The abortion debate, a proposed solution for both sides...?

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!

That sounds intriguing except a huge problem and a few smaller ones similar to the "Why not adoption?" argument.

Huge problem: how to transfer an implanted embryo from one woman's womb to another? Unless I missed some scientific development or misunderstood your question, this is not possible and is not likely to ever be possible. A fertilized embryo in a fertility clinic can be implanted, an embryo already implanted in the mother cannot be uprooted and replanted.

Smaller problems: same ones that exist with adoption. A biological child of the mother exists elsewhere with other people. Sure, you don't have to go through the pregnancy, labor and delivery but the hypothetical "transfer" process will likely be a little complicated for both parties and also, anyone who doesn't someone else raising their child as adoptive parents will likely have the same objection to this embryo transfer.

Another problem: the adoptive mother accepts the child, sight unknown. Plenty of adoptive parents aren't particular, but plenty are and have preferences on disabilities, gender, race, coloring. What if they didn't get what they expected? Problems!

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 don't know what the viability factors or survival rates would be for the three individuals (I'm including the fetus to offend no one.). Let's assume it's safe and effective. Then the only comments I would have are on some of the specifics; the general goal of providing a loving home is a worthy one.

We adopted twins who are now teenagers, so we have put our lives and fortunes on the line for two young lives.

Here are a few comments:

1. You don't need the phrase, "from those who are pro-life." We did not need to be (or not be) "pro-life," to adopt and neither do your prospective mothers.

2. You don't need the states to do this. You could probably open up your own registry next week. You do need the state to make sure the adoption process is legal in that state.

3. You don't need random selection. Actually, you don't want random selection. If you take a gander over at post-birth adoption practices, you'll see that a major shift has occurred in the direction of "open adoption," where both birth parents and adoptive parents often communicate prior to the birth, or in any case before adoption. If you look at this history of adoption practices in the US, you'll find that in the early to mid-1900's, "closed" or anonymous adoption became praxis as social workers sought to give babies a "fresh start in life." Unfortunately, the experience of adoptees over the ensuing decades has shown that tremendous emotional difficulties have been encountered both by many adopted children and families. The shock of discovery of one's true "adoption story" and anxiety about the absent birth family, searching, and strained communications are all factors. This is an argument for becoming more sophisticated and perspicacious in the approach for linking families. Think of it as a life-long link between families, taking place in the daylight, and taking form in as many ways as there are families.

4. Before feeling too good about this, one must puzzle over the fact that while thousands of abortions continue to take place in the country each year, long waiting lists at adoption agencies persist. Your proposal seems to assign the discrepancy wholly to a "convenience factor," if you will. I don't know all the reasons why women choose an abortion, or to what extent they consider adoption, or their attitudes about carrying a pregnancy to term. In other words, how favorable will the proposed option appear to a woman in that situation. Issues could include privacy vs. "going public," at least to some extent; and the psychological issue of the finality of ending the pregnancy vs. contemplating the continued life of the child.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

To be completly honest, it makes more sense than anything i have ever heard. I have always been against abortion but i still find one problem in it. The father, he may want the baby. I know he can probably still have it but that would need to have some weird guidelines set up and a whole bunch of new rules. But if the system took that idea up, it could just cut the father out of it completly too. Very good suggestion though

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.