For anyone unfamiliar: "financial abortion" is the idea that a man should be able to opt out of child support (and also give up any rights to the child) if he did not consent to the child being born. It's often brought up in response to women having the option to abort for financial or lifestyle reasons.
I want to be clear upfront: I don't actually support financial abortion.
I think on that front the only real question child support raises, assuming you believe children deserve some level of financial support, is whether that comes from the state (taxpayers) or from the specific people who made the child. That's a legitimate debate, but not the point of this post.
The point is that the financial abortion debate is an incredible hypocrisy trap. Every time this comes up online, a huge number of women will argue something like: "He chose to have sex, so he consented to the possibility of a child. He doesn't get to just walk away."
That is literally the pro-life argument against women. "She chose sex, so she consents to pregnancy and birth." And yet most of these same women identify as pro-choice. They'll defend a woman's right to abort for any reason, including financial, career, or simply not wanting to be a parent. But when a man wants to opt out of financial responsibility (while also surrendering all rights and any future contact), suddenly sex is a binding lifetime contract.
You cannot have it both ways. Either sex is consent to parenthood for everyone, or it isn't. If a woman can un-consent through abortion, you need a better argument against a man doing a financial equivalent than "he knew the risk."
This also completely ignores contraception failure, stealthing, lying about birth control, and reproductive coercion. Not every pregnancy happens because two people were careless.
Again, I'm not saying financial abortion is good policy. I'm saying if your argument against it is "he consented when he had sex," you've just told on yourself. You'd be pro-life if you were a man.
Pick a lane.
Edit: If you think I'm making a pro "financial abortion" argument, you've failed reading comprehension. I'm calling out one very specific argument against it, the one that hinges on the idea that men consent to a child, and therefore the financial responsibility of a child, by merely consenting to sex. If your argument is not based on 'consent to sex is consent to all potential risks and consequences', for example if you're arguing that it's just moral to take care of a biological child regardless of if you consented to it's creation, then I'm not referring to your argument.