I won't link it, lest I be accused of whatever it is people are accused of when doing such things, but I will post it here. I'm wondering if you have any rebuttals.

Ok guys, I think it's time to talk about this whole MRA financial abortion bullshit.

First off, legally, child support is for the child, and most courts do not allow parents to sign away the child's rights completely. So, you know, we have that legal hurdle to start with. I'm not going to address this after this paragraph, but keep in mind that we would have to change legal precedent about who child support benefits to do this to start with.

Biology is unfair. No reasonable person is going to make the case that a guy can make medical decisions for the woman because he doesn't want to pay for a baby.

But MRAs make the argument that men should be able to sign some sort of paperwork releasing them from financial responsibility while a woman is still pregnant in order to give them an option for abortion. They call this financial abortion sometimes.

Financial abortion will not work. It is bad public policy. Here's why, in chronological order:

First thing that happens is the girl finds out she's pregnant, right? On average, women tend to find out around 4 to 6 weeks in that they are pregnant, though you can get a test that will tell you as early as two weeks, I believe. [EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently it is two weeks from your first missed period, not two weeks after conception. So the 4 to 6 weeks average appears to be approximately the earliest you can tell if you are pregnant.] Remember that in most states, women only have a narrow window to abort without a reason, like medical issues, rape, or incest. In most states this is around 20 weeks. So here's our average timeline. 20 weeks, and you have already lost 4 in the best case scenario.

Everyone would agree that getting this done after the abortion window would be unfair, right? She has to have notice of his decision to be able to make a fully informed decision whether to abort or not.

So first off, what happens in those rare cases where a woman did not know she was pregnant until late in the pregnancy? Those "I didn't know I was pregnant scenarios". What is to stop a woman from avoiding any doctors or anyone while she is pregnant in order to avoid the guy opting out? Women who do this would greatly increase their chances of having a baby with developmental problems, since they won't be going to a doctor during the pregnancy. How do we decide which women were lying about not knowing they were pregnant and which women actually did not know? Do we have full trials on this issue to decide? Who pays for the extra court workers necessary for this increased case load? Would this be a separate court or can we use our current family law courts (which are already overburdened and underfunded, guys).

Ok, so lets say that someone comes up with an answer on those questions, and we as a society decide it is worth our tax money to deal with it, since it's probably going to be a minority of cases out of all of them.

Our next issue is that she has to get an answer from him within the abortion window.

Well, we kind of need to know who he is, right? What if he takes off and avoids the legal process? Does his avoidance mean he lost his opportunity to opt out? What if she just says she can't find him? How do you prove which way it went? A trial? Who pays for that? What if there are a few different men who could be the father. Should we just require all of them file and yes or no paperwork, and if it ends up being another man's kid the guy who said yes is obligated to care for that kid, even if it is not biologically his? I think there are probably a lot of men out there who would want to raise their child, but not someone else's.

So I imagine a lot of people are thinking - well have a paternity test done. Ok, sure. There is one paternity test available right now for unborn fetuses. It's called an amniocentesis. But it has side effects if you do it too early. Most doctors won't do it before around the 15th week of pregnancy, though some do it as early as 11 weeks. Even if we make the huge assumption that the man and woman would agree taking the sample at 11 weeks is worth the risk to both the baby and mother, we've still cut our window to get this whole legal procedure done down to about 9 weeks.

I actually don't think that people would be able to agree on when the risks are acceptable to do this test. It's the woman's body, should she have final say? What happens if she refuses to take the test until 15 weeks? Will the guy just have a shortened window for this? What if she refuses to take it at all, as is her legal right? Should the guy have a way to override her medical decisions because of his need to be able to opt out financially? If he does have a legal way to force this upon her, should he be liable for any injury he causes to her or the fetus? What courts are we going to resolve these issues in? Should we have a full hearing with presentation of evidence and attorneys? Who pays for the test?

But lets go back to our best case scenario here, where the woman is cooperating, allowing tests, going to the doctor, we've established paternity, and yet we still have a 9 week window to get this done. What now?

Well we assume that the man, files his decision with some sort of court system along with his positive paternity test, right? Keep in mind current court resources and funding, which I do not think the majority of the population would support paying higher taxes to expand. Well, the woman has to have official notice of him doing this and opting out within the abortion window, which means that she has to be served with that paperwork, just like pretty much every legal thing filed against a person. Who pays for service? What if the woman disappears to avoid service? That happens all the time with other civil cases. The current system you can eventually serve by publication, which means putting it in a newspaper or other public place and saying they basically got it, but you have to meet strict guidelines before you get there, all of which take time. There is no way it would be done in 9 weeks. What happens in those cases? What if she has a valid excuse? Should it be a crime for her to do this? What happens to the baby if she has it because she avoided service? What happens if there is a legitimate reason she disappeared, like she was kidnapped or hospitalized or something? Does he have to pay child support? Does she have to go it alone even though not getting an abortion was not her fault? What court system should resolve this?

And finally, if everything goes right - if she cooperates, lets the dad know, goes to the doctor, if he files his intentions with whichever court we are going to use here, we have a way to fund this court or pay for extra workers in other courts to handle this caseload in a timely manner, and she makes an informed decision and has the baby, what happens if she needs help raising it? What happens if she's poor, or loses her job, or the kid gets sick and has major expenses?

Do taxpayers now take on the financial burdens our government traditionally puts on the father? Is this a fair decision for taxpayers? How many people do you think would support this new kind of welfare? Should the government step up and take the place of the father because he "opted out"? Should the government refuse to pay welfare in these circumstances? Who is to blame if the child dies of starvation or something as a result of those policies? Is this something we as a society feel is an acceptable result?

TL;DR: Financial abortion is completely unworkable, bad public policy, and very unlikely to be morally supported by society.