text: I have a question related to the abortion debate.  Courts in Canada have ruled the biological father has no right to stop a woman from aborting an embryo he created one half of.  Even if he commits to taking the child and raising it solo, the woman can insist on an abortion.  If she doesn't want the child to be born, the decision is entirely hers.  Doesn't seem fair.  
  
  It might seem fairer if the reverse held true, that if the father doesn't want the child to be born, he could insist that the woman either have an abortion or commit to raising the child solo.  Why should the decision to commit the man to twenty years of child support be entirely made by the woman?  The man and woman created the fetus together; they have equal responsibility.  Yet the decision to abort or not falls solely to the woman.  
  
  It doesn't seem right that one party controls the outcome of a issue that commenced as a joint venture.  Anybody have thoughts about this?