Pro-Choice Solution?

Question

Okay, what do you think of my solution to the Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion question?

1. Since science doesn't know how life starts (see Wired Magazine's '40 Things we Don't Know Yet' article) this is why there is this difference of opinion. I, as pro-choice, contend that until it is born, the child is a part of me, it is a parasite (pardon the term, but a child is not 'independent' and able to care for itself in the womb). Anti-Abortionists claim that as soon as the DNA combines it's a person with a right to life.

2. Here's my solution: Develop technology that can safely remove the child from the womb and grow it in an incubator. They already use these for premature babies, so that's a start.

3. Make the Anti-Abortion people pay for the incubation, and adopt and raise the child.

I bet that would shut a lot of wind-bags up if they had to pony up all that money that it takes to feed, clothe and shelter a person for 18 years, not to mention college education costs.

Okay

Money isn't the only consideration. Do you know the toll that is taken on a woman's body from having children? Do a little research on that too...

Or implant the embryo in an anti-abortionists body and make her the incubator. Get real - if the pregnancy was by choice the woman wouldn't want an abortion, now would she?

Rubbers break, birth control can fail, sterilization and birthcontrol cause hormone problems in the female. Why don't all males get vasectomies until they get a contract with a woman that wants to bear their child? That would be another good solution.

BTW: I don't want to force anyone to do anything: just put your money and body on the line that your mouth is.

On the parasite issue: Is a caterpillar the same species as a butterfly the it changes into?

Ok, why does the woman have to be responsible for birth control? Will someone please respond on the vasectomy idea? Does it cause problems for the men's health? Sperm can be stored and used later if the vasectomy can't be reversed. So many men will con a woman into giving in to him, only to get off free and clear away when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Yes, there are child-support laws, but I know several fathers that spend more time and effort trying to avoid thier responsibilities for ex: taking cash-under the table jobs. So should men be held responsible for birth control?

Anyway, not really arguing for or against abortion, but trying to find a solution to satisfy all sides.

Answer 1

The incubator idea stinks but I thought of the "fetus transplant" idea in the 80s.

I don't know why you think that would "shut the wind-bags up." People have decided to "pony up all that money that it takes to feed, clothe and shelter a person for 18 years, not to mention college education costs" for generations. It's called adoption. And that is basically what this would be. It would just be earlier adoption.

I think the majority of the fetus's would be adopted. Currently there is great demand for healthy babies to adopt. It used to be just white babies, but now any race is adopted as long as the child is healthy & "normal."

Which brings us to the abortion problem this idea wouldn't solve. Few people would adopt a Down's syndrome child (or other condition detected prenatally.) This is where there is much more hypocrisy.

Answer 2

Not a bad idea, but it won't work.

1) The pro-lifers won't adopt all the kids that already need adoption.

2) I have a problem with raising a baby outside the womb. A baby's brain is a bundle of anxiety. The womb along with the mothers heartbeat and all - the whole environment is comforting and calming to the baby while it develops. I am thinking without that, there may be more birth defects and maybe more brain disorders or psychological disorders of infants "grown" in such an environment. Unless the womb could be mimicked completely.

But anyway, we know this will never happen. Nice try though.

Answer 3

I'm pro-choice as well....but your argument is weak and not to be disrespectful, but it's stupid!
.Growing the child in an incubator? Make the pro-life people pay for it and adopt the child? We have something like that today, and it's called giving your child up for adoption to a foster home... Except it's more humane then your science-fiction idea. You have no legal obligation to raise a child. You can give it up for adoption and yes, some pro-life person will adopt the child and raise it...
So really, please have a stronger argument for pro choice next time. You honestly do make all of us sound like inhumane selfish idiots. It is fair criticism, don't take it personal.

Answer 4

You inferred that these were unwanted pregnancies. You said these pregnancies were not by choice. While I don't want to get into the whole pro versus anti abortion argument, I do advocate responsibility. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't engage in unprotected sex. I understand that in cases of rape she doesn't have a choice. However, statistically, cases of abortion due to rape are far outnumbered by mere irresponsibility. We could end the whole argument if men wore rubbers and women didn't sleep with those that will not.

Answer 5

By definition a 'Parasite' can never be of the same species as that of the host, which is why an unborn child cannot be a parasite, but you obviously COULD BE AND ARE.

Answer 6

Thank you for making us Pro-choice people look like idiots. Isn't the whole point of being pro choice is to have a choice. So now you suggest we FORCE pro lifers to raise and pay for children.....you seem to have lost the essence of the word choice along the way.

Answer 7

You refer to "it" as a group of cells and a parasite and then go on to refer to it as a child several times. Pick a lane, any lane.

Answer 8

some of your solutions are dumb, some are just plain stupid. so with your arguement, if you re against the death penalty, you should have death row inmates living in your home? go back to sleep kiddo

Answer 9

It might just work.