After impregnation, not after pregnancy. Just so we're clear.Which comes with its own set of physical and mental burdens, in addition to the economic cost. It's not nearly as simple as just "opting out" of parenthood.
If you'd bothered to read my post you'd know that you talking about the second part makes zero difference to me. It doesn't matter if abortion is legal, safe, and available, paper abortions are still a horrible idea for the reasons I mentioned. From a societal standout, "paper abortions" after pregnancy create a massive incentive problem when men suddenly have zero repercussions. Abortion is still a massive decision for women that, like I mentioned, comes with very real consequences.
Paper abortions, on the other hand, give men zero consequences and zero responsibility. The incentive structure it would create would be rife for problems. From what I've seen of frat life at colleges, you'd see hundreds/thousands of frat houses across all American universities devising schemes so men can either take advantage of drunk women or simply never have to consider the consequences for a mistake and therefore try to act responsibly. Abortions still serve as a large deterrent to women acting irresponsibly. You cannot remove all deterrents for men acting irresponsibly.
So yeah, having read the thread and heard this issue raised by the Tom Leykis crowd for decades, its still a horrible, unbalanced idea that would create a misaligned incentive structure rife for problems. In short, it would create more and worse problems than any it would allegedly "solve".
But I agree that removing probably the most serious deterrent for males to practice safe sex, without adding something else as counterweight, is indeed flawed and would create a misaligned incentive structure.