If a woman is impregnated by a man, they are both responsible for the situation, share the responsibility, they both are affected - most hopefully. They both share the body, quite practically, wouldn't you say. If the would-be child is wanted, they should rejoice and not complain.
In this respect the responsibility of us all in situations of sex - which could mean life - is by no means to be altered. It can not be that in one situation you are responsible and in another you are less responsible. Nor can it be that the responsibility is not shared.
It is, though, also a truth of life that giving birth to a child/children is not altogether same for a woman and for a man. A woman has had and has the right and the responsibility to carry the child/children, whereas the man has the right a n d the responsibilty to care and to protect this family. This does not affect in any way the rights of women: women are entitled to their lives and their bodies also without children - as are men. This is equal. This choice is open to all in a free society and I do not in any way contradict this societal feature.
Neither do women get their personal or societal value from their relationship to men - be it their fathers or husbands or what ever. Women are human beings and should be respected in no way differently from men. Where there are differences they should not be any differences of rights and responsibilities.
Having pointed this out I should say that a child is never - and may I say it once more - NEVER anything else than a gift of God - may He be praised in all eternity! This gift is shared by us, by this child's parents/parent (with parent I mean social (responsible) parent(s). This is not a mother or father choosing a baby, but a mother or/and a father chosen by a child. This requires our respect.
Our society is so built up that women carrying a child can get on with their lives. This is only right, because - as you say women are so affected that they can't with work support themselves when pregnant.
For all the children who can get adoptive parents the criteria for adoption should not be loosened in regard to psychological evaluation. Rights to adoption should though be given to all - also homosexual parents who do not at this moment have this right - this should be equal for all.
Foetuses are to be born. They belong to the cycle of life and this feature is to be defended - not only for the sake of parents but also for the sake of life itself. The right to live is not given to any living creature because of it being wanted. It is in itself already given: it is a gift of Creator. Worthy or "unworthy" (?) life is preferred to death. But let me say: Life has always worth and this worth is from our Creator. This is more than a personal decision, more than an exclusive right to give birth. Carrying a child is and should be a responsibility of the society as well as of the parent/parents.
Ethics are always up to discussion. My ethics say life is to be guarded. Your reasoning ends up in a controversy: you don't go and have sex and say afterwards you didn't have any reason to do so. Sex can be a potential life-giver.
I am not saying that I condemn abortion - not at all. What I am saying is that the fundament should always be giving birth to potential life.
This is as I see this matter. It is certainly different than many others' opinions on this issue - and I respect this difference.
