The difference in scale between having a financial responsibility you’d probably need to be taken to court over if you denied it vs. being legally required to have a permanently body altering, very risky, possibly emotionally devastating years-long medical ordeal is not remotely the same scale of responsibility.

For having consensual sex with a woman? Not quite.

No, GP is right.

Men aren't free from at least financial responsibility for their biological offspring. Some people actually make the argument that since women have the right to abort, men should have the right to their own "financial/legal abortion" of their parental rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to keep the baby against his consent.

> men should have the right to their own "financial/legal abortion" of their parental rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to keep the baby against his consent.

Up until what point—until the baby is born? Or in Texas, would they have to decide in the first 6 weeks? Or are you arguing that the man should have the right to do this when the child is 1, or 5, or 10 years old?

Alright, I'll buy that argument. It still seems relatively small compared to the consequences imposed on the woman, but it's still a consequence.