oooooh, @musicMerchandiseWebsite. Really. It's so funny for me to meet people like you who enjoy having these debates because they think they have a watertight logical case and enjoy bouncing it off people in internet forums where by an large people are posting (a) emotionally or (b) in a hurry, so you don't get effectively countered and are enabled to go on thinking you are SO clever. When actually your argument is so full of barn-size holes you could drive a coach and horses through there.
So choice. Women do not get the choice whether or not to act as a parent to a child once it exists any more than men do. Nor, strictly speaking, is it their choice whether a child come into existence - their choice pertains entirely to their body, i.e. will they allow their body to host and gestate a foetus. That is the choice women have, up to the legally permitted limits for abortion (and indeed subsequently if they take matters into their own hands).
Men have exactly the same choice - they can choose whether to allow their bodies to engage in a process that may result in a child coming into existence. It's just a different process. Women can choose to have sex or not too, of course, as a means of avoiding the same outcome. They just have additional points along the way to a child existing to affect that outcome, because the decision remains entirely in the ambit of their body, and decisions we make within our bodies that don't affect the bodies of others are inherently sovereign and for other people to make them for us (assuming sound mind) is inherently morally wrong.
Until the child is ex utero, it does not generate financial responsibilities for anybody else, or parental responsibilities for anyone. So those are not the matters being decided by her choice. Once the child is ex utero, it exists regardless of whether anyone chooses to take responsibility for it. At which point if you have a biological connection to the child you're a bit of a pig (man or woman) if you don't see to it that it is properly cared for, either by yourself or by someone else.
The mother is choosing whether or not to allow her body to continue in a biological process, the potential consequences of which if left unchecked are a child being born and parental responsibility for her. But those are not the choices she is able to make; she is choosing whether to continue with the pregnancy. By choosing to continue with the pregnancy, the likelihood is that she will become a parent; but not inevitably. She may suffer a miscarriage; the child might be still born. She might have parental responsibility removed from her by social services if they deem her to be an unfit parent. It may seem that women have 'all the power', but actually the only choice they have is one men also have - to do something, or not, with their body that may result in a child. The difference is the point at which their body and the power they have over it stops influencing that outcome is further down the process than the man's. His options are to have sex, or not.
He can make choices around that decision to try and compromise the risk/reward of that decision - so he can have sexual activities that avoid getting sperm near the vagina, use protection, have the snip, talk to the woman he wants to have sex with to ascertain her potential attitude to abortion and the decision-making around that (although he can't hold her to this as a verbal contract in the event of a pregnancy, of course).
So it's a calculation of risk. Just as women make a calculation of risk when, in the event of a pregnancy, they decide to have an abortion or not. An abortion may remove the risks of having a child they don't want or can't afford; but it brings its own risks to physical or mental health too, which will vary depending on the stage they're at in the pregnancy and their life circumstances. So women are taking a risk having sex too. They don't have a choice to not have been pregnant once they are. Abortion is not like a delete button.
Men continue to have choices as to the extent they absolve themselves of their parental responsibilities once a child is born too. In fact the ONLY thing they can (in theory) be forced to do is pay up a nugatory percentage of their PAYE salary for the basic subsistence of their child. And that is only if they have any income (which can be proved), above a certain level so that they are not left in penury, and the mother has the time or energy to engage with CMS, to ensure they are kept aware of address changes, job changes, etc etc etc. They are then also obliged to indulge any periodic attempts the 'father' makes to get to know his children, to put up with intrusion and upset into her and her children's lives when he decides to 'get his money's worth' (actual terminology I have heard used by a CMS-paying 'father'), then gets bored and wanders off again.
Again a man has choices; he can comply with CMS or he can devote his energies to avoiding it. Plenty choose the latter which is why in this country there is a £4mil deficit in maintenance paid to children who exist - not theoretical 'do I want to have children?' children, but actual, breathing, will-go-hungry-and-naked-if-someone-doesn't-look-to-them children. And this has been the case for centuries, the state has been trying without success to make men meet their responsibilities to contribute to the care of their children for centuries. The number of mothers who just walk away from their responsibilities to their real living children is much much smaller. So I don't think men are under the cosh exactly in this situation.