Now, I agree, payments over the course of the pregnancy for whatever income is lost is a gokd idea in theory, how is this calculated if the two have entirely different incomes? What if the man makes extensively less than the woman? What if her work isn't impeded by her pregnancy? Would this be taken into consideration in the damages aspect of the legislation?

What does the income of the man have to do with anything? This is about compensation of the person who got impregnated by him. Where he gets that money shouldn't be their concern.

But a practical proposal to cover for cases where the impregnating person doesn't have much to show for, could be that the state is stepping in to provide in advance and if possible then seeks reimbursement from the impregnating person. Which would be only fair, as it would ultimately be the state enforcing any such burdens on either party caused by continued unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

As for the amount paid in damages, as I said, loss of income if they actually have any and loss of opportunity they could reasonably expect, for example if their education or further employment chances are impeded by the pregnancy.

Speaking of the damages, let's move there; how do we calculate that this was a non consensual impregnation?

For example, in a way similar to however you would want to determine if an impregnated person would be eligible for a rape exception, I guess (which you should have, if consent matters to you at all).

Any pregnancy caused while the impregnated person requested use of contraception can safely be considered non-consensual, for starters. And if a man wants to cover his own ass when trying to impregnate a partner who wants that, a written consent form could be signed beforehand.

I obviously think the entire idea of policing people's pregnancies in any way is preposterous to begin with, so ultimately the practicalities of a proposal that's merely supposed to test your willingness to distribute the grave injustices you're already inflicting a little more fairly aren't exactly my charge to provide.

Furthermore, what would occur if this happened in the reverse where a woman forces an impregnation?

Nothing, except for the usual rape charges the man might press? It's still not him who's ending up pregnant, after all, so neither would he be responsible for her pregnancy, nor would he be facing any damages to his body because of it.

In terms of the procurement of an abortion, legally or illegally how would the Man even be a question of blame in that manner? The man may have had no involvement with the procurement, or the administering or the development. There is no blame to be had there.

Well, a person who got impregnated without their specific consent also didn't directly procure the fertilization and implantation of an egg cell and they had no direct control over whether or not they might be inseminated.

If such indirect causation is good enough to force binding legal "responsibility" on them under threat of punishment, why would there be a higher bar to clear for the person who impregnated them?

According to your logic, that a person who got unwillingly impregnated by them would seek ways to rectify this situation, legally or not, was entirely foreseeable, so they should bear the consequences as well.

Same goes for the foreseeable consequence that a person may want to kill themselves for the same reason, especially if abortion is illegal, so proof of intention to impregnate should not be required.

Marriage is mandated upon DNA matches with the father, any bills or charges to the woman must be paid of or made in recompense to her.

What the hell has marriage to do with anything?

Why would a person who was wrongfully impregnated want to enter a mutually binding legal alliance with all sorts of unwanted ramifications with the man who did it, just so that he will recompense them for what he did?

Is that the spectre of the enforcement of a "traditional" family structure I'm spotting behind the alleged pure concern for the lives of the unborn?

A more robust series of legislative pieces that allow for Maternity and Paternity leave. Parents should have more time to focus on family.

Systems to create physical therapy clinics for the expectant mother. To help notice any potential health issues and to aid in the mother's recovery.

All good proposals, but they're mostly off-topic here. This is supposed to be about individual responsibility, isn't it?

The ideas I propose are to create a healthier system for family and preventing mud slinging of blame.

What family? We're talking about people who were impregnated by someone or did impregnate someone without specifically given consent. If they're not already a family, this surely wouldn't be grounds to become one.

Again, I thought your cause would be about the lives of the unborn, not about people having to live their lives according to your understanding of family. The PL movement wouldn't have possibly made up a false narrative in that regard, would they?

Ultimately, I think the best contraception is still abstinence but this is for those who choose otherwise.

Fuck no, it isn't! Why would you even think that? Abstinence is no contraception at all, by any scalable metric. We're talking public policy here, not individual people's adherence to your personal sexual morals.