Ah -- I'm sorry, I don't understand.
The man probably has a say, but since it's the mother's body that has to go thru the pregnancy then it seems like she has the final word, to me. But I haven't thought that much about it.
What would do you suggest as a better approach?
It is fundamentally unjust to expect the man to exercise his reproductive choice before the woman involved is even pregnant when she has nine months to choose after she becomes pregnant.
Her relative discomfort for three or four months is NOTHING compared to the onerous and debilitating obligations enforced against the man in this country by the "choice" of the woman.
If the pro-choice advocates where actually engaging in "honest political debate" rather than gender apartheid, they would have no problem with the "paper abortion."
A paper abortion would be a legal instrument whereby a man, on becoming aware a woman he had sex with was pregnant or within a reasonable amount of time after becoming aware a woman had given birth claiming him as the father, could register a disavowal of parenthood with the local authorities. This would separate him from any obligation for the decision of the woman to reproduce.
If you do a little thinking on the proposition, you will find it is absolutely in conformity with the "stated" pro-choice philosopy, yet I promise you the rhetorical fires of hell if you actually try to advocate it.