ss_blog_claim=91abee7392f347dc7735a3e80ce75bcf Kristina's Soapbox: Pro-Choice could be Pro-Life

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Pro-Choice could be Pro-Life

We all know that I'm very pro-life.  I'm very anti-abortion.  The idea of a child's life being snuffed out, just because a woman doesn't want to have a baby, is totally outside my thought process.  I just can't get past the idea that we wouldn't let her kill the baby after it was born.  Why do we let her kill it before it is born?  This is not a fight I fight on a regular basis.  I truly believe that legislation is not going to stop abortion.  T believe that it will take a change in our culture to be able to stop abortion.  It will take women not being so selfish as to be willing to kill a baby so that they don't have to go through a pregnancy.

The other day, a friend said something to me that threw me for a loop.  Ever since she said it, I just can't get my mind off it.  This particular friend is pro-choice, but a huge fan of babies.  (Like I said- culture change has to happen there.)  She said, "The ultimate medical breakthrough will be when they can take a baby out of the womb of a woman who doesn't want it, and put it in the womb of a woman who does."  Wow.  That is so profound to me.

So, here is my proposal.  What if even half the money that was spent in the abortion battle, was instead spent on medical research to make that possible?  What if all the money that was spent on trying to convince pro-choicers that abortion stops a beating heart (they all know that, people), was instead spent on finding a way to transfer that baby to another woman's womb?  What if all the money that was spent lobbying congress and for ads to keep abortion legal were instead spent on medical research?  Would this be possible?  Could we perhaps find that common ground that seems impossible right now?  Could we save those lives and give women who want babies new hope?

I know it seems like a medical impossibility.  But, surely we could do it.  It would be worth the research.

1 comments:

Michelle said...

This would be a major medical procedure - surgery - which would require the consent of all parties. I'm sure infertile women would be all for it, regardless of the risks. But a woman who finds the "fetus" an intrusion and a violation would have to be forced to go through the procedure. Even as pro-life as I am, I do not think we should make people have surgery. We should just make them have the baby which is less risky than surgery to both parties involved.

What might happen instead is that technology develops that enables us to save younger and younger pre-term babies. Well, such technology won't develop under Obamacare, but under a free market system, such technology would be developed because parenst want it. We now save babies that are 22 weeks old - fabulous! What if we could save babies that are 18 weeks or 15 weeks...that could be used to offer another "choice" for women who don't want babies. They could opt to have a c-section at 15 weeks and have their unborn child "adopted" by a couple who wanted it.

 
ss_blog_claim=91abee7392f347dc7735a3e80ce75bcf