I don't buy the mainstream feminist argument pro abortion. I'm still against a ban, but very open to the possibility that it might be immoral in various cases.
I would agree with you on a moral plane. At the very least, both parents are at fault for failing at contraception. Moreso, the defeault setting should be to carry on with the pregnancy and give birth to a child. Lastly, an unborn child is still (on its way to become) a human and thus warrants some protection. In the end, it really
is terminating a life that would most likely start, given natural progression of things. Hence, in general, abortion at demand will never be ideal and should not be (and I hope is not) seen as a good thing.
Yet its legal framework is a completely different thing - its is one thing to frown upon a woman for her choices but completely different thing to prevent her from making the choices in the first place.
As far as men's choice is concerned, I think it
is the man's problem, basically. Firstly, if you don't want to have a baby, use contraceptions. Secondly, if you don't have a baby, don't sleep with a girl who does not share the same sentiment. If a biological father does not want a child, a huge majority of responsibilities befall the woman in the end anyway - if he is refusing to participate, he will be pretty much just ordered to pay money. While the woman needs to carry the child through the pregnancy, actually give birth and then care for the child for a solid 15-23 years. I don't think this disparity can be waved off just by pointing out that the man didn't want to have the child - this decision is woman's because its consequences are primarily hers as she cannot bail out as easily as the father. Secondly, a child is entitled to have both parents - any post-birth lessening of responsibilites of the father on account of his previous rejection of his parenthood hinders the child's well-being; even if only financially in cases of fathers who don't care about the child.