The Solution to the Abortion Issue

Let me gather some opinions here. People who declare themsleves to be pro-choice are declaring that a woman has the right to end her pregnancy, and by extension must have to kill the unborn baby. Correct? And people who declare themselves pro-life are declaring that no unborn baby should ever have to be killed, and by extension the woman has to go through with the pregnancy. Correct?

Now, lets broaden our minds a little here. What if doctors could remove a baby from a woman's womb without killing it, and keep it alive at the hospital in an "artificial womb" until the baby is more than nine months old? And THEN, what if all such babies were adopted by an agency that raises them? NOT a government agency, but an agency funded and overseen by the AMERICAN PEOPLE!


Wouldn't this honor the choice of a woman who doesn't want her baby? And wouldn't this satisfy those who don't want any babies to be aborted?


Think of all the money the government wastes that could be going to fund this medical procedure, artificial womb, and agency to raise these children!


Isn't the real question here about WHY this solution isn't being DISCUSSED instead of talking about abortion being legal or not????? Don't tell me the technology isn't available to make this happen!

Pro-choice and pro-life women of America, LET'S UNITE AND START MARCHING FOR THIS!

 

That sounds noble, but rather naive.

What about when the child grows up, and they want contact with their birth mother (understandable), but she was unwilling to do so (equally understandable)?
It doesn't ultimatly honour either choice because there would still be someone else to consider.

What about foetuses which are aborted due to genetic/medical issues?
It would be impossible to ensure they were all cared for and had a good quality of life [due to the medical issues]. Consider also the impact of their carers, to bond with a child knowing they would only live a few months or years. And good luck finding enough people who'd be willing to take on 'imperfect' babies in the first place.

What measures of suppourt/theraphy would be in place for these people when they find out about the circumstances of their conception and birth (e.g That they were the result of incest or rape, ultimatly unwanted)?

There is nothing easy and simple about this issue. Which is why I'm pro-choice, every situation is unique and only fully understood by those involved. So every woman should have the right to consider all options and make the right choice in those circumstances.

 

They are way ahead of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

Unfortunately the ethical implications have not been sufficiently discussed.

 

I agree with sage, it is a very very naive idea. The social services in the USA is horrible even if they are private. I worked for both private and government ran social service agencies. I would NEVER trust that a system like this would work. Simply, we don't have enough money to fund such a program. I lost jobs because they ran out of money to pay me. Plus, I doubt this would be okay because of the religious/ethical issues behind it. I'm prochoice because it is UNETHICAL for a government to tell me what to do with my body.

 

A bigger question is are all children embryos worth saving? Would all the anti abortion people be willing to home and raise these children? What if tests show the embryo suffers from a genetic disease or defect, are they willing to home and nuture these children?

 

The institution I'm talking about here would be like a family to the child. This institution would be made up of people who want to turn their own lives around do something worthwhile (like the Peace Corps) Even if these children wanted to find their original parents, they would still know love and a good home. (This insitution may be located on a ranch somewhere.)

The choice of the mother WOULD be honored because she didn't have to raise the child if she didn't want to. Are you telling me most women would rather kill a fetus than have to run the risk of being "sought-out" twenty years later?

Such fetuses wouldn't be aborted for the same reason we don't put disabled people or people with cerebral paulsy to death. Isn't their quality of life lesser than ours? Yet it would be immoral to judge them as "too prone to suffering to live", and quite rightly. It would not be impossible for this institution to care for them if we had the MONEY, which would be raised like the American Cancer Society or other organizations raise funds for their activities.

Like I said, the people operating this institution would devote their LIVES to a beautiful cause. If we can't find the people to do that, then we as a species are truely doomed.

Also like I said, these grown-up survivors of "living-abortion" would be given love and care by the people operating this institution and by the other unwanted children. Think of the brand-new culture that would arise from this institution: unwanted children of all creeds and colors living together, a shining new community born of rejection! Call me naive, but if we all say we are in favor of PEACE, then give THIS form of peace a chance!

I never said this solution would be easy. And every woman would be able able to make her choice. But the true nature of choice is considering whether or not to go thorugh with the pregnancy and raise the child. Death should not have to factor into this decision anymore. For any person to say a woman has the right to kill the child when it can live is immoral.

Let's stop the discussion of whether abortion should be legal. Of course it should not be. Just like all killing. But the CHOICE of a woman to give up her unborn child SHOULD be legal, and it would remain so. Let's start discussing this solution instead.

 

My pro-life leanings aren't geared toward stopping abortion RIGHT THIS MINUTE but rather changing the ideas and attitudes in this country about sexual education. Children need to know their bodies, early. They need to be educated, often. They need access to good medical care and sexual protection. They need to know every option and every consequence.

