Let's start with two premises. First, let's assume for sake of argument that the embryo does have independent legal rights. Second, let's agree that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body, but does not have the right to harm the embryo. In other words, she has a say in what happens to her, but no say in what happens to the child.
Solution -- each state sets up a registry of surrogate mothers, from those who are pro-life. Anytime someone doesn't want to be pregnant, the state will randomly select a surrogate from this list, sort of like jury selection. The embryo will then be transplanted from the original mother to the surrogate, and both will sign adoption papers transferring full custody to the new mother.
That gives the original mother her personal choice to opt-out of being involved in the pregnancy, and the pro-life people are happy because no embryo will ever be killed.
Seems like a win-win for both sides. Any objections? EarlD: actually, the point is that its a completely voluntary procedure. And the medical procedure to remove an embryo is no more complex than the medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. in theory that would be a good idea if they can get all involved to co-operate that would be great but if any body wanted to make waves it could be disastrous for that unborn child, also both mothers I would think should be tested for illnesses and drug screening done to know all that is involved. it would be expensive too and who would pay for it the government I sure would not pick up the tab and depending on the one wanting the child it would be maybe more than they could afford! but it would be nice to save all the babies from ending up in the trash! To everyone who said isn't that playing God...Abortion in the first place isn't playing God? You give a woman full responsibility to chose to kill a baby anyways....what is the difference? hmmmm
The difference is a life gets to live instead of no chance at all! Report It
Nice solution by the way! I am prolife and a Christian...I say go for it! Report It
yes Too costly. i C!
YAHWEH Sounds rational, but I imagine that the religious front will come up with an argument that your solution would be playing God. Brother that is the best solution I have ever heard. Sounds like science fiction. And nobody likes Jury Duty.
I'd be for it, just to see what would happen when a woman was chosen and told, you have to carry this baby now. Interesting solution.
But I doubt that many of the people who claim to be pro-life would actually agree to this. LOL, isn't that playing God? I think it is a good idea, especially for women who are the victims of brutal sex crimes. That way the baby would stand a chance in life and the mother can resolve herself without the guilt of having an abortion if they cannot emotionally handle carrying the baby. An interesting solution, but dangerous for both parties. What if one dies from the sugery.
Let's face it. Heart doctors do valve surgery on a daily basis and sometimes a strong, healthy person doesn't survive while a fat, aging, half dead person easily survives. This is fact not fiction. It has no rhym nor reason.
Early term abortions are done realtively safely and with no anesthesia.
You want to put the mother under by force, have surgery?
That's even worse of an option!
I'm religious, but I will NEVER inflict my views on someone who doesn't want them by law.
I will NEVER make a Muslim or Jew say the word GOD instead of nothing or Allah!
That is wrong.
It is wrong to FORCE an Atheist to pray or swear to God.
I may not like atheists, but it is WRONG to force them at gun point.
It speaks low of God.
Any God who says get down and kiss my shoe or die, is not a good God!
As a religious person I would not let my 13 year old daughter go through what she doesn't want to because SHE stupidly let a boy do her. I will educate her, tell her what the options are, but ultimately she is my 13 year old and if she is stupid I would bend my own views for her if she really wanted it.
Then I would take my own chances with God. Sounds like a good plan. As long as the pro-lifers foot the bill instead of passing on the cost in the form of higher taxes or trying to make the women who want abortions pay thousands more than they would if they got an abortion. That is indeed a good idea my friend.
But not taking into account that the "pro-life" lobby comes across as pretty committed when it comes to...talking. I'm not sure that the level of commitment will remain when it comes to...doing, i.e. raising the children from unwanted pregnancies.
Nevertheless, an interesting proposal indeed! Interesting solution, certainly original. sounds workable!!! It doesn't sound bad on the surface even to a strong Christian like myself.
But the cry would go up about state-run pregnancies and turn into an Orwellian nightmare.
Also, you are forgetting that many abortions are done in secret because the mothers don't want to face shame. sounds good to me , but i bet it would be extremely cost prohibitive.
Also , the surrogate moms would have to WANT that particular embryo , and lets face it , some may not be very desirable(mom's a drug users, or has disease, or mentally challenged.) I like it theory, but I don't think that it would work. A major problem would be that you can't transplant a fetus, and the mother wouldn't know she was pregnant until the pregnancy had advanced to that stage. The second problem is that a lot of women aren't fit to be surrogates and especially not for a living fetus. There are a whole lot of genetic issues like with blood type to worry about. How about if the democrats keep thier legs together
and then we wouldn't have to worry about it. How about this: we make pro-lifers have thier families and especially their children EDUCATED instead of INDOCTRINATED. Then there won't be a debate. That is a far-fetched impossible idea as well as cost prohibitive.
