Whoa, this is about bodily autonomy, not economic inconvenience. You would subjugate women’s bodies for the economic concerns of males? That’s a completely nonsensical and abhorrent view.

The "Economic inconvenience" is forced labour. We only feel morally okay with it because men are disposable, and women are a protected class.

I understand the argument that it's wrong to force a woman to carry and bear a child. It seems, though, that the lesser evil of forcing a man to give money to that woman shouldn't be allowed under similar ethical reasoning.

(I.e. if it's okay to kill a foetus, it's okay to economically disavow it.)

But this argument would be very unpopular.

It's a matter of being responsible for your own actions. Don't want to be responsible for a human life? Don't impregnate a female.

Yes, as I said: men are disposable, and women are cherished.

Assuming no rape/nonconsent in either scenario:

Male impregnates a female and regrets it: too bad, you're held responsible and have to help take care of the offspring.

Female gets impregnated and regrets it: you're not held responsible, you're allowed to kill the offspring and don't have to help take care of it if you don't want to.

Chivalry never died, in a strange sort of way. I'm not complaining about this; I just find it interesting to point it out.

I don't think this is the 'vilest' of misogyny, and I think the hyperbole does a disservice to women.

This isn't really about rape; it's about the legal power asymmetry in entirely consensual sex. I'm not complaining about this, or advocating any policy positions, I just find it interesting to think about out loud.

Your reaction is interesting, too. Why do you associate the gp post with misogyny?

Because even in the case of entirely consensual sex, at the end of the day only one party is faced with important decisions concerning their own body. To try to insert non-physical concerns of a third party into that calculus is an order-of-magnitude type mistake in moral reasoning, and as such, shocking and unacceptable.

We do that all the time with drug laws.

... and do you support that? Anyway, a much better example would be forced sterilization policies.

Why does it have to be only one thing.

If it is a bodily autonomy issue shouldn't those choices be responsible for the economical realities of those choices?

It's a clear case of taxation without representation.