Not really, as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man.
Ideally, men would be equal in this regard, but nature does not work like that so we have to work with what we have.
If you can come up with a better solution that does not violate a woman’s autonomy over their body and also does not let men off the hook for providing for their kids, I am all ears (or eyes I guess).
Perhaps the government provides for everyone’s kids?
Oh, I agree it's complex and there are meaningful differences in how the whole pregnancy thing is experienced, and that the needs of kids maybe should override weird selfish libertarian-adjacent "pft, totally unfair to make me pay for any of this!" attitudes (cases of actual fraud being... another matter, potentially).
I was just caught off guard by that particular argument being employed in that way. "Well it's easy for a man to simply not have sex, if they don't want kids they shouldn't have sex, that's the end of that" is... not usually well-received (and shouldn't be) when the positions are reversed, even when the context is entirely about consensual sex.
> even when the context is entirely about consensual sex.
I thought this context was about ensuring women have access to over the counter birth control, which can be a benefit in the case of consensual and non consensual sexual. Especially in non consensual sex.
Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in this way, but, OK.