A theoretical solution to the pro-life/pro-choice debate

So I was thinking if there was any win-win solution to all the debate surrounding abortion and I think I found one (though I know it is not realistic in today's conditions):

So instead of an abortion women could have a choice to transfer their pregnancy to an artificial uterus. Through doctor supervision the artificial uterus would provide nutrients to the unborn child and continue to grow and develop. Once at full term the baby would be up for adoption.

I see this option providing choice to the woman, promoting life, and even helps those looking to adopt.

If this was possible would you think it is a better option than abortion? How do you think people would react? Would women be alright with others raising their unwanted child? Would the Right be alright with funding this procedure since I'm sure it would need government funds to be available to everyone?

What are your thoughts?

Well, reasoning like yours is why I support banning abortions after Fetal Viability.

However, Orphanages right now are now generally speaking overcrowded. While your idea isnt terrible, I would want to do other things in addition to that.

• Raising a Child is more Expensive than ever. Find out why.
• Increase access to contraceptives. Comprehensive Sex Ed
• Find ways to staff more orphanages, far too many are understaffed and overcrowded. INcrease accessability to adoption.

How about a magical abortion genie?

@Maroxad: I agree with you, the conditions orphanages are in need to be addressed. However, from what I understand there is a huge difference between adopting a newborn as opposed to adopting a child. There is (supposedly) more people trying to adopt babies than there are babies to adopt. I also hear that the fees associated with adopting a baby is so high it prevents even more people from adopting.

@palasta: I'm trying to find a what it would take for a win-win solution. Do you think this could never be an option?

Probably never. As long as one side is viewed as "baby killers" and the other side as "just wanting to control wamminz bodies", very little nuanced discourse can happen.

Which is why I'm in favor of allowing it after enough time to discover the pregnancy, which as far as I know, should be more like 12 weeks, not 6.

We already have a win-win solution: it's called "pro-choice".

You see, if you want to keep the baby, you can....that's your choice.

If you want to abort the baby, you can....that is ALSO your choice.

The problem isn't abortion, the problem is that one side (pro-life/anti-choice) wants to force their beliefs on the other side.

Whatever happened to the old American belief of "I don't like what you say but I support your right to say it"? Pro-life/anti-choice need to take that to heart.

That just sounds really really expensive. If the pro-life/anti-choice crowd wants to fund this, I say let them, but they're not exactly the biggest fans of science or even the medical field.

Just let people abort. Solves a lot of problems, is proven effective, relatively safe, etc.. I don't think anyone really likes abortions but they're a very necessary thing in our society.

@mrbojangles25:

"We already have a win-win solution: it's called "pro-choice".

No no, that's "everybody wins except for the baby."

@mrbojangles25: ... That doesn't sound like a win for the baby.

Better than "everyone loses except the baby".

:D

Yeah six weeks might as well be an outright ban.

There's a good article about it (will try to find), but even people trying invitro fertiliation don't even know if they're pregnant a lot of the time until after six weeks.

People actively trying to get pregnant don't know they are until after six weeks.

And the language use needs to change; something the size of a grain of rice or the tip of your finger isn't really a "baby" yet.

@mrbojangles25:

And the language use needs to change; something the size of a grain of rice or the tip of your finger isn't really a "baby" yet.

Sorry sir, I've instituted a continent wide ban on changing any more language. We've already have more than enough terms re-defined for this decade. :P

@OmegaBlueUp: What is the point? All day long you could fantasize. The crux of the matter, there is no easy way. If there was, nobody would care. Well, for some it easy to kill unborn babies nonetheless, not so for others.

Not really a baby yet, but I suppose that's what we are debating lol.

Again, my argument is based around people that exist. As far as I am concerned, those critters inside human wombs are still animals (pre-animals, really) and not yet actual humans yet. I acknowledge that is rather extreme which is why I don't often say that, and generally argue along more moderate lines.

But instinctively when people are like "think of the baby!" my response is "**** the baby, think of the actual real human dealing with a really stressful situation right now"

Just to be clear, you care about "unborn babies" (aka not babies) but also want mass death.

I guess you only draw the lines at fetuses and embryos.

@mrbojangles25: to each their own I guess. Thanks for being so straight forward :)

I have a one year old and I see the whole pregnancy as a miracle. I know not everyone sees it that way and I respect their opinion, I just wish there was a better solution for those not ready for a baby.

Shrug. You generally dont understand what i'm on about and/or misconstrue my words. No exception here.

@mrbojangles25:

"Not really a baby yet, but I suppose that's what we are debating lol."

I simultaneously find this to be a horrible statement, yet I don't consider you a horrible person. Does that make me weird?

You're talking about when you couldn't lie your way out of avoiding the fact most (nearly all actually) Democrat politicians are not socialists and the GOP fear mongering is based on fiction? Then you said Fact Checks citing Political Scientists were all wrong because the great "I said so" reasoning.

Anyway, nothing has been misconstrued. I get what you're saying. You don't want these fetuses and embryos, which are not babies or children, to die. But you appear fine with hundreds of thousands dying as you seem to be against vaccines. Or am I wrong about your stance on vaccines, did you change your mind?

