If a woman chooses to abort, she should be able to.
If a man would prefer not to abort, he should be able to (for example) arrange for a surrogate to carry his child to term.
If a woman chooses not to abort, the man should be allowed to sign away all rights, or have first dibs if the child is slated for adoption.
I think that the nature of pregnancy makes it difficult to give men equal choice in the matter, and that the father of an unborn child should be given as many choices as possible provided that it doesn't essentially turn the woman into a living incubator.
I agree with this. Men should have all rights in the matter ending exactly where women's rights on the matter begin, which is specifically control of their own body but not the child (or the fetus) once it exits it. It does not include a right to child support, or things such as that, with which she is currently furnished, though.
Notice, however, that of these things you list, only the first is actually guaranteed and protected. It's under attack but it's also the only one that exists as a national law.
And I think that if restrictions are going to be imposed on women, they should be equally imposed on men for the same reason. Currently, there is no walk of shame in front of clinics for men seeking to end their parental rights. There are no invasive ultrasounds. There are no 'concerned' health professionals prodding at the father to ask him if he was coerced into ending his rights. There are no real consequences aside from those of conscience for men whose conceived material is aborted. That is what I would also like to see for women. It's not that I want men punished; it's that I want to see either a lack of punishment for both genders or an equal application of legal consequences to both genders. Preferably the former.
It's similar to Selective Service registration. I don't want to see women required to sign up for it, because I don't want to see men required to sign up for it either. But if there's going to be a requirement for registration, it should apply equally to both sexes. I oppose the movement that agitates for registration requirements for women because I think that they're going the wrong way with it.
If you want to believe that it makes me gynocentric, there's nothing I can do about that - but I vehemently question the validity of the label, if so.
The point of disagreement is here: These things do not exist because men have no ability to do such things
. There is no walk of shame because there are no such clinics (presumably legal clinics, in this case). I have no doubt there would be an equivalent if men could end their parental rights, people agitating for the reverse of such things, and so on. I know for a fact many of the same factions that have an issue with abortion take issue with men giving up such rights. I actually have (albeit in paper form so I can't link it) a form from a Catholic charity explicitly saying such.
To my mind they only do not exist now because men have no ability to end their parental rights, which they do not (again, Dubay V Wells is illustrative, which has an amicae curiae against giving men such rights from the NOW, actually). I agree these things should be ended: men must be given these rights and made capable of using them without repercussion. Women only need to be made capable of using them without repercussion, and thus are a huge step closer. There's certainly nothing stopping me from supporting both (except when I am asked to support an organization which only supports one of the two, such as the NOW). Both are quite serious, but...
Well that's why such opinions seem gynocentric to me: They seem, to me, to see only the punishment women suffer, not a man's lack of rights. They see men's lack of punishment compared to women, which does exist, but ignore the reason for it. It's because they are not given such choices in the first place. Just as I imagine there would be a great drop in that pressure not to choose abortion if women couldn't abort. There would be no walk of shame without abortion clinics.
And, as I said, bringing men up to the standard of legal equality women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming.
And the difference between this and the Selective Service is that we're talking about giving men rights/freedoms, not imposing new obligations on them, as adding women to Selective Service would be for women. Obligations have a higher threshold to meet than freedoms do: Obligations need a justification to exist, freedoms need a justification to be taken away.