The Abortion debate has bitterly divided the country for a long time, but since Roe v Wade the divide has spread into most aspects of politics. It is a 'no-go' issue for many voters on both sides who will not support a candidate who disagrees with them. It has seeped into Jurisprudence and is one of the most pretentious issues in voting in a new supreme court justice. Both sides spend huge sums of money pushing candidates and policies that support them, then fighting everything out in the courts. I say; enough. If some money could be siphoned off from either side, this issue could be put to rest with both sides walking away happy.
We must take both sides at face value. That is that Pro-Lifers believe that the fetus is a human and termination of that life is murder. Pro-Choicers believe that the unborn person (purposely switching terminology) is not actually alive. Further, they believe that the pregnant women should be able to chose if she wants to endure the hardships of a pregnancy. This last part is the most crucial, but they must get over the first part to get around the murder charges.
Controlling law says that viability is the line where the state can step in and regulate as long as their are provisions for the life and health of the mother. For Pro-lifers, this opens up a second avenue beyond trying to pass a constitutional amendment or waiting for the Supreme Court justices to resign and replace them with people more friendly to your cause. Fund medical development that moves viability closer to conception. Once viability is the moment of conception, Pro-Lifers instantly get abortion outlawed with the current laws. This is much easier and quicker then their other avenues.
This may sound like bad news to Pro-Choicers, but it does not have to be. Pro-Choicers should push that research toward artificial wombs able to replace the mother. They also need to develop a safe method of transfer; a safely level on par or better then having an abortion. Once a viable artificial womb is developed, terminating a pregnancy no longer means terminating the potential life. Instead, it means a transfer from the mother to the device where is can grow and develop naturally.
Theoretically, everyone is happy. With mothers able to opt out of being pregnant without the need to kill what is growing inside them, there would likely be very little resistance to passing laws forcing the transfer instead of allowing termination (just to clarify, not forcing a mother who wants to go full term to transfer, but forcing someone who wants to terminate the pregnancy to transfer instead of terminate the fetus). The money spent now by both sides on pushing their policies could instead go to covering the medical costs of procedure and maintenance of the artificial wombs. If any additional funds were needed, charities, especially religious based ones, would likely cover the difference.
Thus abortion would no longer be a dividing issue. Woman could chose to terminate their pregnancy without condemning the potential life. Pro-Choicers are happy that woman are not forced to be "unwilling human incubators" and Pro-lifers are happy that the "legalized infant Holocaust" would come to an end.
Note: this is similar to an article I wrote for the Right World View (RWV Label) which can be found at Berman Post: An Abortion Truce.