Whut? You no likey giraffe-women?

That's horrible. Truly horrible.
But it put me in mind of an older man I was dating for a short time, who basically told me something similar ... not with surgery, of course, but how he could whip me into shape ... I can't remember the exact words he used, but they stung like hell. I tried not to let them, but tears…

Some amateurs are terrible at whitening the teeth and whites of the eyes. It's horribly obvious.

In the words of Major Charles Emerson Winchester III: "Thank you . . . no."

BLOCK HIM.

When "Nice Guy" is capitalized, it's a type, the definition of which is pretty much the opposite of what a nice guy truly is.
Just so you know ...

How in the world did you get to "absolute control over one another"? That's like, three solar systems over. We don't even have beyond light-speed technology, so I'm totally amazed how you got there . . ..

But-but-but—women don't like sex. It doesn't matter how excellent I am in bed. Women just don't like sex!

It sounds like he was a moron, as well. He was never interested ... until you told him you'd never go out with him.

I promise I will finish reading this article, but I got to here before I got all GGRRRRRRRRR:
"Not only is their movement built on a foundation of dubious statistics and a distorted view of masculinity . . . "
I need a break.

Oh, right from the start I noticed that the main point with this person seemed to be that it would cost society money—I just failed to point it out. Thanks for doing so, though!

An education initiative based on the idea that just because you CAN have a child, doesn't mean you SHOULD?
THAT, I would fully support.

The alternative you gave was withdrawing any sort of monetary (for healthcare) support after the child is born, if there were any medical issues.
"Nope! Sorry, you get nothing. You made poor choices, so this kid suffers!"
That is why we provide food benefits, so kids don't starve, because they had the audacity to…

"In-womb child abuse" .... now, I've heard it all.

"You're under arrest for something you did in the past which MIGHT have given this poor outcome, sir—come with us!"

Absurd will be proving that disorders or birth defects are related to specific drug or alcohol ingestion—yes, sometimes that's possible, but given the medical and biological variables, sometimes impossible.

No, she is not an incubator. Wrong. She's the one with the full rights, and not a POTENTIAL person. This has legal precedent.

As someone already pointed out, some hypothetical cases would not be about "selfishness," but addiction, which should be treated like a disease.

No, you're talking about locking people up who MIGHT do drugs or drink, in case they harm a POTENTIAL person. That person is not here yet, not born, and may not even live (whether or not substances are involved). The human rights you've just violated by locking up women and treating them like incubators, however,…

Oh, they used to call this "Bedlam"!
Ahhh, nostalgia for a bygone era!

Boy, in the last decade or two, we have gotten blindly accepting of "lawful" intrusion into our lives—it's for our own good, mind you!
If these all sounded like good ideas, you are a couple of continents away from the point, and you will never connect.