A few years back, before my eldest was born, my wife and I went on a "Steps For Life" march for the Pregnancy Resource Center. Along the way, we encountered a pro-choice gentleman who, seeing our pro-life paraphernalia, inquired whether we would be willing to adopt all the children that were presently being aborted. As we inferred his question to be directed at the collective you representing pro-lifers, and given that the supply of newborns up for adoption is much much less than the demand for same, we answered Absolutely.
Now a lot of people would be inclined to view this gentleman rather contemptously, saying that it was 'just about the money' for him. But honestly, I'm inclined to view such a statement as an indication that a negotiation can take place in good faith. Frankly, I'd prefer that it be about the money, and the money is no small matter. Money and status drive most of what most of us do most of the time. When we can't see it, it is really more a case of a fish not realizing that it is wet. A person opposing a change in the laws because it will foreseably result in higher taxes and wealth transfers from he and his is a person with legitimate cause for complaint. But indeed there's also the possibility for a real solution here:
What if any child that someone committed in advance to adopt and posted bond for same was illegal to abort? This would necessitate a waiting period of perhaps 3 days on an abortion, something that has existed to buy a gun in a lot of states for some time, and the demographic data of the mother and father (if known) would be entered into the system as well. If nobody stepped up and posted the bond and committed in advance to adopt, the abortion would be green lighted. If they did, then immediate adoption after childbirth would be fast tracked.
Under this solution both sides are enjoined to put up or shut up. The pro-lifers have to demonstrate a willingness to pay for the costs of their preferred policy, and that fraction of the pro-choice movement that is motivated by the lack of desire to pay for a bunch of indigent offspring would be satisfied as well. This sort of thing, where the side that claims principle is opposed to a side that claims cost, is best solved this way in general---make those who claim principle pay for the 'right of way'. What say you?
Predictably, the offspring that would otherwise be aborted of certain demographics would be favored by this 'free market' based solution, but I don't have a problem with that, indeed I view it as more of a feature than a potential bug.