Legislators simply see children as part of a country's assets and source of creating employment of interfering controlling people.

I don't agree with any of their arguments.

1. The remedy for the man not being able to decide whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy would clearly be that he can absolve himself of all responsibilities by relinquishing all rights. Don't know why it took the caller so long to spit that out.
2. "You just want consequence-free sex" is not a counterargument, it's an Ad Hominem attack. He's trying to discredit the argument by claiming the person making it "wants to be a dead-beat dad" (which he stupidly voiced, clearly alerting astute listeners that he was making a fallacious argument). If the counterargument wouldn't hold any water if the original argument was made by a different person (in this case, a woman or a man that was incapable of reproducing for instance) then it isn't an actual counterargument.
3. Matt seemed to suggest that men shouldn't be able to relieve their financial responsibility because women can't. Women can choose to relieve their financial responsibility through termination, abandonment, or adoption. It's not the same by nature of the process, but it is still a form of that "consequence-free" sex he keeps going on about.
4. Why should men be required to accept full potential financial repercussions of sex, but women shouldn't. i.e. A man needs to accept that a pregnancy and child and financial responsibilities may result from sex because not paying for unwanted child(ren) may cause undue influence on a women that may make her lean toward termination, yet a women is not required to accept that a pregnancy they don't want to terminate may result in financial responsibilities that a man can't or won't pay resulting in her decision to keep or terminate being dependent on her financial capabilities alone? That just doesn't seem logically consistent. "Life's not fair" shouldn't be the response when a more fair remedy exists.

As I am a fucking frequent Atheist speaker, it was nice to hear Matt employ words as I do. Generally IT'S an gawdamn unFair world to Feminist Atheists. All humans are Feminist Atheists at birth. Nobody is alive without a Feminist woman voluntarily NURTURING them PRE & POST partum. The caller struggled to define his rights by mis-defining his responsibilities. Matt nailed his ass. The only right missing during those minutes of chatter are the rights parents owe to a person born and breathing independently. Matt googled ONE BOY 15 raped by an older woman still ordered to pay child support. That is fair to the child. Another issue in this orbit is male rapist rights to visitation....... many states allow a rapist to act as a visiting father after raping the woman year/s before the child can say da da.... If only we had a world where Feminist Atheism is protected and religion may not be taught or scalped into our flesh. Boys should have absolute rights to their produce just as girls have absolute rights to their labia and clitoris ..... religion is slicing off healthy sex organs and must be prevented from brainwashing children too

I like Matt’s view points most of the time, but damn he can be annoying to listen to.

Rights can cut two ways depending how you want to invoke them. This Caller wants to use them to get rid of responsibility. I’m Not impressed by that.

Parental rights ( specially on fathers side) definitely need overhaul, though they appear to be getting better. I had an ex wife who moved from town to town and state to state, effectively denying me visitation. Yet, every time she moved, my state would attack me for not paying child support, ( I was paying her directly and had all my receipts) because she claimed I wasn’t paying. So the state was paying her and tried to reclaim from me. Then she moves to another state, claims it all over again, now collecting from me, state 1 and state 2. Amazing how people can scam the system.
Eventually lost all contact. Each time I went to court ( every 6 months or so) I petitioned the court to enforce my visitation “rights”, but all they cared about was money.
After a few years, was finally able to reestablish contact and renew visitation relegated to flying her across the country for a week each year and weekly phone calls. We now have a great relationship. But the court cost me years without her....