I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.
So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.
First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.
I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.
Thoughts?
I have seem similar proposals before, and basically, there is one big problem.
There is no way it is biologically possible to do this without major, serious surgery that is dramatically more dangerous than an abortion. I doubt there is any way to do it without basically opening up the uterus even bigger than a C-section does. It would probably be a very long surgery as well, increasing risks to the woman even more, and the scarring of the uterus could have serious consequences for her future fertility and ability to support a pregnancy later on if she wishes to.
The reason this would inevitably be the case is because an embryo cannot survive -- not even for a second -- without connection to a life source. So, in essence, the surgeons would need to get inside her uterus and transfer the umbilical life support systems one pain-staking piece at a time. There is no way around this. No matter how good technology gets, the limits of biology don't change. And the biological limits of an embryo are that it cannot exist without a consistent and direct connection to a life source at all times.
It would be arduous, dangerous, insanely expensive, and potentially disfguring.
And if it existed, I am all in favor of it being a choice.
But a procedure with so many risks and such high costs could never be an ethical mandated replacement for something like abortion, which is so exceptionally safe and quick, and financially within the reach of far more women. To force a woman into a procedure she probably couldn't afford even with an entire year of her wages (remember, financial problems are a big reason for abortion) and that puts her in such danger and could possibly even cost her future pregnancies is arguably just as bad as forcing her through the pregnancy.
The severity of the cost just creates too much of an ethical problem for this to replace abortion by force of law. And of course, this is to say nothing about where we would find parents for these millions of homeless children, when we don't have enough adopters as it is.
