There is one issue with the emotional appeal of turning some into single-issue voters. Abortion has been a divisive issue for as long as I can remember, and I’m old. As one without a direct interest in the controversy, I’d like to try to take some emotion out of the conflict and inject some inconvenient facts into the discussion.

In my April post “Three Storylines Revisited,” I acknowledged the near impossibility of banning abortions in the first trimester since most are by pill. All we’d accomplish is a black market run by bad people. Further, we get wrapped up in the argument about when life begins.

The second trimester is a different story. We don’t use the pill after eleven months. We routinely perform ultrasounds at 10-13 weeks. Shortly after, we start testing the little one. Increasingly sophisticated, we’re learning all sorts of things about the baby. Aided by AI, we’ll know a lot more in the future.

Already, we’re identifying conditions, some life-threatening, that are correctable in the womb. While we can endlessly argue about when life begins, at this point, there is no contesting that the baby is alive. You can’t perform lifesaving procedures on something that isn’t alive.

We’ve all heard “Born that way,” to describe those on the Autistic Spectrum, members of the LBGTQ+ community, and many others. We have no reason to doubt these assertions, but people are “born that way ” for a reason. Some combination of DNA, enzymes, and other inputs determines these outcomes. Aided by AI, we will know the mix, probably shortly. Parents have a right to test results, so there is no keeping secrets.

Undoubtedly, this knowledge will present problems. Not everyone will want the difficulties attending those on the autistic spectrum. Twenty-five percent of Americans disapprove of gay marriage. How many of these people will wish to have an LBGTQ+ child? It’ll be enlightening to see if the current five percent of all abortions after the first trimester continues when this knowledge becomes available or expands in areas of abortion on demand.

Any expansion in later-term abortions will indicate a decline in diversity. Even though Autistics and the LBGTQ+ community, among others, have contributed mightily to society while providing different perspectives, we will likely have fewer of them.

If you have abortions on demand later in pregnancy, we may emulate the Chinese tragedy of abortion for predisposition. The preference for boys under the one-child policy screwed up that nation’s demographics for the coming decades. Most American families now plan for two or fewer children, and preference will likely play a significant role.   

At 12 to 15 weeks, we deal with a living being entitled to our compassion and protection. Add the strong possibility of diminished diversity, and we have solid reasons to join most of the developed world, limiting abortions after that time.

Many States and the Democratic House Bill S 317 allow unlimited abortion till viability, generally assumed to be 24 months—plenty of time to get test results and decide to abort without any questions. Even if we follow Sweden’s better practices, leading to most preemies surviving at 22 weeks, the viability standard solves nothing.

Accepting a ban on abortion on demand only after 12-15 weeks doesn’t mean we can’t provide alternatives. More babies, not less, are in the public interest. For instance, our entitlement programs, such as Social Security, assume a growing number of young people working supporting the aged and infirm. Already, these programs are in trouble due to fewer workers supporting increasing numbers who no longer work. To see the future, one must only look at Japan’s trials with a falling population.

While not restricting anyone’s rights, making people aware of other possibilities and support allows them to make an informed major decision.

Given our need for more people, it’s unfathomable that we have two million couples waiting to adopt. Many are willing to pay for a bundle of joy. IVF has made great strides, but more is needed to provide a broader solution. Unfortunately, tangled adoption agency rules, lawyers, shady characters, and uncertainty frustrate eager parents.

Years ago, I proposed an exchange where a trusted intermediary brings pregnant women together with prospective adopters to make a binding deal. Rather than abort, it’s financially advantageous to have someone adopt, and everyone is better off.

As an aside, the exchange could also handle surrogates, ensuring all sides live up to the agreement without litigation. Rather than heavy student debt or having money to put down on a house, being a surrogate has its attractions. Helping a couple achieve a dream while expanding our population is quite noble.

Even though only tangentially connected to the abortion discussion, U.S. attention to preemies compared to, say, Sweden needs attention. The idea one hospital will treat and likely save the baby while another hospital a few miles away will only comfort it while it dies shows a lack of commitment to life at a time when we need more of it.

The Arizona pro-abortion ballot proposition talks about viability without extraordinary measures as the standard for on-demand abortion in the later stages. Albert Einstein was two months premature. In 1879, I’m sure they took “extraordinary measures” to save him. With so many great people being premature, we have to do better.

Instead of super expensive programs, it makes sense to do simpler things, such as getting babies to the millions who dream of them and saving babies already conceived.

Making it easier for NGOs to raise money to help and guide the pregnant should be a given. Those advocating against abortion need to put their money where their mouths are and contribute so one can see there is a path to having the baby and a good life.

Even if we don’t curtail abortion before 12 to 15 weeks, we can provide options that benefit the mother, baby, and the nation. Suppose we put aside our emotions and look at the situation from all sides. In that case, we can develop policies that may not be perfect but work better for more people—viewing abortion in the broader context of our need for more, not fewer people, is in our best interest.