... but it is his kid too.

The foregoing notwithstanding, above and beyond those considerations, there is an independent human life involved: the child's. What about the unborn child's rights? Some will say that right now, the unborn child has no legal rights (well, unless you're Scott Peterson and you kill your wife, Laci, and your unborn son, Conner, then all of a sudden the unborn child has rights that magically appeared out of nowhere). The lack of rights of the unborn is perhaps the result of fear on the part of lawmakers to approach the issue because a large part of their constituency has been steeped in the fallacy of 'Roe v. Wade', and lawmakers treasure votes above all else.

We need to consider doing what is right, ethical, and fair for all, and for that reason, I think we need to re-visit the whole legal aspect of the rights of all parties, define those rights, and make laws accordingly.

We are all familiar with the argument "it's my body and my rights come first". Laws against abortion are really no different than laws against suicide, assisted or self-inflicted. It is a fact that "the state" does exercise some degree of control over the physical person and their "rights" ... licenses, permits, court orders, taxes, executive orders, curfews, mandatory education, mandatory innoculations, age of consent ... and the list goes on.

But, again the main issue that needs to be brought to the surface is the rights of the unborn. The fact that they haven't been adequately defined is no excuse to continue pushing the issue under the rug.