I disagree. It's not like men are opting out of carrying the baby, they physically can't do it. I'm sorry you're suffering with the pregnancy, but deciding on a name should be a joint decision.
I disagree, I think a mother feeling entitled to preference over a first name isn’t any worse than 90% of fathers automatically assuming baby should get their surname. My DH did that- the majority of men I know have done that and an agreement of anything different is a ‘compromise’.
Then there’s the shocking statistics of how many fathers actually stick around. I have no reason to believe my DH won’t but I’m sorry when baby first arrives mum has done 95% of the work and is entitled to baby!
The surname thing is a separate matter, though. Of course, there's room for discussion if the parents have different surnames, but a great many babies (even these days) are born to married parents who have the same surname, so of course the baby will get the family surname. The woman choosing whether or not to take her new husband's name at marriage is a different matter entirely. The father can assume all he likes that the baby gets his surname if the mother's surname is different, but it doesn't automatically mean that that's what happens.
As we read so many times on MN, a woman who has a baby without being married is seriously risking ending up at a great disadvantage compared to a married woman. Entirely her choice, of course.
The problem with taking the attitude that, because the woman has had to go through all the pregnancy and birth single-handedly and most of the post-birth baby work (especially if BF) will likely also fall to her, she should get the final say on everything baby-related - and the father should always have to be grateful for anything he's allowed to have a say in - is that you can end up making a rod for your own back.
If it's your baby, then why should he have to contribute anything when you ask/expect him to? You put him in his place in the early years, so why should he step up now?
Do you also think that, as the baby is basically yours with him as an accessory who probably won't stick around (and, again, an awful lot of good men do stay around and are loving, caring fathers, even if your own relationship breaks down), you should have no right to expect him to financially support 'your' child?
Even within the bounds of a happy, secure marriage that stays the course, and if you've both decided for the woman to be a SAHM, would you say that the baby name is your decision, because you did all of the hard baby work whereas which house you buy and where you live is his decision, because his wage pays the mortgage and all the household bills? Would you extend it to silly things as well, such as he gets to decide what meals you eat, because only he is strong enough to open some of the jars or lift a big sack of potatoes out of the boot?
That attitude is just a race to the bottom. Yes, many relationships do fail and you have to put measures in place to protect yourself; but it's very sad to have just had a baby together and be making decisions on the basis that he may well not stick around anyway, so assume that he won't.
In OP's case, her husband is being very selfish in basically choosing the very few names he likes and refusing to waver, simply waiting until he 'wins' and OP ends up with a name she really doesn't like at all. He needs to learn to compromise and come up with or sanction a lot more potential names.
However, even if neither of you gets your first choice, it really does show a terrible lack of respect for either parent to expect the other one to have to call their child a name they really cannot stand, just by virtue of refusing to budge an inch.