If a man and a woman become intimate and the woman gets pregnant, the man should be given the option to opt out of fatherhood (within a certain time frame, such as a few weeks into the pregnancy). If he chooses to leave, then the woman can either abort or have the child. If she chooses to have the child, it becomes solely her responsibility, and the man would have no rights over the child. It would be entirely her decision to determine whether she can afford to raise a child on her own.

If you argue, “But he got her pregnant,” I would respond: no, she was aware that they were having unprotected sex and understood the possible consequences for her body. She still gave her consent, so she is responsible for becoming pregnant. If she didn’t want to get pregnant, she could have asked the man to use protection. If he refused, she could have declined to proceed. And if he forced her, that would clearly be rape.

The man also understands the consequences for his body, which are essentially none. Women hold the power of reproduction, and with power comes responsibility. She became pregnant because she gave her consent to the man (harsh as it may sound, but it’s the truth).

I’m not shaming women — she can have an abortion if she doesn’t want the child. But you can’t simply say “he got her pregnant” as if she had no agency in the matter.

There’s no need to involve the government or NGOs. Women today are not dependent on men; they are financially independent and capable of raising a child on their own. Even single parents are allowed to adopt. So if money is the issue, and she feels she can’t afford to raise the child, she can choose to have an abortion. But she shouldn’t force the child — or the responsibility for it — onto the man.

And regarding the idea that “it’s the child’s right to have both parents,” remember: a single mother is better than an emotionless, unwilling, or non-accepting father.