Ok, so let’s turn this around:
There’s this really rich woman, we’ll call here Opraheta, she’s a TV celebrity, and worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
She has a “harem” of men. One of them gets her pregnant. She decides to have an abortion. The man who impregnated her doesn’t want her to get one.
Who should win?
How is this any different from Simon’s case?
He’s going to be on the hook for 18 years. Opraheta will be on the hook for 18 years, nine months. That’s a difference of 4%. Big whoop!
“It’s her body, she can do what she wants”? Fine, she did what she wanted, and she, with the help of that man, created another human being. It’s no longer just her body.
Alternatively, “it’s his body and he can do what he wants.” If Simon doesn’t want the kid, than he owes that child no more than Opraheta does. So he should be able to her: I’ll pay for an abortion, but I won’t pay to support you and that child for 18 months. If you don’t abort, you’re on your own.
You object to those options? Then what you’re really pushing for is that men should be legally inferior to women. And while you’re free to push for whatever you want, I can not see the slightest reason why your position deserves a shred more respect than the position that women should be legally inferior to men.
Visualize your reaction to a man arguing, with all seriousness, that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, and of course never be allowed to vote. That is your moral compatriot. Because if it’s ok for a woman to screw around, get pregnant, and kill the baby if the baby is inconvenient to her, then it’s AT LEAST equally ok for a man to go out, screw around, and refuse to provide anything other than 1/2 the cost of the abortion if teh woman is willing to have one.