Recently, I watched a documentary about the Abortion debate. It clearly portrayed abortion from a liberal/democrat perspective. As the presidential election is coming up, one big topic is abortion, which is kind of strange. You would think that the abortion debate is a dead debate, already resolved with Roe vs Wade. But nope, the abortion debate, as the documentary highlights, is still ongoing in the courtrooms and in the general population. Conservatives are not giving up in the anti-abortion regulations. So, even though abortion is fully legal, it has become so difficult to obtain that it's no different from being outlawed. Liberals want to make abortion fully legal and accessible to all pregnant women who want abortion, because abortion is the only choice in a desperate environment.
I reject both political stances and can't understand why both parties just won't come together and work out their differences. I propose 3 different politically moderate solutions to the abortion debate.

Solution 1:
All abortion clinics should be privately funded. This will resolve the debate about defunding Planned Parenthood and other publicly funded abortion clinics. People tend to get very upset about spending their own hard-earned money on something they disagree with or find immoral. People who do support abortion must step up and fund these private abortion clinics across the country. That way, people can still get abortions, if they want to get an abortion. And people who disagree with the morality of abortion are not obligated to fund such a practice. It's a win-win situation.
Solution 2:
If the city, state, or federal government does not fund abortion because of the morality of abortion, then the city, state, or federal government must offer government-sponsored childcare services to alleviate the burdens of the women to look after another child or allow religious institutions to become the guardians of the children by putting the children into religious foundling homes or encourage able adults to adopt more children. The government should also invest in a comprehensive sexual education program in the schools and for people who are considering an abortion and emphasize on the economic advantages of choosing sexual abstinence and solo masturbation as free birth control. That way, people who disagree with the morality of abortion may see a decrease in abortion rates, and people who want to get rid of the child in some way don't have to abort the child to get rid of it.
Solution 3:
Any woman who is considering an abortion must be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies. Her partner must also be sterilized. Because sterilization is a permanent and irreversible procedure, this will reduce the consumption of contraceptives. Before the sterilization takes place, she must be dissuaded from the abortion by being exposed to a discussion about the negative consequences of abortion. This should decrease the likelihood of choosing the abortion. Then, she will give birth to the child. The child will be taken to a foundling home and/or adopted by another family. Meanwhile, she and her own partner must be sterilized free-of-charge, if they cannot afford contraceptives long-term.
My proposals above are just that: proposals. But the purpose of the proposals is to show you that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. Is abortion absolutely necessary? No, I don't think so, if there is some kind of government-sponsored childcare service or religious institution that will take in the child. But currently, abortion may be necessary in desperate economic situations to get rid of an unwanted child, as the prime reason for an abortion is that it increases the financial burden of the household, and taking in another child means decreasing the quality of life for the older children. Why liberals and conservatives just can't come together and figure out middle-ground solutions is beyond me.
Most Helpful Girl