So you believe that women are “forced” to have to give up a child despite no law mandating such an action. They are “forced” because the alternative is hard. And you see that is wrong.
But you have no problem forcing a man, through actual laws and threat if incarceration, to become a father to a child and spending 18 years of his life supporting that child? Despite that fact that working to support a child is just as hard for a man as it is for a woman, you see no problem with forcing a man to do exactly that.
How is that in any sense pro choice?
A woman can choose to have sex and choose to become parent, or choose to have an abortion.
A man who chooses to have sex has no choice whatsoever. If he chooses to become a parent, the woman can terminate the pregnancy regardless. And if he chooses not to become a parent, the woman can refuse to have an abortion regardless.
I’ve always supported the idea presented in the OP. The only truly pro-choice stance is for all parties to have all choices. Now, obviously we can’t say that a man can “choose” for a woman to have an abortion. That makes no sense and is as crazy and unjust a s a woman choosing that a man has to become a father. But a man should be able to choose not to become a parent, meaning that he abdicates all rights and responsibilities.
If a woman then chooses to have an abortion because it’s hard to raise a child with no father, that’s entirely her choice. And if she chooses to have the child regardless, that’s also her choice.
That’s the only truly pro-choice stance. Everybody involved has all available options in terms of whether to become a parent or not. Nobody is forced by the state to do anything. That’s a real pro-choice position.