We know that. And many women do it willingly. They consent to the pregnancy and the birth. That consent should be free. And since women are the ones with the biological demand, it should be them who decide if they want to do it.

As for "compensate", you could compensate by making demands to men that would keep alive the "created persons". If you demand that women compromise body integrity because pregnancy, men could compromise their body integrity and donate blood and marrow. That would make things somehow even. And blood donation takes less time, risk and time for recovery than pregnancy. Same with marrow donation.

But the "compensate" you talk about is not for the woman, is for the child. And lets be honest here, not only the body integrity of the men is not at stake, many won't ever pay. In fact some men would be the ones getting child support if they get custody. So your "being on the hook" is misleading. Of course, to get the child support he would have to actually put the effort to take care of the child, which would be how the woman is taking responsibility after birth.

Also, if the woman chose to not abort, there is the posibility of giving it for adoption. In that case, the man won't have responsibility at all.

I find interesting that you want to call "finantial slavery" if after birth the woman decides to keep it and not giving it for adoption (and the man doesn't want it either, in which case she would be the one paying child support). Now if you want my stance here, I think it would be way better if we all pay taxes and single parents could ask governement for the child support. If a man doesn't want to be involved he would walk away anyway and that would be it (*but won't be allowed to come back if he needs a donor or changes his mind). The same would apply to the woman.