The Solution to the Abortion Issue

yes, let's develop technology to keep all human zygotes alive outside a human womb which takes a tremendous toll on the environment in the long run, and increases the already huge carbon footprint of the western nations killing even more already living humans in the developing world. and don't forget, you won't be able to give away many non-white babies to good homes. reality check.

 

It was kind of a joke...but it is the truth. These idiots are out having kids, in which case the children become idiots...it's a sad fact of child raising...

 

I wouldn't mind if the OPTION was avaliable.....but it shouldn't be the only alternitive to abortion. First how would this procedure be carried out? How many women would have to be tested on - put in harms way - maybe even die - before such a procedure as extracting a fetus from the womb was perfected? Seems like alot of risk to FORCE on someone JUST becaue you are emotional about the alternitive. Furthermore how would the fetus be removed? The MINUTE the fetus was removed from the uterine lining - where it recieves OXYGEN it would immeditially die. Before the fetus would be extracted - and placed in an artificial womb it would be dead or develop into a severly handi-capped child due to oxygen deperivation. You CAN NOT remove a fetus from the uterine lining with out it dying. Plus there is ZERO guarintee that after the fetus is extracted - should it live - that it will implant in another uterous....it might fail to implant regardless of any science - and still die. It seems like this idea will take ALOT of money and procude nothing but dead fetuses anyway.


Furthermore what if the risks of this operation are MORE severe then abortion? Abortion is SAFE - safer then childbirth even. It is a procedure that has been shown to be safe many times over. There are only slight risks in abortion. Should women be FORCED through a riskier procedure which might still end in a dead fetus - just because its what someone else wants for thier body?

Furthermore such an idea WOULD be adoption - another type of adoption - but adoption none the less. Not every woman is comfterable with adoption - regardless of how long they have gestated a fetus. What about women who have been harmed by adoption and WILL NOT choose adoption for any child - especially thier child? Why should someone who can't raise a child but it 100 percent anti-adoption be FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to place a child for adoption AGIANST THIER WILL? Reminds me too much of "The girls who went away". It's NOT ethicle.

This idea while passionate on your part - doesn't seem reality based.

 

"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.)"

And how would this institution be formed? How would you find enough people in the world to care for the SEVRAL HUNDRED THOUSAND "abortion survivors" that would be a result of your little plan EVERY YEAR? There would be MILLIONS of these homeless children - there would not be enough adults in the world to care for every one of them. Your plan isin't based on reality - its based on ideology - phantasy. Look at the foster care system - they STRUGGLE for foster homes for 500,000 children already in existence. There are not ENOUGH adults to care for all these children.....but you want to add MILLIONS to that list? When we can't even find foster parents for the children already here? How insane. And one "ranch" won't fit a million children on it....sorry. The children that result would need thier OWN COUNTRY to house them all.

"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?"

I am anti-adoption....100 percent. Adoption is not a lala land sugarcoated lovey dovey little fairtayle in most situations. EVERYONE involved in adoption experiences LOSS, grief, and some degree of suffering because of that loss. I won't force that on any child. If I can't raise MY child then I will not birth it or gestate it. Furthermore my choice not to be a parent WOULD NOT be honored. I will still be FORCED into biological parenthood - and be FORCED to give up a child for adoption agianst my will. I would be FORCED to become a parent when I didn't want to be....regardless for how long gestated or if I raised the child myself or not. That is NOT honoring my wishes.

"Such fetuses wouldn't be aborted for the same reason we don't put disabled people or people with cerebral paulsy to death."

Those people are ALIVE they are SENTIENT...quite unlike a first tri-mester fetus that can't feel pain, think, know it exists, care it exists, or care if it lives or dies. First tirmester fetuses are NOT alive the same way a disabled person is alive. They are only alive on a cellular level. Disabled people are CITIZENS under the law with LEGAL rights. Personhood is legally defined as begining upon birth. Fetuses are not persons with rights under the law. Disabled people are.....BIG HUGE diffrence there.

"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. "

Who says thier quality of life is "lesser". Maybe they don't think so. They are human beings with the ability to decide for themselves. Disability's don't make people revert back to fetuses with no brain function. There is NOT enough money in the government or the world for your plan - there are not enough human caregivers for your plan....and another thing...why not use this money (which obviousley in your mind would be raised with ease and come in the millions to fund your little program) for children who ALREADY EXIST? Who are STARVING to death....who are SUFFERING. Why use this money to force fetuses (who can't suffer) into "life" instead of using it to RELEAVE suffering for children who ALREADY exist? Makes little sence to me. If all these millions of dollars can so easily be raised to care for children - there is ZERO reason who millions can be spent on an unthinking, unfeeling, only cellularly alive embryo - but a child still has to starve to death for lack of food or die of disease because they can't afford a doctor.

""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.""

