My View on A Woman's Right to Chose

 I need to start off by explaining that my wife and I both do not favor abortion.  I won't get into details, but it was a decision we had to make almost 40 years ago, and we chose to keep our child.

But that was our decision, a very personal and tough decision with feelings and surrounding current and future aspects unique to us at that specific time.  For us - today - to use our experience or belief to force a woman to carry to term seems unconscionable. 

So what is the answer to those who feel a woman should have the right to choose (as I do) or the rights of the unborn to live.  That is again beyond my ken.  But what I do believe is that is the State forces a woman to carry to term, the weight of all that entails must not be solely upon her.  The father MUST have equal ramifications and not just for cost - which while not an easy burden is far easier than the 24/7365 care of another human being and which far too many men avoid within a system that does not pursue that crime vigorously.

No - I think if the woman is forced to bear the child and does not want that child the father MUST then be fully responsible (as she would have been).  Why place the decision upon her alone?  Offer him the same financial support (which is often minimal) and same physical and economic burden of missing work because of sickness or school etc.  I would assume that the vast majority of fathers faced with this would promptly place the child into adoption.  This would place great burden upon the State and a foster and adoption system that is in many cases an afterthought and underfunded and staffed.

It is so easy to say that someone MUST do something when there is no burden upon those saying it should be done.  Its too easy for fathers to be a 'side note' in the process.

In my opinion if you want to force a woman to carry then bring back shotgun weddings.  Society places too much burden upon the woman when we all know that it takes two people equal responsibility for creation.

Creation - now there is an ambiguous term.  People use it to say that is the start of life - but is it?  I can create a work of art but not complete it... I start a story but never finish the novel.  When is life living?  Some say with a heartbeat; that we use heartbeat to determine death why not life.  My response to that is that the person was already alive and could with medical intervention remain alive.  So why not use that same logic with life at the beginning?  If - with medical intervention a fetus can be successfully developed and grow into a viable normal individual - use that as the basis for when life begins?  If you removed the fetus from the womb at 1 month could we possibly keep it alive?  3 months, 6 months?  and would that life be marred by illness that you wouldn't wish upon ANY child?  
We need to discuss these things and consider them not from a singular viewpoint but from multiple views.