To clarify, I'm not referring to miscarriages; I'm talking about so-called "elective" abortions. There are actually 2 things that happen when abortions are administered:
- termination of gestating (ending pregnancy, at any time)
- feticide (slaughter of unborn children)
Now we can more easily see why it has been a problem, which is that the "pro-life" folks are opposed to feticide and the "pro-choice" folks are opposed to laws which prohibit the ability to end a pregnancy; if we outlaw abortion, only the "pro-life" folks get their way - but if we don't outlaw abortion, only the "pro-choice" folks get their way. If you can't already figure out what the solution is, that's okay - I'll give you the answer.
The solution is to make it legal to end pregnancies, but not kill the unborn child. See? That was easy, wasn't it? Am I the only one who has ever considered this option? Why hasn't anyone else seemed to have thought of this? Why do people seem to be stuck in this false dilemma mindset? Perhaps it's because we didn't have the technology to make such an option possible, and maybe we still don't quite have the technology to make it feasible, yet. There might be ways to remedy this problem, but first I think I should explain how the ending of pregnancies without killing unborn children can be achieved.
I believe that there could be several ways of ending pregnancy at any time without committing feticide. All that would basically be necessary is to either transfer the fetus to a surrogate mother, or incubator specially designed to allow the fetus to develop at any stage. An incubator specially designed to allow the fetus to develop at any stage would be beneficial for those who want to have children, but are unable to do so (e.g., for health reasons). It would also be beneficial for expecting mothers if either they or the fetus are in some kind of health risk due to the pregnancy that could affect either one of them. Perhaps it could even reduce or eliminate the need for caesarean sections, as well.
Regarding the remedy to the technology feasibility problem, if at least an attempt is made to preserve the life of a fetus by either trying to transfer it to a surrogate mother or specially designed incubator - but it does not survive, then at least it could be construed as a death from natural causes rather than feticide. I'm confident enough that the "pro-life" community would be much happier with this situation than having to deal with living in a world where unborn children are destroyed, under the guise of women's rights.
Women with no health issues who wish to have abortions because they simply don't want to have a child at the moment, an abortion is basically unnecessary; so they would probably be better off simply carrying to term then giving up their child to adoption, for the sake of both their health as well as the health of the child. If that's not good enough for them, because they want the pregnancy to end immediately, the solution I propose here has no disadvantage for them; not only that, but the advantage is that they won't live to regret that they had an abortion that ended their unborn child's life later on, which has actually happened in some cases. Their child would simply be adopted by someone from a long waiting line of individuals who want to have a child but are unable to. In the case of surrogate mothers who receive a fetus transplant, they can simply be legally accommodated with having the right to skip the adoption process if they wish to be the parent.