Just out of my own curiosity, I would be interested to know whether the responses are coming from men or women. Here's my (female) opinion:
1. Since human sexual reproduction doesn't give us any evidence of actual paternity (unless we invest in DNA testing), it is reasonable that the "father's" rights should be given less consideration than the mother's unless his paternity is certain.
2. The production of new life is not a 50/50 deal. The man makes a contribution that is so insignificant he could potentially father dozens of children without ever knowing about it. So, even if the paternity is certain, it is still reasonable to guarantee the lion's share of parental rights during pregnancy to the woman - at least until science finds some way to allow men to carry and give birth to a child.
3. As long as a fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, I consider it a part of a woman's body - not an individual with the rights and privileges of any born human, one of which is the right to be involved in ugly familial disputes over custody. As the father would essentially have to force the mother to carry an unwanted child to term and give birth to it against her will, and for the majority of this time it will be part of her body, and because giving birth to it causes irreversible changes to her body, her sovereignty over her own body still reasonably trumps the father's desire to have a child - until he can carry it for her.
4. As much as men might complain about child support, it is still almost always the mother who ends up raising the kids. Actually raising kids has a far more significant impact on a person's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (as they say) than simply writing a cheque (when you can). So, until society holds men equally accountable for the raising of children, it is reasonable to ensure the decision rests in the hands of the person who will bear the bulk of the responsibility for the child for the rest of its life (I'm not just talking about the first 18 years, here.)
For the above reasons, I think in all cases where the child could not survive outside the woman's body, it should be entirely her decision whether or not to carry it to term. After this point, if the mother's life is not in jeopardy, if the father makes a legally binding agreement to be entirely responsible for the child - both financially and physically - he should have the right to weigh in a legal challenge.
However, legal challenges (which is what I feel the word "rights" invoke) are not the only way for a father to influence a woman's decision whether or not to have an abortion. There's always talking, convincing, bribing, cajoling, coddling, proposing, philosophizing, romanticizing and a whole arsenal of persuasion tactics at a guy's disposal if he's knocked a gal up and she's gotten cold feet. If the gal you've knocked up hasn't asked for / doesn't care about your opinion on the matter, it's just not going to work. Non-consultation indicates that not only does she not want to have a child in general, she doesn't want to have a child with you in particular.
