Bedrest and losing your job is a very normal ramification of pregnancy. If you agree that pregnancy is a normal outcome of intercourse and should be assumed, so should a woman being unable to take care of herself or her own legal obligations.
Right now, a woman has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy and it is her choice how to handle the ramifications of it. If you remove her choice to handle the ramifications of it, then what else are you doing to help her? Everyone above seems horrified at the idea of a man actually being responsible in some way (other than financially).
I was going to make a point about paternity testing in utero being dangerous via amniocentesis, but I just read about non-invasive prenatal paternity testing. Very interesting.
Throughout this entire thread your argument seems predicated on justice and evening the social score somehow. But life is not so simple. While we may have a duty and obligation to help those who are suffering and in need, that also extends to a fetus to some level, although there is certainly gray area as it relates to a full fledged human, equally as complex as other great moral questions.
Saying that abortion should be legal (it depends what you mean when you say you are for legalization, but blanket abortion allowance even includes killing and causing pain to viable fetuses) because it somehow gives a woman equal footing, and that a man cannot have an opinion because he does not have to live through it, is not valid logically or legally. No judge or legislator is required to live through the exact circumstances as those to whom the laws are applied, they need merely to reach a reasonable, logical, impartial, cerebral conclusion.
Women suffering is bad. Fetus killing is bad. Both of these statements can be true at once. Men can (should?) shoulder more of the burden of child bearing and rearing, despite the fact that biology dictates otherwise. That in no way condones using whatever means necessary to try to even the score.