Why are we doomed? I won't waste my time forcing embryo's into existence. If I am going to volunteer for ANY cause it won't be this one - and I'm sure MILLIONS of people would agree. This plan is creepy and bizar. I wouldn't waste my time or money on FORCING embryo's into existence in a world where there isin't enough money or enough people to care for them. I would rather feed a child who would rather die of starvation with my money and time. That child already exists and is already suffering.

"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! "

This wouldn't happen. Sorry. Look at the kids in foster care. Look how emotionally damaged they are because they are unwanted. Look at the emotional damage that ANY adoptee can suffer even if they were adopted at birth and never abused. This will cause a whole generation of hurt child - who were forced to grow up in over-croweded concentration camp like orphanages with out enough money or enough adult care givers to meet even thier basic needs.

"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."

I don't really give a hoot what YOUR version of "morality" is. Your morals have no bearing on MY uterous. I'll make the reproductive choice that is best for ME. And The choices are gestation and parenthood, gestation and adoption, or abortion. How can you "kill" something that was never really alive in the first place? Atleast not alive the way that you and I are alive. Don't we need a BIRTH certificate before we can be issued a death certificate? Things die EVERYDAY. Things FAR more advanced then an embryo or fetus. No one blinks an eye at those deaths. Life is VALUED in degree's. No one - except maybe some buddhists - find every life form to be of the exact same value - to be afforded the exact same rights. I happen to value a woman more then a fetus. So what? And no woman has the right to kill a child. Inficide is ALREADY illegal in most cultures. There is HUGE diffrence between a first tri-mester embryo or fetus and a child.

"Let's stop the discussion of whether abortion should be legal."

Um...no I will not. Abrtion should remain legal. I will never stop fighting for reproductive rights - even in light of your idiotic plan.

"Of course it should not be. Just like all killing."
Um... sorry to say but MOST killing is legal. People kills germs, bugs, tree's, grasses, animals for food exc. Killing is legal. Killing will remain legal. It is even legal to kill other humans in some situations - like self defence - or in the defence of a child exc. Its a FALSE sweeping generalization that has no bearing in reality to say that ALL killing is illegal....it clearly is not the case. Murder is diffrent then killing and abortion does not fit the deffinition of murder. Abortion can not be murder. It is ending the potential for life sure - but it isin't murder and it isin't the killing of a "child".

"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."

That choice is already legal....its called adoption....it is a valid choice just like abortion or parenthood.

 

Why not advance the technology of allowing all these men that are pro-life to carry these babies to term. I would think that would be more natural than artificial wombs.

And they would have a bond with the child. Why would that sort of technology be any less feasable that glass wombs run by the state?

Until every parentless child in the world is adopted, including AIDS, Down's Syndrome and drug babies, I suggest we leave things up to the woman that has to carry the child to term.

And I think we need to take a close look at war, and the number of children killed during them. Living breathing developed children.

And if we are promoting the state governing the reproductive role of a woman, then let's face this problem head on, and sterilize all males, until they are in a viable marriage with the monetary means of supporting a child. Then there would be no need for abortion.

 

Not entirely true. Some people just don't want children, whether or not they're stable and self-supporting.

Other than that, I agree with your post. Our nation (not to mention other nations) isn't even capable of caring completely for its existing citizens, let alone a bunch of donated fetuses.

 

Our nation also ignores poverty, the poor and the homeless masses. I'm not supportive of an idea "solution" like this.

Altruistic and perhaps well meaning, what is this OP person doing NOW to end POVERTY, the slave class ( homeless workers, the people that make your clothes, grow, harvest and make your food in the supermarkets, and the folks that cook and wash your dishes after you eat out...)

I could go on and on, I mean it's time to elevate and stop throwing a "focus on the family" with Women's Rights with their own bodies.

I looking forward to the time when people focus on the real issues: rich white men in suits that are distracting us with these issues so that we don't pay attention to what they are doing to the planet and the people in this world.

It's the same over in the Middle East. Over there, they keep the Women in the Burka, always worried about controlling their appearance and presence in the world, that way they can't focus on their RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS, RIGHTS TO VOTE, RIGHTS FOR AN EDUCATION, THE RIGHT TO WORK... all that is mote when you could be killed at any moment.

WWW.RAWA.org

I find it so ironic, that folks that want to save this fetus from the woman would then jack that same precious child of a healthy education, screw them of health care, send them to a war as a man to force them into a situation to kill another precious persons (most likely a non combatant child or woman or elder folk) and also kill them on death row to remind us that killing is wrong, so now we will kill you.

Another thing, outside moralty madness... in all of nature when the environment is deemed unsuitable for bringing into this world new life, the female animal has the natural ability to abort, or kill offspring to save resources for the living.

In nature morality doesn't exist.

 

You have refused to listen to the practical argument against the proposed solution. First of all, how safe is it to remove an embreyo/fetus from the mother?

