Ferraris aren't people.

Very astute. But the point still remains. The fact that you are paying for some of your own decision does not make it just that another should be required to pay for the rest of it.

Parenthood is a situation unlike any other. Your attempt to generalize with bad analogies don't fully describe the situation and special pleading is fully warranted.

It's never warranted. It's a logical fallacy.

If you think my analogies are bad, then by all means come up with a good one.

Even if you don't think it's generalizeable, then trying to look at underlying principals is still useful. Even if this case differs from the underlying principal, it helps to look at the principal to ask why it differs.

So before, when I asked:

Are you arguing that, if you make a choice that puts someone in a position of choosing between A (which carries some costs) and B (which carries significantly more cost, that you owe them for whichever they choose? Or you only owe them for A?

Which would your answer be?

How about we get back to the topic at hand, shall we? It takes two to make the baby, and your argument is that, since she has two chances to stop the baby and he only has one, he deserves to have the state pay for her baby instead of paying for something he helped cause. This is a situation where some ideal of "equal number of chances" is less important than the rights of the general populace and the fact that a baby should have two parents, not one. If a child exists, he should be motivated into his life, or at least pay for his mistake. And it was his mistake, not just hers.

The pregnancy is both of their decision. However, turning the pregnancy into a child was a decision made by one person.