Other than men having the right to rape women and then force them to give birth, is there an alternative system in which men get to choose to have babies without regard to what women think?
I can’t think of one really but to that end I think its a bit of a stretch to say that men get to become parents painlessly when ultimately its up to her choice on whether or not to carry the child to term. How can you in one breath say, “he has the privilege of becoming a parent pain free” but in the next staunchly say that he should not have a say in whether or not she carries the child to term?

No, it’s not “counteracted.” This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s an empirical question. We know for a fact that when child support laws are less stringent, the rates of single motherhood go up.
Then I wonder then why aren’t those women being more selective about the men they have sex with?

As for “abandonment,” giving up a child for adoption — whether through the usual route or through safe haven laws — is not abandonment.
Yes it is. Whether left on the doorstep of a church or formally given up for adoption that mother is abandoning that child. Sure we can talk about whether her decision was morally sound or not but its still abandonment. And the moral and practical differences being minor or major (I agree they are major) don’t affect that one bit.

And it’s not as if it’s all disadvantage for men. As you acknowledged, the same biological differences that give women the abortion option, also give men the ability to become a parent painlessly and without physical risk…

as long as its okay with her.

Other than men having the right to rape women and then force them to give birth, is there an alternative system in which men get to choose to have babies without regard to what women think?

But wouldn’t that be counteracted by 1. Women continuing to control their own reproduction and 2. that whole “if he’s going to be like that then you’re probably better off without him anyway” thing (which is commonly brought in regards to those guys that are boycotting American women).

No, it’s not “counteracted.” This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s an empirical question. We know for a fact that when child support laws are less stringent, the rates of single motherhood go up.

As for “abandonment,” giving up a child for adoption — whether through the usual route or through safe haven laws — is not abandonment. To say that adoption is abandonment is ridiculous; it’s pretending that the moral and practical difference between a child being adopted and raised by loving parents, vs dying alone in a trash can, is a minor difference of degree.

Hypothetically, if a woman becomes pregnant, and I’m informed within some time window duration (make it the same as allowing her to have an abortion if you like), I think I should be able to sign away my paternal rights in exchange for a lack of financial responsibility.
I think I agree with this. As you say here, “Here’s what you don’t seem to understand: children aren’t embryos. You’re saying that because women abort embryos, abandonment of born children by their fathers is fine. But that’s nonsense. Once the baby is born, it’s a legal person, and both parents have responsibilities to it.” With a limited window said father would also be abandoning an embryo.

What I just said isn’t begging the question at all; it was pointing out a known, measurable consequence of men having less legal responsibility to take responsibility for their children.
But wouldn’t that be counteracted by 1. Women continuing to control their own reproduction and 2. that whole “if he’s going to be like that then you’re probably better off without him anyway” thing (which is commonly brought in regards to those guys that are boycotting American women).

And anyway, that’s not really abandoning the baby; it’s actually a form of adoption, in which parental responsibilities aren’t abandoned, but passed on to other people.
I have to disagree with this. When leaving a child like that that is indeed abandonment. Its not a matter of someone else taking up the parenting responsibilities, to abandon means that person left that child and gave up their parenting responsibilities/rights. In a garbage can or at a fire station, one’s better than the other but in both cases that person is abandoning that child. Those safe haven laws are in place so that ideally speaking the child is abandoned in a safe place.

The child has a right to life as soon as it is conceived. So, yes – aborting a child is equivalent to the mother signing away it’s right to life.

No, there’s just one standard. And here it is: Both men and women get to do whatever they want with their own bodies to prevent a child from being born, but neither of them get to do whatever they want to their sexual partner’s body.

True. But apparently only a women gets to decide what happens to the child’s body prior to birth. There’s some logistical reasons for that, but no moral one.

So you (and I) have every right to use a condom, to get a vasectomy, to refuse to have PIV sex, and in every other way control what we do with our reproductive organs. And women have every right to use the pill, or other forms of birth control for women, to have their tubes tied, or to have an abortion, and in every other way control what she does with her reproductive organs.

Use of birth control, either hormonal, barrier or surgical, is an assertion of control over one’s reproductive organs, and properly belongs only to the owner of those organs. But abortion is an assertion of control over a 3rd party – exactly what those who oppose forced sterilization or legal controls over the use of birth control base their objections on.

But just as she doesn’t have the right to force me to have a vasectomy, I have no control over if she decides to get an abortion.

A vasectomy is equivalent to a tubal ligation, not an abortion. There is not male equivalent to an abortion.