Let Men Terminate?

In light of Judge Alito's advocacy of a man's right to have a word in whether to terminate a pregnancy, a columnist at the LA Times asks some fair questions:

Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted – and I believe it should – why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention – indeed, no one ever seems to – is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

I'd ask, "Shouldn't a man have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy?" If the answer is "no, because he was the one foolish enough to get her pregnant," then shouldn't the same rationale apply to the woman ("You can't terminate because you're the one foolish enough to get pregnant"). If the answer is "no, because it's only her body," then she can be the only to bear the cost of raising the baby; if "it's all about the woman," then it can be all about her responsibility. If the answer is "no, because it's a termination of human life," the response to the woman who wants to terminate is pretty obvious. Quite frankly, if we're just snuffing out a potato, why shouldn't the man be allowed to terminate the pregnancy? Why should he be financially obligated if the woman decides to carry the potato to full term?