If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted.

If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.

I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs).

I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child.

The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children.

If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?

Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.

Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?

So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?

>You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.

If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?

And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.