Of course the man doesn't have the right to choose whether or not the woman has an abortion, but neither should the woman have the right to make a choice that will affect the next eighteen years of the man's life (despite the legal fiction enforced by one unenlightened court).
Both parties are responsible for contraception. What what would seem to be a more just system is that the woman retains the right to make the choices that affect her body, and if she chooses an abortion, then the man is required to pay half the costs. If the man, however, wants the woman to have an abortion and the woman refuses, then he should have the option to waive his parental rights and not be saddled with eighteen years of child-support payments. In this case, he would still be liable for half the cost of an abortion, and by waiving his rights he would be barred from having any contact with the product of that conception.
It is right and proper that a person be the absolute ruler over her or his body, but it is not right that a woman should be able to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of her sexual partner's life. Let's face it, eighteen years is a steep, steep penalty for three to eight hours of mutual pleasure (Okay, three to eight hours in my case, two to twenty minutes in the case of most other men
); the woman can choose whether to impose that sentence on herself, but why should she have the authority to impose that sentence on somebody else?
