Treblaine said:
Child abandonment? No, seriously?
Yeah.
If a woman chooses to carry her pregnancy to term and then chooses to leave the child to die of exposure rather than go through the ethical processes of giving them up for adoption, leaving them in care of the state, or alternatively terminating the pregnancy when it was a relatively simple surgical procedure, then I would say that yes, that would probably qualify under crazy behaviour she really ought not to be doing.
Sort of like unprotected sex, but wherein that would only require a regrettable lapse of judgment on behalf of one or both sexual partners, what you're talking about would require a lengthy and sustained period of deception that ends with either an attempted or successful murder of a newborn.
So no, they are not even remotely equivalent.
And you're coming back full circle again to the undeniable fact that in our society today the fetus is only recognised as a human being with rights once a woman decides to keep the child.
If a pregnant woman is the victim of serious physical assault, or is otherwise accidentally injured due to negligence and suffers a miscarriage due to those injuries, the person{s) responsible can be brought to trial on charges of murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances of the case. And yet despite this the option of abortion is widely available, which putting aside discussions of legal semantics means that when the results are measured, a fetus only becomes a human being after a woman decides to keep the child.
Women are given every option, and men are given derivative choices stemming from the options that she selects. That is not equality. That does not even remotely come close to anything resembling equity. The child 'must' be supported because the mother made a choice. It is her decision, but if it is her decision then she must wear the consequences of pursuing it.
If a woman is worried that a man will hit and run, then paperwork could be filed in advance showing that her partner is ready and willing to undergo the rigours of fatherhood. A follow up opt-out paternity test could be wrapped into the deal too to provide certainty to the potential father that the child is in fact theirs, without forcing that awkward 'prenuptial agreement' style moment on the mother. And of course the paperwork could be filed afterwards, because their really is no onus on the man to try and avoid it.
You talk of a defending a person's sovereignty over their own body, but I can think of few things more invasive then forcing that body to provide for an unwanted dependent for anywhere up to 18 years.