I know you think that's a killer argument because no one would say yes but personally I'd be fine with that.

unfortunately, i did suspect people to so yes to it, because i have seen people on vgchartz agree with it, also there are so called renouned "ethicists" around the world that advocate for post birth abortion.

Just asking a question because I'm curious where this could logical imply. Here is my question.

Couldn't one use the same logic to justify kill there 1-5 year old. Hear me out. If the parent believe the child will have social behavior problems because the child father was a rapist and her feelings towards the child will always be in a negative fashion. Then would it not be ok to kill the child because of potential negative impact of society that child may have. It is not uncommon for this to happen so, would the mother be justified in killing the child for society protection and her own child? We have to also factor in that if the mother doesn't want the child around anymore it is her choice seen she had to care the child as that's her right.

then couldnt you use that same argument about a post-born child? whats to guarentee the already born child doesnt live an anti-social, victimized life. Why not just kill them, to take them out of their potential misery.

It is an issue on many fronts and I'm not talking politics.  The issue is nothing like rape, as we are not referring to rape situations.  It is a situation where a man and a woman chose to have sex.  If a pregnancy results, either the option to end the pregancy or continue it and raise the child is the mother's and the mother's alone, or the responsibility is also the father's and he must bare the burden of raising the child but also consent to ending the pregnancy artificially.  I'm just talking about consistency in laws governing pregnancy and children, regardless of what your view on abortion is.  The "it's the mother's body, her choice" but "you made the baby, you gots to pay for it" mentality is incredibly inconsistent.

It's only unfair when you look at the circumstances after pregnancy. If you look at the entire picture, you will see that the man had his own time to make a decision and so did the woman. At some point the man makes a decision to give his sperm to a female. Then the female makes a decision to use that sperm or not. The difference between the two parties is simply the timing of their decisions, but both parties get their time to decide. During their respective decisions, if both parties choose the action that leads to pregnancy, then it makes sense that both should be responsible for it.

unfortunately, i did suspect people to say yes to it, because i have seen people on vgchartz agree with it, also there are so called renouned "ethicists" around the world that advocate for post birth abortion.

That is a tragedy.

No. Having sex doesn't amount to consent to raise a child with that person.

You would effectively be ending recreational sex. Since contraception is only 99% effective. 

The male's decision to support or not support should come after he learns of a pregnancy.

Well I wasn't considering sex with protection, since what I said wouldn't make sense in that case. Because with protection, it's clear the man isn't consciously deciding to donate his sperm. However, with consensual unprotected sex, I see no reason why the man should not be responsible, since he made a conscious decision to donate his sperm to the woman for her usage.

It's an interesting way to look at it, but wouldn't that be more of a loan than a gift? A man gives his sperm in unprotected sex under the understanding that it will be used for procreation. Otherwise, like you said they'd have used contraception.