Second, who will raise these children once they are fully developed infants? Social workers across the country are already overloaded w/ cases and cannot preform their duties to make sure the child under their care is safe. One incident involved the murder of a 4 year old child by her stepmother and father while the Child Protective Agency was supposed to be monitering the situation. The child's mother reported the abuse to the CPA & nothing was done. The child had been duct-taped to a chair and beaten for days before she was killed.

http://www.nospank.net/gauvin.htm
http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.d...802002/-1/SPECIAL&template=theme&theme=AIYANA

There are other cases of children being killed by parents when CPA is supposed to be involved, but don't check on abuse reports b/c everyone is overworked and can't handle the case load. They don't have the best track record when it comes to protecting children from abusive parents.

http://protected-to-death-by-cps.memory-of.com/

If the system can't cope w/ only checking abuse reports, how is it going to raise a child? Or better yet, thousands of children who don't have anywhere to go? What about sexual abuse? How can you stop a pedophile who hasn't been caught yet from working at one of these institutions? The risk of abuse would be extremely high, yet who would be able to stop it from happening if today abuse can't be prevented or stopped by swamped social services?

Social workers are overworked as I've stated before and the pay is horrible. Who would want to work at these institutions if the workers can barely afford to support their own families?

Your solution works great on paper, but so does Communism. The USSR and Cuba are proof that reality isn't the same as a theoretical idea. Yes, I agree that the idea is extremely naive b/c it is based on an idealistic world, which doesn't exist. Solutions must be based on reality and reality doesn't support institutions raising children.

BTW, I'm pro-choice but abortion isn't an option I would choose, based on my religious values. However, not everyone shares these views and I am not going to force my beliefs on anyone, especially the idea that abortion is murder. If you feel that way, don't have an abortion but let others make that decision for themselves. Our country is based on freedom of religion and outlawing abortion is forcing religous beliefs on others and should not be allowed. The right to have an abortion must be protected; otherwise, where does it stop? Not allowing birth control or emergency contraceptives b/c it is against Catholic ethics? It is a slippery-slope that I personally don't want to see begin.

Peace and love

 

sorry to hijack the topic but, Cuba is a wonderful country, has the highest literacy rates of any 3rd world nation and is out necessity environmentally more sustainable than ours. It does work (don't believe the propaganda from our government) even with US embargoes. What doesn't work is having our Govt. bully theirs. We have a long history of oppressing the Caribbean and Haiti as well.

Viva La Cuba! I support Socialist Countries all the way! I believe if we had a more Socialist Government, we'd have a better social support system and wouldn't have such disparity here in our own backyards.

The USSR is a whole other fish to fry, as well as our conjoined twin CHINA

 

that idea sounds like an episode of the x files!!!!

 

I only skimmed through everyone's responses and agree with many of them... but let me also add:

An institution raising a child? It sounds all a little too Brave New World to me. Let's take a quick look at how well government-funded (because this kind of project would cost hundreds of millions of dollars) institutions have faired in the past: Prisons... yikes. Group homes... a nightmare. Child Protection Agencies... under par. How could you expect an "institution" to raise thousands and thousands of unwanted children? There are enough children requiring care and love in this society. Let's focus on them.

 

abortion is horrible and I dont beliven it.
only if you got raped by your dad or something
BUT DONT TAKE DESERVING LIFE AWAY!

 

Women are going to continue to have abortions, whether they are safe or unsafe. Women have the right and deserve to have proper medical professionals perform them.

 

So don't have an abortion. Let others make the choice for themselves.

Peace and love

 

Hey, I'm pro choice. If you don't like abortions, don't have them. Better yet, adopt all the children that would be aborted. Otherwise shut up.
I would totally go for this though. Both sides win. And I definately think its possible... look how far we've come in science. Artifical hearts!? crazy, ain't it?

 

actually nobody has ever survived an artificial heart, not for long.

 

I'm "Pro Life" (don't like that label personally...)

I think it is so so so so wrong, and I can only support it if its a threat to the women's life.

In the same breath I support increased funding for women who would become pregnant and make it illegal to fire them, and make great maternity laws, etc.

Their are thousands waiting to adopt.

I can understand one not being ready...if your not ready you should give the life a chance and organize an adoption.

I'm sure to offend here, but honestly, this issue infuriates the emotions within me.

1 billion worldwide...gone...

I like the idea of the OP, and it would solve the problems, but its unlikely.

At least in American and Europe their are reasonable restrictions and partial birth abortions/late term abortions are severely restricted.

In Canada is On Demand up until labour...

I dream of a day its legalized again, but in the meantime Canada needs to get some bloody restrictions in place.

 

"1 billion worldwide...gone..."
Dont worry, theres another 6 billion where that came from.

 

the solution is education, and cheap and available birth control

 

At LONG LAST, a open-minded person responds to my idea! It's people like us that'll make it happen.