Sorry I love to point out extreme cases of Hypocrisy.

Yeah, it is definitely an interesting debate.

To be clear: I love kids. I have a niece and nephew that are my two favorite people in the world. For those that want children, pregnancy is a miracle.

I think ultimately prevention is the best answer to this. There are also not enough options for men; if I were more sexually active I'd probably be snipped (vasectomy) by now just so I wouldn't have to risk the 0.1-2% chance that remains for contraceptive failure, but that is a surgical option and rather extreme.

Honestly, why should anybody be making that choice other than the potential parents? Some law makers and politicians should not be making that choice for them. Besides, the world is already overpopulated. We don't need more bastard or unwanted children in the world. A child should be brought into the world when the parents are ready and wanting the child. That way the child doesn't grow up to be another piece of shit.

The dictionary definition of a baby is ONLY post-birth. Check for yourself.

*Whispers* Artificial wombs are probably something we'll all move to eventually, and they'll start out as a luxury device/service.

I reckon they will remain a luxury device/service for quite some time.

Oooof, wealth gap would jsut keep on growing in that case. Rich working women doesn't need to stop for pregnancy, she and her man can just deposit their goop into these things and keep on living.

Meanwhile, the poor working class have to do it the "old fashioned way" and take time off work, lose wealth, etc.. Insurance would probably deem this "high risk" relative to the artificial womb and probably try to screw people over more. Doctors, of which many are greedy assholes, would probably try to specialize in the artificial method to make more money, lowering the quality of doctors for "old fashioned" pregnancies.

Yeah let's keep the divide growing woooooooooooooooo!

@Maroxad: Unless you are a woman your opinion doesnt matter. Not your body.

@mrbojangles25: Sure, murder is the answer, ok.

*the fundamentalist/extremist has entered the chat*

Just out of curiosity, do you think abortion should be banned outright?

Is the Texas 6-week rule fair? Or too liberal?

Disagree...and agree. While the man ultimately should not get to choose, I feel his opinion should be factored in. That is the healthy thing to do. If the guy is like "Hey, you want the baby, fine. But I'm not gonna raise it outside of child support" then I think that should be factored in to the woman's choice.

I agree, though; not their body, it's her body.

If the man is not going to contribute to the raising of a child then he needs to keep his pants zipped.

Not necessarily. Sex isn't solely for reproduction these days; it's a critical component of a good relationship. It's recreational. It's for fun. It's even a career for many women and men.

Ideally people will be careful when having sex and if a pregnancy happens by accident (whether from carelessness on either/both parties, or contraceptive failure), then we enter into the debate we are in now.

But to say a man that doesn't want a kid shouldn't be having sex is a bit extreme.

@LJS9502_basic: Careful, that's an extremely conservative viewpoint! :P

@mrbojangles25: to say that a man, who doesn't want a kid needs to keep his pants zipped sounds the same as if a woman doesn't want a baby she needs to keep her legs closed.

It doesn't make sense,

dude could wear a rubber and the chick could be on the pill too.

@mrbojangles25: I mean if a woman doesnt want the baby a man shouldnt be able to force her to have one. Of course i have seen women say they want yo abort the baby because they cant financially take care if it. Shouldnt a man have the same out?

@ appariti0n: No its not.

@thenation: it's is a conservative viewpoint tho lol

@sargentd: I wasnt talking to you and no its not.

@thenation: the zip up your pants and don't spread your legs if you don't want a kid is a conservative talking point.

That's what I'm saying. Kind of a ridiculous thing to say.

More people have sex for non-procreative reasons. You shouldn't have to enter into an unspoken contract every time you have sex that "Hey let's have some fun, but if a baby occurs, I'll be there for you and the child for 18 years and probably longer"

No one would be fucking except for wannabe parents in that case. And that ain't right.

@sargentd: False. I have heard people from all sides say those. Its not exclusive to the right.

Probably parents, because they don't want their kid having a kid at age 15.

I agree though, I don't think it's exclusive to conservatives. It's just something cautious people might say lol.

How about this. Instead of abortion, women can choose to go on birth control or not to have sex, and men can carry condoms. :-o.

An anti-vaccer and anti-masker going on about personal responsibility.

This is rich as a motha'.

Anti-vaxxer? Am I now? That's interesting.

I mean when you basically quote anti-vaxxer lies almost verbatim in several Covid threads....

Is this a joke?

@mrbojangles25: Conservatives just claim it is so they can act all high and mighty.

Doesn't matter. Sex can lead to pregnancy and if one is refuses to support a child they created then they shouldn't engage.

Don't be an apologist for deadbeat dads.

prospective parents all want that new human smell.

@LJS9502_basic: Deadbeat dads get a bad rap. 😜

We already have a win-win solution: it's called "pro-choice".

This.

@thenation: My opinion on this is pretty much common western law.

All my proposal would do would allow women to end their pregnancy, AFTER fetal viability.

If you aren't a female, then f%$k your opinion... You are out of the conversation on another persons body. If abortions are illegal, then it should be mandatory for ALL men from puberty to have vasectomies, & they should only be allowed to be reversed when the male finds a partner & both willingly sign that they want a child. All's fair.

You're intentionally trying to derail with nonsense.