That has two problems. The first is that your solution is purely speculative, thus not really a choice. The second is that the word “choice” doesn’t really mean choice in the usual sense in the abortion debate. It is a word of art employed by the Left to disguise an action of moral and ethical evil.
When “choice” is usually used, it implies a rough equivalent of options; one may choose to eat meat or vegetables, turn back or go forward, speak or be silent, etc. However, when options are limited by an outside parameter, such as morality, they are then not truly choices between equal options. When given the option of earning money at a job, or stealing it at gunpoint, the moral person has no option. So also is there no moral option between preventing pregnancy by responsible practices and terminating a pregnancy by killing the living organism created by ones actions. Therefore, the use of abortion as a pregnancy prevention method is clearly immoral, and not a viable choice. Once pregnant, the only moral decision is to attempt to carry to term. Sorry for the inconvenience, ladies, but the life of another depends on you at that point.
Our society has determined certain guidelines for justifiably taking another human life: defense of self, defense of others, defense of nation, protection of society after due process, etc. What pro-aborts are doing is trying to make personal convenience of a pregnant woman grounds for justifiable homicide. Knowing that the barefaced facts would be unacceptable to people, they obfuscate what they are doing by calling it a mere “choice”.
So, to take it back to your original idea, you would be better served by making your proposed medical alternative to pregnancy under a different conceptual framework than the abortion “choice” model. If the alternatives of the future are carry to term, abort, or transfer the fetus, by ceding that the abort “choice” has equivalence you make the solution you propose a mere option.
The problem is others are terming what I said as the sam choice as it is said now. They disregard everything I say and write that it is the same choice as touted by groups like NOW. I didn’t do that, other’s did that.
I have said over and over that I don’t like any of the choices available today and that I seek another where no life is lost and choice itself is not lost. It is not my fault others refuse to see the difference or claim there is none.
Many things over time were speculative. Ideas about what is not in the here and now is where advancement comes from. As example I offer this. “Kirk in Scottie” (as Captain Kirk tunes his ‘communicator’) Today we have cell phones. ‘Communicators’ right?
Point being this, ideas often lead to progress even when they seem unattainable in the bginning.
How about if the choice is ‘pregnant or not pregnant’ and regardless of the decision, no life is lost? Is this not progress from where we stand today?
The option/choice (in idea) I am talking about is intended to replace abortion, not simply be added to the list of ‘options’.