This has always been the defence by which the Family Act treats fathers, who are inevitably the breadwinners, to get less custody and more financial responsibility. It's in the child's best interests to spend more time with the "primary care giver" (always a mum), and have dad continue to pay for the privileged of not seeing his kids.

But a soon-to-be-dad can't abort his unborn child like a woman can. I understand that it's in the child's best interests to ascertain the father's identity and have him pay for it. But then why can't the man legally abort ahead of time?

That way the soon-to-be-mum is making a decision knowing all the facts. One of the reasons to allow abortion (in NSW at least) through the Justice Levine ruling is that it would cause economic harm to the mother.

So it's not like paper abortion would conflict with existing laws.

And the defence of it being in the child's best interests to make a father pay is countered by the fact that a woman can abort a child. Because, if a woman can abort a child, then the best interests of the child are being overlooked. Therefore, the mothers economic and mental health are more important than an unborn child's, even if this harm is to come to the mother after birth (as per the Justice Levine ruling).

But there's no such protection for men's economic hardship or mental health post a child's birth. Maybe paper abortion should be illegal but allowed only when the financial and parental responsibility of fatherhood would be a financial or mental strain.