@HoustonSam
To the contrary, if liberty is to be exercised, it is PARAMOUNT that it be exercised responsibly.
Yea, verily. People have the absolute liberty to engage in intercourse, or not, as they see fit, free from government interference. I'll join with you in defending this principle anytime, and I agree fully that this liberty should be exercised responsibly. That responsibility includes being prepared to accept the consequences of intercourse, for both parties.
Granting one party to that event a unilateral right, while holding the other party accountable unilaterally, *does* encourage license, license by the party granted the unilateral right. Your innate sense of compassion, which I take seriously and admire, leads you to invoke the example of a woman abandoned by an irresponsible man. But there are other examples of women who have abortions, simply for convenience, sometimes without the man's knowledge. I join you in wishing those women would not do so, but when we wish to influence one person by coercing another we don't usually consider that "equality before the law." It more closely resembles a hostage situation.
Finally, when we carry out this policy in order to reach the moral ends we desire (reducing the number of abortions), we are without question using the law as an instrument to encourage our own, personal and private, sense of morality, a morality that others might not share. In other contexts you are strongly opposed to laws which serve to impose one person's moral beliefs on another. Why do you wish to impose your moral beliefs about abortion on others, men and women, by coercing men? I'll ask again, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, then as a legal issue why does it matter whether there are more or fewer abortions?