Underlying this entire argument is a profound womanly arrogance. To the modern woman, the fetus is not an entity unto itself; it is nothing more than a projection of the woman's feelings about being pregnant. Thus, if she feels one way, the fetus is deemed to be cancerous tissue to be excised and tossed in the garbage. If she feels another way, the same cancerous tissue is miraculously re-deemed to be one-half of a mother/child bond that is so divine as to render the concerns of any mere male irrelevant.
Without this variable reality of tangibles, you cannot logically support a woman's right to abort and simultaneously support her power to force an unwilling man to support her whelpings. If the fetus is mere tissue at the time of conception, then the man did nothing more than help create tissue and there is no such thing as tissue support. If the tissue develops into a child, it was the woman's choice to let that happen and the man had nothing to do with it. If the fetus is human at the moment of conception, then abortion is murder.
Hugo, at least, starts out logically consistent. Since he claims to be pro-life, it logically follows that the fetus is human, the woman can't abort, and since she must bear the child, the man, equally responsible for creating it, must bear equal responsibility for supporting it. But poor Hugo is all confuzzled and conflicted and can't quite bring himself to take a firm stand as a pro-lifer. So, while he can't make up his mind about the very basis of what would make a man responsible for a child, he nonetheless finds the very idea that a man might not be responsible under certain circumstances "profoundly offensive."
Amp, on the other hand isn't confused at all: "Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible." Of course, it takes the IQ of a giant gnat and the common sense of a skeeter in a moonshine bottle to realize that it's biologically possible for a man to simply walk away. Lacking either quality one can simply see that males walking away has occurred x to the n power times in biological history. Lacking all of those qualities you can simply populate your board with think-alike lap dogs who fail to notice that your assertion leads to exactly the opposite conclusion from the one you want.
When confronted with illogic, the shame game begins. This particular variation on the shame game is called the Best Interests of the Child and there is only one allowable conclusion to the best interests of the child - men must pay. Of course where I come from - The Land of Grownups - choice and responsibility go hand in hand. So, if we were dealing with actual adults the conclusion would be: "You are responsible for your choice. You will raise that child responsibly or you will be punished."
Amp and Hugo, like all feminists, can't quite bring themselves to treat women as full-fledged adults. Their brand of chivalry is delicious irony. My brand of chivalry treats women as adults while not dragging down my own sex. I guess that makes me a misogynist. I know cuz Amp told me so.
