Both have equal rights to their own bodies, and both decide to have sex, with the knowledge that it is the woman's body who would bear any babies. If men could bear children, they should have the same right to decide what happens with their own body. That is not equal due to biology (in that men can't get pregnant), but I would argue it's not inequitable.Well, like you said, both parties have to consent to sex, so they both know what they're getting into. Once they've both consented to sex, they have nobody to blame but themselves if a pregnancy occurs. This is the man's last chance to avoid a pregnancy, you claim both sexes have equal rights over it, so I was assuming you meant by that this should be the last chance for the woman to avoid the pregnancy.
Really my point is you pulled that "men can choose not to impregnate a woman" as if that countered "Women have the final say on the existence of the child, and whether or not the man owes her 18 years of work, while men have no such option".
So are we gonna dance around another circle, or will you stop playing weird semantic games with me. It's fine if you believe women's biological disadvantages in the arena of pregnancy entitle them to extra reproductive rights, just say that if that's what you think and stop pretending that's somehow "equality".