Maybe it’s hard to grasp because it’s not true?
First, it’s not “how it is” that if a woman wants an abortion, that means an abortion will happen. I wish it was, but in reality, pro-lifers have worked hard to put barriers (some legal, some practical) between women and abortion. (And that’s limiting discussion to the USA; in some other countries, abortion is outright banned.)
Secondly, it’s not true that “the rights of the child are untouched.” In scenario A, the child has the right to be financially supported by its father. In scenario B, the child does not. (The table doesn’t say whether or not child support is also going to be banned for non-custodial mothers, so I’m not sure if the born child still has the right to the financial support of its mother in the “how it should be” column.)
So what this table’s author is actually calling for is an increase in father’s rights at the expense of children’s rights.
This is particularly troublesome because research shows that child support laws provide an incentive for some men to use birth control. In the absence of any legal right of children for financial support from their fathers, some men will use birth control less (and some will be more likely to insist on “bareback” sex with their girlfriends), and the number of children born to single mothers will increase. (In contrast, there is no evidence that child support laws effect how likely women are to give birth; my guess is that the disadvantages of pregnancy already provide a strong disincentive for women but not men, so the child support effects are larger for men.) How are these children going to be supported, in “how it should be” land?
Third, in the status quo, the laws are equal – or at least, they should be. Both men and women should (in the feminist POV) have an absolute right to do anything they want to their own bodies to maximize their odds of having sex while avoiding reproduction. And both mothers and fathers are legally required to provide support for all their born children. That’s legal equality.
(It’s true that we don’t have biological equality. But that’s a sword that cuts both ways; there are massive advantages for men in being the sex that doesn’t get pregnant, which this table ignores.)
In this table’s proposed system, we also have legal equality, IF mothers are also allowed to opt out of supporting born children. But that legal equality comes at an enormous cost to children and society, because child poverty would be increased. I don’t think that’s a moral solution, unless we’re going to switch to a full-blown Swedish Socialist economy, in which child poverty is substantively solved through expensive government interventions.