First of all, let me say this...I believe in freedom of choice, I also believe the destruction to fetus matter is akin to killing human life. Anyone who is opinionated to one extreme or the other has missed the bottom line. CONCERN FOR OTHERS, "Do unto others as you would have them do", the golden rule. The feelings that a young mother may have being left to fend for herself with a young child or a rape victim that was impregnated. On the other hand an wanted lifeform, who has no voice is being destroyed for the inconveniance of their being. So instead of arguing about it, lets look at it from an objective point of view and create a solution using problem solving skills. My Question is how about this? Instead of an abortion procedure using a similar procedure to extract the fetus at a early period of gestation and then incubating the fetus for the term in a proper parent or facility. Also, the possible storage using cryogenics until adoptive parent arrive. More details soon...
2006-12-13 04:33:42 · 11 answers · asked by TAHOE REALTOR 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The cost of the procedure will be free to the patient choosing the procedure. The cost incurred from the extraction procedure, storage, labor and incubation procedure will be passed to the client of those parents, who desperately want children, but can't have them for one reason or another. There will be basic screening process to provide certain standards for prospective parents of wanted children ,who are no longer unwanted. This process will insure the best of homes for these children with little regard for minor details, but much to do with the love for a child. Everyone wins! win-win situation for all parties involved...please feel free to ask questions regarding this preferably using critical reasoning for the progress of this effort of coming to a rational conclusion about this issue.
2006-12-13 04:48:21 · update #1
That is kind of a cool idea--the cryogenics one....you could even save it for the same person if they think they might want it in the future.....but cryogenics is very $$$$$$$$$ which is probably why it isn't done more often now.
2006-12-13 04:42:53 · answer #1 · answered by Christabelle 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. I don't think that is the solution to the abortion issue. We do not have the the technology to do this. Fetal development is extremely complex and we can't simply pull it out. This is very dangerous in late gestation and impossible at early stages. Second, cryogenics is science fiction, not science fact. No one has been cryogenically frozen and then later brought back to life. Third, if if all of the above was possible, I have serious questions as to the constitutionality of forced cryogenic storage of fetuses.
Lastly, it doesn't resolve the underlying concern of both camps on this issue. It takes Choice away from the woman and it treats the fetus as a piece of tissue to be cataloged and stored.
2006-12-13 04:45:18 · answer #2 · answered by Roy C 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If that's his certain quote, then he demands to study the correct use of English. If the tea celebration is bad, that implies the motion is fading away. It regarded to me find it irresistible's simply getting began, so its wellbeing is first-class. If, as I suspect, he implies that the tea events don't aid his boss's rationale, then the correct phrase might be unhealthful. Healthy is a state; healthy is a estate. The meals you devour is not "healthful"; it is lifeless. The meals you devour involves healthy vitamins and minerals to make you a healthful individual. That mentioned, when you consider that he cannot use correct English, how can I count on him to realize that the Constitution, within the First Amendment, on no account supposed for peaceable meeting to be a exhibit of wellbeing? It absolutely does exhibit anything is bad. In truth why do you suppose "ill" comes earlier than "worn out" within the word ill and worn out? You are ill (in an bad state) and it makes you worn out (as so much health problem does). Tea celebration attendees had been very ill and worn out.
2016-09-03 14:54:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll ditto shortdude's answer...
Recent studies regarding teen pregnancy (related to abortions) indicated that a combination of abstinence education at an early age (i.e. pre-teen) followed by sex education (i.e. not abstinence) and availability of contraception at teenage years proved most effective to curb teenage preganacies.
In contrast, abstinence-only programs in high schools often times resulted in increases in teen pregnancy rates (see Ohio). It follows that similar education methods would be most effective to reduce abortions.
There is also Plan-B, a morning after pill which would greatly reduce abortions, if it were more easily available. However, it must be noted that people who call themselves anti-abortion are also the same people who oppose these pills. (Plan-B prevents fertilization but has no effect on an existing pregancy.)
Threatening to criminalize abortion, a position many misguided individuals adhere to, obviously would never work (see drug use in America).
2006-12-13 07:15:34 · answer #4 · answered by phab_4 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It won't work because anyone who wants to abort their own baby won't go through a more complicated extraction process or just complete the pregnancy and place the baby in a loving home. They're way too selfish. I don't want to hear from all the women out there who say, "I believe in pro choice but I wouldn't have an abortion" or the women who had abortions and act like they just went for a simple "procedure". Those clump of cells were half you - your DNA, everything, and you turned your future child into medical waste so don't act like you went for a pedicure.
2006-12-13 04:48:25 · answer #5 · answered by Debra D 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I like your idea. It's very creative. It seems fair in one aspect, yet harsh in another. If our technology could allow us to do such a thing, then I'm sure some would probably make use of it.
2006-12-13 12:51:15 · answer #6 · answered by naturalbornthriller69 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are already too many kids in foster homes now, waiting for a family to adopt them. If we were to introduce more children into these homes that may have never been born otherwise, not only will we have more orphan children in the world, but we will most likely have to pay higher taxes to fund these homes and the cryogenic procedures that you are talking about.
2006-12-13 04:43:18 · answer #7 · answered by jenny 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
sorry, but abortion is a personal and emmotional issue that has no business being dicated by others.
pro choice isnt about pro abortion. Its about keeping the rights that women alreayd have. To determine what can and can't be done to their bodies.
Would you want someone to tell you that you can no longer masturbate? Its the same thing.
there is no solution to the abortion issue, as long as you believe that you have a say over what other people cna do with their bodies.
2006-12-13 04:43:28 · answer #8 · answered by arus.geo 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
I think that would be a great idea if science could perfect the process.
2006-12-13 04:38:42 · answer #9 · answered by clifsdi 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
yes its called contraception and education
2006-12-13 04:44:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