Roe v Wade for Men, my ass

It's not like abortion is "Hair Club for Women". The guy who is whining about having no equal rights because he didn't want to father a child, his girlfriend had one anyway and now he has to pay child support, is such a loser it boggles the mind. As you will see, all of America is weighing in on the issue. My problem with this entire circus is very simple: this idiot and his genius attorney should not be calling this "Roe v Wade for Men". It is misleading, stupid and wrong. Men can have their Roe v Wade for Men the day they can actually get pregnant and can actually decide, if the government will let them, to terminate a pregnancy inside their own bodies.
Until that happens, this case is not about abortion but about a guy who does not want to pay child support. The woman told him she couldn't get pregnant because of a condition, the guy believed her and didn't use a rubber. Well, duh, if he was so sensitive about the pregnancy issue, he should have used one anyway. Men who are truly serious about these things are usually extra careful. They don't rely on women taking care of the contraception all by themselves.
And no, I don't think men should have equal rights on this matter, since their bodies are not equal, and therefore their burden is not equal to that of a pregnant woman. To talk about equality in this sense is ludicrous.
To the people who ask: what if the woman wants to abort and the guy wants to keep his baby?
Well, boo hoo. Tough. Try your best to convince her to have it, is all you can do. But it is still her decision. Why? Because you shot your load for a split second of glory and she has to carry a child to term inside her body for 9 months and then give birth (apparently not a picnic) and then care for it. Meanwhile she is at risk for her health, her job and her financial security. So give me a break. Not the same. Not equal. Not ever.