"Pro-choice" isn't pro-choice for men

The pro-choice position is not really pro-choice when it comes to men.

A man and a woman decide to have a baby. During the pregnancy the woman changes her mind and decides to kill her unborn daughter. 

According to the "pro-choice" position the man has no say but he is obliged to support his daughter for 18 years if the woman decides to not kill their daughter.

Clearly a man is responsible for his children so it's only just that the man pay for his child.

But even if the man loves his unborn daughter his daughters mother can kill her without even considering him. Yet if the man changes his mind and decides that he doesn't want his daughter the woman has complete control over whether or not he has to pay to support his daughter--if she kills the daughter he doesn't pay support but if she doesn't kill his daughter he does pay support.

Why is the man's supporting the daughter for 18 years nothing while the woman giving birth to the child so onerous that it's ok to kill the daughter instead? After all surrogates charge far less than it costs to raise a child.

This is one of the paradoxes of the abortion situation in America; men have full responsibility but no authority.

It shows why abortion doesn't make sense and how "pro-choice" is anything but.