Please read my statement again and don’t try to debate me. The issue is not the choice (at least not in this thread), it is the imbalance.
I recognize the imbalance, and that it makes no sense to hold the father of the baby financially liable for 18 to 21 years by virtue of having been the genetic father since the baby’s conception while simultaneously disenfranchising him from protecting his daughter or son between conception and birth.
However, getting out of the first part in isolation without reversing the second part is a cruel and ugly approach because if that happened the man’s baby would still be murdered.
It is about priorities.
Ditto this.