Would I prefer that abortion not happen? Yes. Can I house every unwanted child? No.

I am not in-line with either side, but I do feel that we don't know enough about the world of a newly forming human to decide if it is indeed a life or not. And I don't want to be responsible for killing a sentient being (sentient being used to describe both physical and spiritual able to reason think and feel).

I do believe the prescribed situation in the OP is naive. It would never work without being corrupted, abused, neglected, and any children that survived it being harmed physically or mentally.

 

Don't forget, almost all groundbreaking ideas are regarded as naive at first.

Yes, we would need money for this system. The issue here is, WHY don't we demand this money instead of just marching around saying "keep abortion legal" or "abortion must be made illegal"?

The government would have nothing to do with this system. Hence, no woman would be told what to do with her baby. The only restriction here would be that the fetus could not be killed, only removed.

 

A pregnant woman. Should she terminate her pregnancy or not?

Who decides?

A government bureucrat (like the one that substituted political weasle words for the plain language of the CDC report on global warming)?

Or the woman herself?

I pick number two.

By the way, who raises the kids? Do they go to church? Which one? Who decides?
Do they eat meat? Do they join the Army? (Does the kid owe the govenment X years of servitude for the cost of feeding it for eighteen years?)

I don't trust the government enough to give them kids to raise.
Currently, the government is willing to kill 14 year olds. (Doesn't sound like a loving caretaker.) Better the kid never existed.

(By the way, the OP said that pro-choicers will "willing to kill an un-born baby." It's not a baby. It's not killing (any more than one kills an appendix). And we aren't willing to do it; we are willing to let a pregnant woman control her body and have a trained professional give her the medical care she desires.)

 

Every time I see someone screaming "pro-life" I want to say, "Excuse me, how many children have YOU adopted this year?"

And honestly, have you ever been raped? Could you imagine being raped and then carrying that baby for 9 months, being reminded of the attack every single day, giving birth and then just giving it away? Especially if you WANTED a kid, just not like that? I would imagine the emotional consequences would be much more harsh than being raped and having an abortion.

 

The OP wasn't talking about forcing a rape victim to carry a child for 9 months. She was talking about external gestation technology that doesn't yet exist. Something similar to the techniques used in Brave New World is my impression.

 

Wouldn't it be lovely if the world was like that?

But honestly, there would be problems. Nothing goes perfectly as planned, sorry to say it. Sure, "Can't we just pretend/imagine?" But here in the real world, things go wrong.

What about abortions for medical reasons? I mean, when they KNOW there's something seriously wrong with the baby, and the mother chooses to abort it? Maybe it really is for the best sometimes.
And trust me, adoption is not always easy on the mother giving up her child. I knew a girl who gave her son up for adoption. It was an overseas adoption, the parents wrote to her and sent her pictures, etc. It ripped her heart out, to know that she had a child out there that she wasn't capable of taking care of, so she gave him up to someone else. She had so much encouragement, all of us telling her that she did a great thing, giving the child a better life and giving a couple that couldn't conceive something they always wanted. It still tore her apart. And I'm pretty sure it still is.

 

Hi Mike,

While I don't trust the government to raise a child, I don't think the issue ought to get ahead of itself. To suppose that the argument would get to the point of discussing whether or not any organization could raise a child is a light year ahead of the game. As the answer HAS to be no, we ought not even bother discussing it.

The rearing of a child MUST be amature. Any semblance of professionality, dogma, principles, or attitude that apply to the rearing of a child in general ought to be extinguished.

The implications of not keeping parenting an amature sport are incredible.

(By the way, abortion is murder, the thing in the womb is a human being, it is not akin to the appendix or baby tooth. It is murder. And yet it ought to be allowed.)

 

The OP postulates a caring environment for the raising of the child. I would imagine that the caregivers would be about as caring as the care givers in today's foster care system.

The government is already taking care of children. I don't see restricting a woman's right to control her body and increasing the number of children the state must care for would count as an improvement.

 

My question is...what if these agencies had a bunch of the wrong people in them?

stupid people breed stupid children. same goes for kids being raised by foster care/adoption parents, etc.

 

I'm not really sure if that was meant as a joke or not.

In the case that it was, I found if funny.

In case it was not. You mean to say that children are not by nature anything other than a blank slate?

 

Of course children have innate abilities in different areas than other children.

Children are not blank slates; they are different individuals. Parents have known that for centuries. Lew Alcindor and Billy Barty were as different in their mental and emotional inclination as they were in body.

