Okay so I went back and actually read your article. Certainly you haven't responded to the things I said in my writing here but to the abortion issue as a whole. Sort of.
I still see that the first point you've written is to "allow an arbitrary abortion until the fetus becomes self-aware, or 3 months, whichever comes first." I don't see that you changed anything there. First off, what do you even mean by "self aware"? How do you propose measuring the self-awareness of a fetus? You can't. Self-awareness is defined as "conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires." Humans don't even gain bodily self awareness (for example recognizing their reflection as being themself) until 18 months old. So this demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of human awareness and psychology.
Regarding your second point, at what point does a person's personal right to privacy supercede this plan? You are suggesting having the DNA of every new baby born put into a database. I can't even imagine the things that could be done with that information. Maybe some people would not care, but it seems to me that is going to be viewed as a HUGE violation to many people. You can say all you want that things would need to be put in place to protect the data from getting out but we all know that 1. Breeches occur and 2. Our government is increasingly more known for violating boundaries and ignoring the law and human rights.
Your article largely reads like something written by someone who is theorizing without having dealt with these issues firsthand, and without a deep knowledge of how things work or the physical and medical aspects of this. For example, you say:
"Perhaps the fetus should be removed and implanted in a Pro-Life surrogate mother or test tube, then assigned to a Pro-life family to pay for and raise, instead of doing a normal abortion."
This is not a thing that medical science is capable of. Also, there is a pretty big psychological difference between terminating an unwanted pregnancy and knowing that there is a baby out there made of your generic materials that you have no control over. That is not an alternative to abortion. It is still forcing a pregnancy to go to term even if it is in some other theoretical uterus.
Regarding your points about the pro-choice movement:
1. NO ONE is in favor of late term abortions. They are done because a baby has horrible medical issues that are incompatible with life. When people say that folks who are pro choice are asking for the right to abort 8 month old babies they are being ridiculous and inflammatory. That is not a thing.
2. I am not sure I understand your insistence that there needs to be a legal time limit on women's arbitrary (btw, your repeated use of the word arbitrary really minimizes this entire issue) decisions.
Not all babies have their footprints taken. It is not done for identification, it is done mostly as a keepsake for the family. Comparing it to taking a baby's DNA at birth is not a valid comparison.
There is just so much in your article that you are acting like is simple but is far from it. Saying things like that it would be "simple" to get the DNA from a rape kit ignores the fact that the great majority of rapes are not reported, that the ones that are may occur with a condom or no DNA left behind, and that there are years and years worth of rape kits at hundreds of places in the US that are backlogged and not processed.
What you're suggesting goes far beyond anything having to do with the abortion debate. You are suggesting that the government insert itself FURTHER into our lives, families, and personal business.
Calling the two sides "sadistic" is dismissive. I second everything Virginia Gilbert said in her well written response to your "solution." It is too simplistic and ignores too much reality to be taken seriously. You haven't done a thing here to listen to women or to support us, you're just another guy coming up with your own solution.