I am with you, Foxglove. Not all circumstances are "ideal" for a child to brought into and for that seem to think the child should be brought into the world and placed for adoption, think again. There are millions of kids waiting for adoption right now. They are not flying out the doors to make room for more.
In today's economy, adoptions have slowed considerably and financially, fewer people qualify. The "unwanted" kids become wards, thus responsiblity, of the state. As it is, budgets are being sliced if not butchered. Funding is being depleted so how are these kids being cared for properly? They ain't.
Also think how these kids feel: they are raised in an institution, no parents to guide them, no siblings to fuss and fight with, no aunts to bake a birthday cake, no uncles that can take them fishing or sneak them their first drink of beer, no grandparents to cuddle and coddle them. It is just the kid and many other institutional kids. Depressing, ain't it? But it is fact.
Sure, some of them get farmed out to "host" families. But, the reality behind these is that host families do it for money. Not all, but 99%. Some kids will be adopted by the host family, most will not. These kids will be shuffled from home to home to home. They are not treated like a member of a family or even a member of the human race. They are paychecks; nothing more, nothing less. They are given bare essentials of life. Many run away, some are sexually abused if not additionally physically abused or mentalty tortured.
Next to consider is when does "life" begin? I cannot understand why the great debate. It is clear and simple: life begins when the baby can seperate, and live without assistance, independently from its mother. By without assistance, I refer to being able to breath. So, at what point does this take place?
What was the youngest a preemie was able to live on its own? Was that a normal occurance? At what point does the infant survival rate routinely reach about 80%? Answer those questions and you have the answer to the major question: at what point does an unborn infant become a self sustaining human?
Of course the gov't could impose a law against sex for recreational purposes and impose a law stating sex is only for re-creation. But, I feel like even if they did that, it just ain't gonna happen.
So, as long as there is sexual activity for recreation and not just re-creation, there will be "mistakes". Safe sex has helped, but more for STD's than anything else. Once that "comfort zone" has been reached, risky behaviour begins.
I also believe that men do have some sort of opinion on the matter as well. If the woman does not want the kid and the man is willing to take the sole responsibility, maybe they should discuss the possibility of her giving birth and signing over her rights.
A mutual agreement must be mandated on this matter moreso than "when does life begin"?
If the woman wants the kid and the man does not, she has every right to screw up a man's life. But, the man cannot force the woman to carry, to term, his kid if he wants it and she does not. It took two to tango, but one way or the other, one person gets screwed over and it is usually the man.
My opinion in this matter is the scale must balance and the law should reconize that. Before the child is born, each should be asked what they want. In most cases, the woman wants the kid and the man does not. If this is the case and the woman is advised while abortion is still an option, she should be made to sign off stating she cannot and will not pursue the man for support. She knew that she would be alone in this and she made the decision.
If the man wants the kid and the woman does not, she should be made to carry the kid and sign over her rights and the man not be permitted to pursue her for support as he knew he would be alone in raising the kid. Now, alot of women will say that they should not be forced to distort her body for this. But, I also think that they knew the risks before, during and after sex. Because she will be out of work and taking meds, seeing docs and such, the man,as he wanted the child, must be forced to pay her expenses during her "down time".
Because of the above outlined issues, there will never be sexual equality between men and women. It sounds nice, yes, but only in theory will it ever happen.
If anyone can offer a reasonable solution to this, please do. I don't have all the answers--I wish I did.