Fighting for the right of men to "veto" their own flesh and blood is only adding to the victimization of babies/children.
I don't see how anyone, men or women, can claim legitimately claim "rights" by taking them from babies/children. Just because currently women legally can, doesn't make it right that men should claim the same "rights".
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I didn't say that they SHOULD have that option. I am pointing out that women DO presently have such an option (even to kill their inconvienient unborn, to my mind the worst veto possible) which extends to the exercise of it even in an otherwise stable MARRIAGE. While I acknowledge that I has a man have the same right to an abortion that a woman has, I am sure that you will acknowledge that this practically leaves me no "reproductive right" other than abstinence that a woman is bound to respect. I do believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned with an eye toward the elimination of all such "reproductive rights" by the 50 state legislatures. (physical life and health of the mother excepted)
When one party is not committed to child rearing outside of marriage, then the state should encourage adoption by NOT providing werlfare bennies and child support enforcement mechanisms. If no suitable adoptive familky is available, then bring on the state to force child support outside the clear commitment that marriage entails.