It’s hard to even understand you. In the abortion debate as it stands right now if you are pro-choice, you are for allowing the mother to decide if she wants to kill the baby or continue her pregnancy. That IS the debate right now - Kill the baby or don’t kill the baby.
You say your aim is to end the debate today and retain choice. So if we end the debate TODAY and retain choice then the mother has the choice to not kill the baby or kill the baby.
It seems like you are saying you want to end the debate today because you believe in the future that a baby can be taken out of the mother and put into another womb which wouldn’t kill the baby. That’s a wonderful idea, but it does nothing to end the debate we are having today on abortion because that option is not available. PLUS, even if that option was available and we retained choice you would have 3 choices instead of two. You could not kill the baby, kill the baby, or give the baby up to someone else’s womb, which would be the same as not killing the baby, but I won’t squabble with you about that.
Even if your option was available today and you gave women the choice between kill the baby, don’t kill the baby and remove the baby to another womb, some women would still choose to kill the baby! So your option does nothing to change the debate on abortion now or in the future.
Elyse, I am pro choice, but not the way you frame it. I seek an alternative choice to ones that exist today because I find all the choices today to have something wrong with them. That seems to be lost thru this discussion when you try to make A choice be THE choice of abortion itself.
The idea or notion or whatever you want to call it is not about TODAY. It is about solving an ongoing problem in a way that finally ends it as a political football. As it stands there is a stalemate and politicians take advantage of that....never really doing anything productive about it. So things remain as they are. I want something better and I want politicians to move on to other problems that face our nation and our world.
Removing various oppositions to solutions is how to solve a problem, imho. I offer that the best way to remove opposition on the other side is to offer another alternative choice. Likewise removing opposition to a solution on this side is preserving the life. When this is done, the argument made that choice is being removed fails in it’s accuracy in merit, so does the argument of the unborn dying on the process.
I believe the purpose of debate is about finding solutions to problems. What I talk about is preserving what both sides really want. On one side, choice, and on the other life. What is so wrong with that an why is it that you seem so against it?
If a technological advance is made to facilitate such an idea, there would be no need continuing the practice abortion as it is done today. Thus, such a practice could be done away with and harm no ones ability to gain that which they desire.
I guess I will ask you this, do you want to end abortions as they are done today in any way possible or are you more interested in doing it your way, an established way, like a simple outright ban with nothing put in it’s place? Do you honestly think that if a Congress just banned all abortions that the abortion debate ends? Hardly. It would be the same arguments that happen now, just the other way around. In terms of my idea, that would not be the case.
The only argument that could be made in that event would be to directly lobby for the right to kill an unborn by choice when a viable alternative exists. No one is going to gain support for such a thing when there is an alternative that gains them a ‘not pregnant’ status. No one will even listen to that foolishness because the case could be and would be made that an alternative exists and their position has ZERO merit because of it.
It is my position that removing choice is wrong. I don’t think it is productive to remove choice entirely. To me, that is trying to solve one wrong with another. I just seek something better.
One possible reason you are finding it hard to understand me is that you are trying to take my square position on this subject and fit it into a established round hole alrready formed in this long ongoing conflict. Is that a corny way to say it? Sure it is. I think that one reason this has gone on for so long is that the debate has become stagnatn with the same old ideas and talking points.
This is why I have this ‘square’ shaped position. Trying something new to arrive at a day where this debate is no longer needed becasue all concerned gain that which they seek.