Solution

And yet a man has no say in whether or not his baby/fetus is to be terminated.

Not a very fair solution.

If he pays up, sure why not...He's taking on some of the same liability then, some

but, they won't be willing to pay up...

Watch how they'd squirm if an equal liability law was passed

So let me get this right you think that if the woman want's to continue the pregnancy that the man should pay even if the man want's her to terminate yes?

Does that mean that if the woman want's to terminate the man should still get equal rights to forbid her to terminate?

Men should get equal rights when they take on equal liability and equal responsibility and shoulder some of the health risks via monetary compensation (the only possible way).

But, I do not believe that men would step up to the plate.
Once they have to "feel the pain" just as women do, they would sing an entirely different tune.

Just for endangering a woman at all, they should be held responsible. Nobody every looks at the fact that the man plays the most active role in conception. He's the more aggressive usually, he's the more irresponsible usually. Why? Because he can, and there's really few to any consequences for him if he chooses to evade them.

If the law states that a woman cannot evade her consequences, then in the most extreme iron-fisted manner, neither should a man be able to escape. Only when the results of conception are on equal footing for the man and the woman, can one possible discern just how "moral" a man will be over the concept of abortion.

The liability must be equalized first, then the discussion is reasonable. Once that happens, I think a man does have a say in the decision.

So women would in effect be selling their womb sorry but your solution makes no sense either the man gets a say in the termination /birth or he shouldn't have to pay .

He should get a say if he takes on equal liability for the pregnancy going to completion.

That is not to say that a termination does not hold any health risks, for it does. It would be reasonable that a man should have to compensate a woman to a smaller extent because she has health risks from an abortion. He did not. To argue they were both irresponsible is irrelevant, since only she takes on the liability of the health consequence in the event of an abortion which they mutually decide upon.

The law does not see just compensation for risks and consequences as profiteering. See, you're squiriming at the idea of equal liability before a man can request equal rights. If you'd even been through a pregnancy you'd say $75,000 was a bargain, actually, it perhaps should be more. There's zero profit in just compensation for health and economic risk and suffering, so to state it's "womb selling" is just a way to take the laserbeam focus off of the dad and his wanting to have his cake and eat it too. If a man went through the documented economic losses and potential health threats of pregnancy, he'd want to charge several million dollars, at least.

Squirm, squirm...

lmao I have been thriugh 8 pregnancies so why should I squirm lol
i don't beleive that you are saying that a man should compensate a woman for taking his babies/fetuses life what planet are you on.

Being rude stupid and silly is not indicative of good dna to replicate so much.

Unfortunately a large percentage of men, do not take any liability and simply are proud as punch to deposit their sperm somewhere and why should they care if she gets pregnant or not, they certainly aren't even intending to bother to follow up on the lass.
Nay, even some prefer to take what is not on offer.