Opinion: Can technology help end the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate?

By JOHN CLAYTON
Guest columnist

Monday, Feb. 3, 2014, 11:40 a.m. –  This discussion, if you call it a discussion, revolves around a woman’s right to choose whether or not she should carry a child to fruition … to the point where the embryo becomes a self-sufficient being.

The Pro-Choice crowd purports that it is the woman’s body and she should have the choice whether to carry the child or not. The Pro-Life crowd purports that, from conception, the embryo becomes a person, a living being, and thus has the rights of all living people.

With all this discussion, as it were, let’s address the root situation. A woman becomes impregnated.

So what now? The woman may or may not have the choice to carry the impregnated egg to become a viable person. That is the current law.

On the surface, it might seem that it is either the woman’s right to her body, or the right of the impregnated embryo to survive. It has been assumed that the only way for an impregnated embryo to survive is inside the woman.

What if we can come to a neutral ground? What if we utilize the wonders of medical science to solve this problem?

I propose that the government utilize all it’s resources and money it currently spends to support the publicly funded locations to get a free abortion to the science of harmlessly removing the unwanted, impregnated embryo and place it into some sort of human incubator. So that, at any stage after impregnation, the embryo, though not self-sustaining, could be nurtured and allowed to grow outside the womb to the point where this “embryo” becomes what it should be — a living person. The laws could say that the woman and man responsible for making this new person would not be legally liable for the monetary or any other support.

So now, who intercedes to stop the abortion and uses this new technology to keep this embryo alive? The government or the groups who oppose abortion? I propose that the pro-life group should do it.

I believe that a group of people who believe that this person has a right to survive and live should support the development of the technology to make it possible — in cooperation with the government — to remove the unwanted embryo at any stage of life after conception and to raise the child. Once the child becomes self-sufficient and no longer needs the technology to live, it would be cared for by a non-government entity. At this point, adoption agencies could get involved, as well as privately funded organizations and religious groups who could care for these otherwise slaughtered children to live, grow and experience the fullness of life we all enjoy.

How can this offend either side of the discussion? What is your opinion?

-30-