The abortion issue is one of the most loaded issues of our time, especially in America. There are two questions that generally come up when it comes to this issue. 1.) Where exactly does life begin at conception or at birth? 2.) Does a woman solely own the right to choose what is not 100% hers in creation but is 100% in her body?
Personally, I think both sides are completely untenable and illogical. If we state that a woman has no dominion over her body then no one has a right of dominion over their own body...which in turn affects what drugs some of us put in our bodies (or would like too :), which then affects do people have the right to self terminate? Euthanasia. Then on the other hand as far as what science tells us takes two peoples to make a fetus in the first place. Question then becomes can she terminate something that is not fully hers? Which while unpopular is a fair question. I mean if I destroy something that she also has a claim to I then have to give her restitution for my decision. But there's also another side that no side likes to mention for fear of reprisal. Which is the issue of men.
It is not fair that a woman can decide for a man if he wants to be a father or not. Simply put. It would be just as unfair if a man were to decide if a woman has to be a mother. If you can agree on this point your following so far. I firmly believe no side man or woman should be deciding something so life altering for another person. And before people come at me with the mantra that he should've used a condom or kept it in his pants, let me kindly remind you she as well could've kept her legs closed! (Now the issue of rape I will address in a separate matter because for purposes of this conversation it is.) When you have two people that want to have a child all is good, when you have two peolpe that don't want children all is good. It's when you have a 1 wants and 1 doesn't that we encounter problems legally and ethically. Is it ethical to make a man a father when he does not wish to be?? Keep in mind if you substitute "make a woman a mother when she does not wish to be"...most would emphatically say NO IT'S NOT RIGHT. And thats my point exactly. The simple fact is women so far as we know have this genetic ability to carry offspring. I don't recall during evolution women choosing this feat, nor men declining it to being with. Your simply born with the ability, no more no less.
A woman can decide if a man is to be a father or not, based on frankly no legal precedents but with how she feels about the situation. If she is happy with him and wants a child...then it's a go. But he might think it's a complete and utter mistake. But what he desires his rights simlpy legally do not matter. If you were to put this question in terms of race or even gender as one group trampling or deciding for another you would be in the smallest of minorities thinking this is correct. In fact we've had a war and massive social movements protesting these kinds of things. And of course the reverse is also horrible...a man wanting a child making a woman have his child against her will is completely out of step with humanity, reason, fairness, justice..and just about every other adjective you can use to describe it. Pro-choice and pro-life persons do a horrible job of leaving men out of the discussion on abortion which I think is sacrificing what is right to what is politically correct and as long as you have this kind of thinking going on this issue will never be able to settle.
A fairer, more ethical, solution would be giving the people the right to "opt-out" within a certain legal time frame from being presented with evidence of a pregnancy from a doctor or hospital in writing. That way both can have some sort of better ability to make a sound decision for themselves AS INDIVIDUALS. If a man is notified his girlfriend or wife is pregnant he should get 45 days to state officially with some state agency that he wishes to "opt-out" of parental responsibility. And if the woman in this case wishes to keep the pregnancy she is 100% liable for all costs associated with such, but if she does choose to have the abortion as well he is the liable for 50% of the costs and this is non-negotiable. On the other hand if a woman is pregnant and she does not wish to keep the pregnancy she should have to as well notify the man in question in 45 days through the state agency of her intentions to terminate. His recourse being he has 45 days to try and convice her in writing only of either taking it to term, or adoption. If at the end of that 45 days she still insists on termination he is given something for the destruction of his genetic material...say $200 bucks. And he is then responsible for 50% of the costs of the procedure. Granted this solution is not perfect but I think it to be far more fair and ethical then the current situation of letting one decide for another.
Now in the case of rape, very simply, if a woman is claiming rape a man has no say. Period. Since the sex itself was not consentual, and as a result neither should the decision to terminate or not as well require the notification of the other party. Granted now you can have a potential problem with women claiming rape in order to maintain the status quo we have now in regards to men having no say on abortion...however, to make this claim at this time is going to require inordinate amounts of evidence of actual rape and be much harder to prosecute. You've been dating 2 years and now you want to claim rape and you just happen to be pregnant...is going to look highly suspicious. Which is why there would have to be some kind of statue of limitations to claim this particular situational rape...say 30 days in order to combat against false claims or rape just to circumvent the law.
Before I get flooded with angry emails in my box understand me when I say I firmly am saying this out of my belief that no one party should decide something for another individual. That is my sole concern with this particular issue. I don't wish to see women deciding for men, nor do I wish to see men deciding for women. I would like both sides to be able to decide for themselves and know the consequences fully of their actions. And yes granted safer sex, or no sex would've been the wiser choice...but we have to deal with effects of the situations after this has happened.
People that want to be families should be, people that don't shouldn't be. Simply.