 

The issue of "pro-choice" was a landmark decision so that women had a CHOICE of ACCESS to SAFE ABORTION.

Women of ALL ECONOMIC LEVELS TO HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION.

When a woman has to make the decision to get an abortion legal or (BACK THEN, and maybe again) NOT legal (think of out female troops overseas) it's not like "yay" "whoopee" I'm practicing my "right to abort".

It's no party, wether medically induced or physiologically induced. You may not know this but therapeutic abortions happen quite frequently, and this ACCESS to a safe legal abortion is necessary for EVERY WOMAN, wether she has the health insurance or not.

THerapeutic abortion scenario: fetus dies in utero (missed abortion) totally natural, physiologically fetus is inviable and dies, yet the body doesn't expel, thus therapeutic abortion and D&C. Put yourself in those shoes. You are pregnant, but the baby is dead. What would you do if NOT ONE DOCTER in your state's region, could perform a legal abortion (may even be a 2nd term abortion) and you were going to die?



All these efforts to ban abortion has a widening affect. Lack of availability for people without large financial resources most folk live paycheck to paycheck, or are working poor THis is a problem now as access is limited from state to state. (in the past women of privilege could fly out of country and have abortions down safely and legally, see how this is a tool to oppress? ) Also, less & less Medical Colleges teaching the new up & coming. Also anyone remember young women being forced into homes for unwed mothers and being force to give birth, and being force to give up?

ACCESSIBILITY IS THE ISSUE, SAFE & LEGAL...

Too many women around the world die, because even if you "think it's wrong" it's still going to happen. When it's legal, then it can be regulated and standardized and kept clean. The woman has a better outcome, she is watched over and has more support.

Better than the * back-alley * scenario... shudder.

We all want a world full of wanted children. What you are talking about is a real fantasy. I'm sorry to say this, but in a Capitalistic society, with "deregulation" of gov't. creating this "institution" IS naive, also we still DO HAVE adoption and fostering.

If you are for orphanages (because even if you relabel it they are still orphanages) then why not advocate better orphanage funding? WHy not make access for adoption less expensive. I've always wanted to adopt but cannot afford to.

However a new trend in adoption is to ignore those children in our own country and adopt from another country.

I remember watching a documentary on free speech tv about a girl that found out she was adopted out from Guatemala, but also found out that she was stolen from her her birth mother.

I've also happen to "nanny" a girl who was stolen from her birthmother in Mexico and her adopted mother never told her the truth.

And have you EVER met a person that's grown up "institutionalized'? Majority are not happy campers.

Never mind the shitty food.

Abortion IS a tragedy, however sometimes necessary. I am grateful for the work of "pro-choice-ers" and the Judge of the Supreme Court, to make it safe. I know that if I were in any type of circumstance that demanded it, I'd want to have access.

THe sad thing that rides along this issue that some ppl fail to notice, is as the endless debate goes on about the "morality" of abortion. Clinics for womens' health are in the decline.


In my hometown, first they closed down the planned parenthood, then they closed down the planned parenthood in my county seat.

Meanwhile, education is down the tube and most young women in my small rural community don't make it out because they got pregnant. They didn't have any access to anything, not even birth-control.

Planned parenthood provides a broad-spectrum of healthcare, like health screenings and lab work, it isn't primarily condoms & abortions!

Also, pleased have a modicum of RESPECT for those women (including the ones who died, because they too were once babies in their own sweet life) who HAD to go through an abortion, REMEMBER no one WANTS to. It's never easy. It's not a party.





:talk2hand

 

Why is that an insane idea? A fetus having to grow in an artificial womb may be unnatural, but if it would prevent death, then it is the most humane solution. It would not give people a blank check to go wild, since the procedure to remove the child would certainly be costly and emotional.

I agree 100% that unwilling parents should not risk pregnancy.

What I want is people to stop arguing that abortion should be legal or not and start making their voices heard to the powers that be to develop the neccessary technology! I want the debate to shift.

 

Ive read in a few differant posts about aborting fetuses with genetic diseases and defects being aborted. Now I know nowadays expecting mothers are givin the choice whether they want abort these fetuses, but whose to say that the child would have a problem in life if they were born with a disease or genetic condition. I do realize that there are children bon with serious health problems. and some end up dieing young or even at birth. But there are many conditions that are not that problematic in life that some expecting mothers are given that chance to abort with. One of them is klinefelders syndrome, which in life there are problems that one with this condition have to deal with. I speak with experience because I have this condition. I love life even though I have to deel with the everyday pain of osteoporosis and arthritis. But I still love my life and would not change a thing.

So whats next do we weed out potential lives for depression or a learning disability.