father is a form of taking away her rights", and that's a horrible and nasty sentiment in my opinion, to say that someone has the rights to another's labor.
and then walk away saying "I tried, but she didn't listen", and never deal with the situation again.
Not "I tried."
"I literally provided the money, transport, and lodgings, and provided the money that makes up for the loss of labor and personal cost of the abortion."
It's a very specific, very thought out set of actions that must be taken in order to ensure things stay on a level ground. This isn't me saying fathers can just "walk away" from the consequences of their actions, they must pay in some form.
And if the mother, regardless of all this, decides to have a child, it is her decision to do so.
You even suggested that getting a woman pregnant isn't contributing to childbirth, because the woman could choose to have an abortion but didn't.
No, I said that the father isn't responsible for childbirth, but pregnancy. In the past pregnancy directly implied childbirth, but now it does not. Now the father is no longer responsible for childbirth because pregnancy does not directly lead to childbirth.
you even said that single mothers-to-be would be making the "incorrect" decision to carry a child to term
I said that in the context of a person with not enough money to support their child and having a kid regardless. And, yes, I believe that is an incorrect decision to have a kid when you are incapable of supporting a child.
you sure seem content to stack the cards against them
To be fair, I am removing a "right" that women have in the form of a guarantee to the labor of the father regardless of if he wishes to or not to have a child.