content: I'm assuming you're referring to the typical "American Conservative" (AKA Small gov, less taxes, less regulation, etc.) viewpoint. Technically, yes, but the alternative is to keep the status quo, where men have absolutely zero reproductive rights, while women have all of them, where the Nanny State redistributes financial resources from Men to Women in the form of "Child Support" (Regardless of whether or not it gets spent on the child). It's basically a question of picking your poison, either give men the ability to have a say over whether their genetic material is used to produce offspring (By dis-incentivizing the typical "Oops, I got pregnant...Tee hee..." scenario, because let's face it, many fewer women will keep the kid if they know they can;t use it to bilk the guy for all he's worth at the threat of jail) and by extension shrink government by forcing women to take SOME responsibility for their choices, while the social fabric dissolves further (And that's a problem for Society, anyways, not the Government. Society isn't going to get fixed until people realign their social values...and you can;t instill that with government without feeding Big Government)...or keep the Nanny State status quo, and have a slower crumbling of the societal foundation as more and more men go MGTOW when they tire of the bullshit of the modern dating marketplace. In the end, I think the former scenario really is the more desirable, if just because it gives society some breathing room to get it's own affairs in order without more policy to grow Big Government to infringe on yet even more rights. That is, of course, ignoring the argument that it equalizes reproductive rights to a better degree across the gender spectrum.