When it comes to child support, @Jazzhead 's beloved "state" forces men to pay child support. After all, it takes two to make a child. So likewise, shouldn't the father get a say in whether or not the child is aborted?
I gotta say that I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances. Sure, it takes two to tango. But the man's work is done in the first 30 seconds; the woman's burden lasts for nine months.
I know there are exceptions, but I think most of the time the man is the true culprit behind an abortion. The man abandons his partner, leaving her alone in the world with the prospect of bearing and raising a child. Or, perhaps worse, the man threatens his partner to have the abortion, to spare him the trouble of having to help raise it.
The scenario of a man sticking by his partner is not the scenario behind most abortions. As the man goes, so goes the abortion.
In a perverse way, the responsibility that the community imposes on the man to financially support his progeny could lie behind some abortions. As noted above, the man's desire to escape such responsibility can lead to his pressuring the woman to abort. He may, for example, threaten to stay with her only if she makes their little problem go away.
No, I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances. And if a man wants to avoid his financial responsibility, then what the hell, he should have kept his pants zipped. My fiercest critics on this thread have, unanimously, been blaming the woman, hectoring her to keep her legs shut, to recognize the consequences of sex. And then outrageously claiming that most women abort for "convenience". It's disgraceful, the unrepentant slut-shaming I've encountered on this thread. And from folks who wear their religion on their sleeve!
I say that's insensitive and cruel, but perfectly understandable coming from a "Bible-believing Christian", still in thrall to the patriarchy. No, I don't have much respect for men in these circumstances.
As the man goes, so goes the abortion.