This is tricky. I have thought about it a lot and I go back and forth. On one hand I totally get it: it sucks that men have no say over what happens once conception occurs. Ethically speaking, I think if a woman is pregnant and the father does not want the child, and she would not be able to support the child without him, she should choose to abort if the option is available to her. But not every woman can easily obtain a safe abortion, so it's not always so black and white.

Also, I am uncomfortable with men having zero responsibility and accountability related to reproduction. Women already bear an unequal amount of pregnancy-related burdens, from prevention to childcare, and I think child support legislation is one way to make sure men have some skin in the game. It's also about the child - once a child is born, it makes sense to require both parents to support him or her. Otherwise we would likely see a lot more children born into poverty.

There is also the issue of what would be the "deadline" for a man to opt out. I remember a law was proposed in Sweden that said something like 18 weeks. That seems way too far along in my opinion. The thought of a man backing out at 17 weeks and putting his partner in the situation of whether to abort the child when she already has a baby bumo and the fetus is already quite developed, almost to the point of viability, seems so wrong to me.

I am thinking out loud, not sure how rational this is, but I wonder if there could be some sort of contract that couples have the option of signing where they could say whether or not they would want to keep a child in the case of accidental pregnancy. I'd be more ok with that than letting men opt out after the fact.