Actually what I was referring to is the explictly referenced term.*

In reference to those cases in which men who do not desire to become fathers have been required to pay child support, Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney, in her 1998 article, "The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Interests in and Obligations to the Unborn Child," set forth the theory of the "male abortion," in which she argues that men should be able to terminate their legal obligations to unwanted children.^[11][15]

If the man legally aborts, she can still physically abort if she can't afford her choices. What does taxes have to do with it? If taxes get involved, she knew she couldn't pay for her choice but made it anyway. She's already given the choice to drag someone along as an ATM. Why's that problem now? Why's she still not the problem there? If she chooses adoption, it's on the tax payer too. Are you rejecting costly adoption if she can pay?

You're saying a man should be held responsible for his choices even those he explicitly didn't make, while the poor human unfortunate enough to be a woman needs special rights because of plumbing issues she should've been completely aware of before she made her choices. Is she or is she not self-responsible? If so, her physical issues were part of her choice. If not, she shouldn't even be having a child. Current law just allows her to flippantly welsh on any prior agreements and make perfectly selfish choices under the false aegis of "for the child" even when there is no "child" at that point thus abortion being a legal option in the first damn place. It's sexist, sanctomonious, and repeatly contradictory.

*Just an wikipedia/political aside: FUD (fear, uncertainly, doubt) and perpetrating ignorance was very likely part of why that femanazi task force at Wikipedia killed the original male abortion article. Notice the men's rights article isn't backed by the feminism task force, isn't under discrimination, has low status under human rights, and is ignored under gender studies? They claim feminism is about equality, but they explicity ignore the other gender when they're not a staw enemy or idiot. Read the discussion pages of related articles sometime for some explicit edit wars. Masculism was predefined by early feminists to mean misogynists, which clearly wasn't sexist..., and they've tried using that to kill or rewrite that article for their purposes as they've tried on other issues using the saturation of feminist academics to bolster their "official" claims to write the definitions and vet/veto "facts" for both sides. The masculism article is also ignored under gender studies and not even under feminism, discrimination, or human rights.