system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Men and Abortion Rights

So, for my Sex and Love class we were given the exam questions to study. One of them is if men should have any rights in regards to abortion. 

Such as cases where mother wants to abort, father doesn't. 

I want to say in a theoretical world yes. 

If greater utility is brought by keeping the child than aborting it is, and we forgo all other theories, then the abortion should not be allowed. Or, from another perspective, something like in a situation where if it's proven the mother is unable to think rationally due to mental illness or addiction. 

Existentialism: since the father perceives the fetus as his child, then the fetus is in fact a child and not merely a fetus. So aborting would be to deny the father to project himself as a father and annihilating future value of life. I think I will abandon this though, it's not a very sound argument.

Obviously, we cannot impede on a woman's bodily autonomy.

So I was thinking, in the real world, allowing for a type of "financial abortions" where the mother or father can give up their parental rights, via court order. So long as abortions are available to the mother, so should a type of abortion for the father. And allowing the mother to have a type of financial abortion may help encourage her to go through with the pregnancy for the father. 

I'm not sure though.
gpt
>But obviously this can't work in real life. 

You should reexamine your argument if your moral conclusions only make sense when starting with a "theoretical world" instead of the real one. It seems like you're starting with assumptions that abstract away from relevant moral considerations like a person's bodily autonomy and wellbeing of the child.