system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Men shouldn't have to pay child support if they didn't want to be a parent.

To start off with, this post will revolve strongly around abortion, but that is not the topic I'm really discussing. This will be from a pro-choice view.

I firmly believe that abortion should be legal BECAUSE I know how absolutely awful the fostercare system is and I believe a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a baby for 9 months if she does not want it. Whether she is not mentally or financially prepared to be a parent, I think it is her choice to terminate the pregnancy and wait until she is ready (if she chooses). If a woman has a child she is not ready to parent, it will go into the system, and there are already too many kids in need of parents.

Now to my main point: if a woman doesn't want a kid, she can have it aborted and avoid the physical, mental, and financial toll that a child would take. But what if she gets pregnant, wants to keep it, yet the father isn't ready to be a parent? He can't force her to terminate the pregnancy (that is her choice alone), but I think he has the autonomy to say he does not want to be a father and therefore shouldn't be subject to paying child support or raising the kid. Just like the mother has the autonomy to decide if she is ready for a child, the man should have the same.

"But it takes 2 to tango." Yes, both people were involved in the formation of the fetus, but that doesn't mean both have agreed to be parents. Parenting is hard and can derail someone's life plan.

Now on the other hand, what if the father wanted the baby and the mother didn't? In this scenario the woman would make the decision because it affects her body and it part of her bodily autonomy. 

Also in case this influences how you respond: I am a woman. 

I am very open to other opinions as this is something I have thought about a lot, but please keep in mind this isn't about whether abortion should be legal or not.

Edit: Several of you have made great arguments, and I now do see the importance of a financial obligation on the father. Thank you for your responses and you will be rewarded deltas! 

Others of you were rude and used pessimistic hypotheticals rather than arguments, and thus you failed to change my view.
gpt
Child support is for the benefit of the child and has nothing to do with the convenience of the father.  Unfortunately, the biological control of men over reproduction ends with ejaculation.  Once a woman is pregnant, she has control over the pregnancy because it's her body.

But once that kid is born, the law's primary purpose is not to consider the wishes of the parents.  It doesn't matter whether mom and dad agreed to have a kid.  The kid exists, and both parents had a role in creating it.  That child is therefore entitled to the support of both parents as long as it is possible.

To allow the man to use withdrawal of financial support as a means to try to control that reproductive decision is just allowing men to force women into moral decisions they may find repugnant, and harms both mother and child.  It is legally impractical, would have profound negative outcomes on society, and is morally impermissible, as it would harm children.