I am sorry you are not open to a new idea that solves your opposition. Unless of course your opposition realy rests with ‘self centered’ rather than preserving life of the unborn.
You say apples and oranges and then change the point of why I made that comparison to begin with. The point I was trying to make about organ transplants was that one day they were considered undoable but now are doable.
I would imagine that in those days, people said the same thing about those transplants that you are saying now about the idea I brought up in my initial comment.
It doesn’t exist but maybe it should be researched and developed. That is what happens when a new idea is brought into play, right? Are you jut against this possability 100% or what?
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.