The argument against paper abortion I hear the most often is simply that once a child is born, its financial needs outweigh the financial rights of the parents. Obviously, women have the right to circumvent this by aborting the child before it is born, so it is mostly men whose financial rights end up being overridden.

The solution is very simple: the state could pay child support instead of the parent who does not want to be responsible for the child.

As one feminist PurplePillDebater tried to argue:

Like, unless you’re defunding the military this conversation is a joke.

But this is a common misconception. Let's look at the numbers. The cost of child support is:

In 2017, the average cost of child support was $460 per month. This amounted to 30 billion dollars across America. (source). In the same year, the total government expenditure was 6.6 trillion dollars (source).

If the state paid all child support, it would be a mere 0.45% of all state expenditures.

The feminist PurplePillDebater had none of it. Instead of admitting that defunding of the military is not required, her response was:

if you think $460/mo is enough to cover an absent father you are [...] bullshitter.

But that is, of course, a total strawman. Don't be like her, please.

Two more numbers

1. Only 62% of all child support is actually paid because parents are broke. 24% of custodial parent families live in poverty (source). In the end, the state ends up paying a large portion of the missing child support anyway.

2. The existing Child Tax Credit scheme already costs the state some $85 billion per year (source).