A better solution is to teach responsibility about conception at an early age to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Sounds like it would be a possible solution if it were only feasible. I embryo can't be transplanted form one woman to another. and most of the time women are 5 weeks or more before they are sure about the pregnancy. Wonderful idea! There are so many people out there that would be so thankful for such a program. Someone has been doing a lot of thinking. "coragryph" for President. sure. sounds great. as long as we're working in the realm of fantasy, how about forcing women to get 'fixed' if they do not want children or are not pro-life. Problems: Cost and the invasive nature of the procedure.
Who the heck pays for all of this? The mother, the surrogate, or the state? If you dare suggest that the state pays for this I will knock you down!
I do like your creative solution to the problem, you have come up with a way that all embryos are not harmed and those who feel strongly about it can take care of the problem. I will have more sympathy for pro lifers opinions when they have provided homes to the currently unwanted chldren in our society!
When you get past all of the lies this is a religious not a legal issue, God gives mankind free will who ordained pro lifers to take it away!
I feel the same about same sex marriage, I am not gay but who am I to persecute or chastise them? ( And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother鈥檚 eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?).
And lest we forget that silly little "Separation of Church and State" issue the government has no place in deciding family values, Marriage and Family are religious and moral issues, The Chinese government does that look how it turns out.
God will take care of his issues, He always has! Your solution does not satisfy your premise. If the woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body. In that case, does the woman not have the right to choose to not have someone remove part of her body for use of another? Not arguing the solution, just whether or not it meets your criterion. Interesting from the stand point that it's put up or shut up. I'd like to see if pro-lifers will volunteer.
Unfortunately the ones who really want the kids probably couldn't be the surrogates for medical reasons. Younger women who can are planning to have their own families.
I don't think that this will teach them social responsibility any more than abortion does.
This could work in hundreds of cases, but not thousands. Oh, if only the wisdom of Solomon would work on this issue.
I don't think the abortion issue will be settled until it is broken down into its simplest terms. I believe the debate is whether or not a woman has a constitutional right to choose an abortion. In other words, can she address the moral issue on her own and not have the state interfere.
I believe the constitution protects inalienable rights, which were bestowed by nature or by a creator or just accidentally happened.
So, does a woman have an inalienable right to an abortion? It seems to me if she did all she would have to do is push her bellybutton three times and the fetus would abort on its own. In other words, she would have been born with the means to abort on her own without artificial means. Therefore, a woman's right to an abortion is not protected under the constitution of the United States.
In addition, nothing in the constitution gives the federal government any power to even rule on such an issue. Since this issue is not a constitutional matter, it must be settled by the states. Moral issues such as this need to be decided upon by each community.
A woman's right to choose constitutionally stops at the choice of whether or not to have sex. At this point in time, I believe it would be the wisdom of Solomon to turn the matter over to the individual states. The issue has fractured the nation. Ok....working with your premise.....if the mother doesn't have the right to harm the embryo, how is it that she has the right to choose what happens to her own body? It sounds to me like she's FORCED to go through this procedure if she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy.
Second, who pays for the cost of the procedure -- the adopting couple or the woman who wants to terminate the pregnancy?
Third, and I hope I don't sound racist, but I believe what would happen is that you would get a whole lot more black, Hispanic, bi-racial fetuses that would go unwanted. What then? If you look at adoptions today, most of the kids left with the state are not white. I see this as a continuing problem, even working with your premise.
What about a different solution. How about when a child is born (male or female), we come up with some procedure whereby they are rendered infertile UNTIL they decide they want to become parents -- then have the procedure reversed. This would resolve an unwanted pregnancy for a woman and, conversely, would solve the problem of men being tricked into parenthood by women? Thoughts?
I'm pro-choice. I have your answer, and it costs all of 50 cents. It's call a CONDOM!
Unwanted children, sure there are plenty. But I bet if you ask any of them, would you have rather of been aborted, killed, and the answer would be no way. Just because the growing human baby inside its mother can't speak up for itself doesn't mean it does not have a right to life. What if you were unable to speak, and someone came along and said... Ah, pull the plug it's an unwanted human adult why keep it around. Next thing you know we'll be killing off anyone that doesn't have the right color eyes, right height, or IQ.
And another thing, for all you mothers that have baby showers for your unborn fetuses, that's what you should be having, Fetus Showers, after all it's not a baby until it's born.
It's funny. It's callad a fetus when it's unwated or an iconvenience, but you you throw it a shower and called it a baby when it's planned.
So what happens if so crackhead mugs a pregnant woman and if the scuffle she loses her fetus. The crackhead could only be brought up on charges for the mugging, right? Oh, you better believe they would try the mugger for murder.
Lets just start calling it what it is, Killing. You try to cleanse it by calling it abortion. How dare you. Call it what it is, or are you too afraid.
It's not a question of religion, it's a simple question of right and wrong. Where are your morals? Obviously, you must not have any! | 