system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Men should have the right to decide whether or not to support a child financially, if women have the right to abort, in certain situations.

So in the U.S. we all know that women have the right to abortion in most states. The men have 0 say in the matter. If a man says he wants to keep the baby; the mother has no obligation to actually listen to him and can go receive an abortion with no consequence. Which is fine.

On the other hand if the mother-to-be decides to KEEP the baby; the biological Dad is on the line for child support regardless of the fact whether he wants the child or not. Maybe its a situation where neither person wanted a child. Maybe it was a 1 night stand that both agreed upon, but a baby was conceived that the Dad wants no part of. Maybe the mother decides to keep the child even though they agreed not to have children jn the first place, etc..

In that situation why shouldn't a dad be allowed to opt-out of paying child support? 

Now the most common argument against this that I have heard is that it will create a bunch of single-mothers having to bear the financial burden of another human being alone; and why should they have to do that if the Dad helped conceive the baby? 

My response, "well why don't we get a say in terms of abortion in the first place?"

The response then usually is, "well that is because you are arguing about a biological function of a women's anatomy which a man has no right to; as opposed to financial support which has nothing to do with sacrificing a man's body." 

Which I then respond with, "Well there are states and instances where child-support payments can be exorbitantly highly which absolutely kills the ability for the father of the child to make any sort of living. Many states well in-fact jail a father for not paying child support even; or not paying the full amount. So now you have destroyed the life of an adult human being, with little capacity to further improve himself, and if he is in jail. You are now getting ZERO child support as opposed to even a small amount of support. Or at the very worst; the same amount (zero, as he was giving you previously), but with the fact he is now in jail." 

This is typically where the argument breaks off several times without many convincing arguments. 

I think what I have described in the title would fix both issues, and I actually believe that dead-beat dads wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is assumed they would be, and there is nothing stopping someone from publicly shaming them to support a child. Especially useful in the age of social media (assuming it doesn't turn into a form of bullying). 

So i'd like someone to try and change my view.
gpt
This literally gets posted once a day.

The arguments are always the same.

There is no freedom over your finances. There is freedom over your body.

It is the same logic used to say that you can be compelled to pay when you are sued, but you cannot be forced to give up a kidney.