This sounds like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion is a separate issue on whether a man has a right to dictate what a woman can do with her body.
That doesn't make the terminology of a misandrist the official definition of a father.
The complication is that there are two entities to consider - not just the woman (I've disregarded the man, because he should have absolutely no rights over the course of action that the woman may take (but I agree ... it might be nice to discuss the options!)).
In my opinion, there should be (and indeed are, in some jurisdictions), time limits within which abortions may be undertaken. And those time limits should vary according to circumstances. A condition giving rise to either the mother or baby suffering or risking ill health, deformity and the like, should have a longer limit than a simple decision to abort for convenience - but both should be allowed - indeed possibly advised in the case of the former.
That is the burning question. At what point does it become human? Some would say "it ain't human until the umbilical cord is cut" and some would maintain that it is human from the moment of conception. Most would try to specify some point during the pregnancy but it is like trying to say how many whiskers a man should have on his face before you call it a beard. There is no "correct" answer.
Wherever you see a radical feminist, a misandrist is usually not far away.
I would tend to agree that it is human but then that leaves the question, "does it have human rights (including the right to life)"? If not then does the description "human" mean anything?
