Apparently you thought about it too much and came to the wrong conclusions. Morally, sex is the last decision you get in the matter for both parties, or it is

Apparently you thought about it too much and came to the wrong conclusions. Morally, sex is the last decision you get in the matter for both parties, or it is for neither party. No special pleading for how being the woman is special will be convincing. "Think of the children" is also unconvincing for this line of reasoning, since we'd just ban abortions under that thought process and render the entire argument null and void. If adults matter enough to give one choice in pregnancy outcomes, then both adults should have some agency in how the pregnancy affects their lives. And if the government or "society" has a vested interest in making sure babies are made, they should be footing the bill rather than foisting it onto an unwilling father. Just like we did to women in the past, you would be taking away agency against his own body. A percentage of all of his efforts will go to something he doesn't want, enforced ultimately by the violence of the state, since you can lose your freedom of movement partially through a revoked license (idiotic) or completely through debtors prison if you fail to pay. Since the pregnancy doesn't directly impact his body–only state imposed policies do–people don't connect the dots on it being a similar concern of "my body, my rights" for men. Or maybe they just don't want it to think about it as an issue of agency for men, because people generally do not care about men's agency or lack thereof (and to be totally fair, I believe people generally do not actually care about the agency of women, either). Men do not exist to carry out the will of the state or "society".