Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

[warren211]

I'm a Catholic and I dissapprove of both abortion and the Church's threat of shutting down Catholic hospitals. I don't see the logic behind shutting them down. All it will do is add to the death toll as a result of FOCA. As much as I hate to prioritize human lives, there is no way I will stand watching my religion shutting down hospitals, running thousands of people out of jobs, killing hundreds of thousands of sick people, all to repeal an act that will kill innocent babies? I would prefer if the church made a move for a compromise, and not flat out "our way or thousands of sick people across the world are screwed over".

[mmmcannibalism]

I'm a Catholic and I dissapprove of both abortion and the Church's threat of shutting down Catholic hospitals. I don't see the logic behind shutting them down. All it will do is add to the death toll as a result of FOCA. As much as I hate to prioritize human lives, there is no way I will stand watching my religion shutting down hospitals, running thousands of people out of jobs, killing hundreds of thousands of sick people, all to repeal an act that will kill innocent babies? I would prefer if the church made a move for a compromise, and not flat out "our way or thousands of sick people across the world are screwed over".

 

 

 

agreed, but Im annoyed at people saying they dont like churches having power and they church should have to keep its hospitals open.

[p51mustang23]

If your young enough that you're parents are concerned about such matters, then you probably do need it.

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve.

[raven_gaurd0]

Mmm. I'm going to go edit the front. I don't want this to turn into a debate over Church v. Government or about the wonders and the marvel of Our Lord Obama, (note: I'm communist by party and centrist by policy; I disapprove of McCain and Obama, so don't call me a partisan 8-) ) or about the ethics of the Catholic Church.

 

 

 

But yes, private institutions have the right to do what they want. Honestly, if the Catholic hospitals closed down in America if FOCA is passed, the institutions will just be moved to probably more needy countries, so don't play this as an ethics card against the Church. We do consider it murder, and knocking down restrictions around abortion is, to the Church, a lot like easing up on the murder punishment.

 

 

 

Warren has a point, though. A drastic shutdown is a little uncalled for, but I think that the removal of so many restrictions around abortion is pretty radical, too. If I were the Pope right now, I'd try to make a move so that the Church wouldn't be put in such a stranglehold of 'practice abortion or disband'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve

 

 

 

I'd disagree. Americans tend to be the most irresponsible with their choices, and there is the opposite side that values the LIFE over the CHOICE.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve

 

 

 

I'd disagree. Americans tend to be the most irresponsible with their choices, and there is the opposite side that values the LIFE over the CHOICE.

 

 

 

So by that logic (life over choice) you're against the right to bear arms as well? I mean guns kill and you state that Americans are irresponsible...

 

 

 

 

 

Note I'm personally pro-choice and anti-firearms but I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here

[meol]

agreed, but Im annoyed at people saying they dont like churches having power and they church should have to keep its hospitals open.

 

The church simply shouldn't have this direct power on legislation, threatening to close their hospitals, on which the poorest depend. -I don't know all the details of the story, so please forgive me if I'm assuming wrongly, but you know for certain that something is wrong with the healthcare of a country when it depends this heavily on charity. If anything, Obama should use this as a reason to improve State Healthcare for the poor.

[Giordano]

 

Would you kill something that hasn't even proved itself in the real world? All I'm going to say.

 

Absolutely. After all, its just a thing and it doesn't have life.

 

 

 

But is it the right thing to do?

 

Aww I was hoping a grammar nazi would notice what I did there. :(

 

 

 

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

[raven_gaurd0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It doesnt mean you have to get an abortion. Just means you have the FREEDOM to make a choice. Which, as Americans, we deserve

 

 

 

I'd disagree. Americans tend to be the most irresponsible with their choices, and there is the opposite side that values the LIFE over the CHOICE.

 

 

 

So by that logic (life over choice) you're against the right to bear arms as well? I mean guns kill and you state that Americans are irresponsible...

 

 

 

 

 

Note I'm personally pro-choice and anti-firearms but I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here

 

 

 

Yes, I really am. Guns are abhorrent.

 

 

 

And I fixed your size 'cause I'm awesome. =D>

[raven_gaurd0]

 

Would you kill something that hasn't even proved itself in the real world? All I'm going to say.

 

Absolutely. After all, its just a thing and it doesn't have life.

 

 

 

But is it the right thing to do?

 

Aww I was hoping a grammar nazi would notice what I did there. :(

 

 

 

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

 

 

Well, that ball of cells is considered a person by the legislature of the United States in the case of homicide.

 

 

 

Look at the case of Peterson v. Peterson, a trivial court case of a husband murdering his pregnant wife and being convicted of double homicide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Peterson).

[1_man_army]

Yes, I really am. Guns are abhorrent.

 

 

 

And I fixed your size 'cause I'm awesome. =D>

 

 

 

I only asked as a lot of conservatives (I don't know you're political beliefs) hark on about freedoms but only when its freedoms that they like, so I was really just testing the waters. You avoided hypocrisy well, bravo :thumbup: .

 

 

 

 

 

Although I liked the size as it was.

[p51mustang23]

 

And the reason for parental consent in abortion is simply because the daughter has made a mistake; a teenager who has messed up that bad before they're even out of the house needs to be rectified. Or at least, that's the general view that society has.

 

 

 

I ask again: if your daughter was pregnant, would you want to know it? It instills a sense of security.

 

 

 

The daughter hasn't made a mistake. Married couples get pregnant when they really really don't want to sometimes. Often when they are as incapable of raising a child as the teenage daughter is. But no one calls it a "mistake". As to the abortion, it is a responsible choice for her to get one. In fact, if she doesn't, her and the kid are pretty much f***ed. (I recognize that she could consider adoption as a 3rd option)

 

 

 

In regards to parents having the right to know, well, some (may i even go as far as saying many?) parents arn't exactly perfect decision makers themselves. They may force her to have the child due to a decision based off of stubborn religious principles :shame: . And do you really want your parents knowing when you're pregnant? And do they really need to know? If a doctor MUST notify parents, then that would encourage self-abortions, and hidden pregnancies. (young women should feel comfortable in getting the attention they need)

 

 

 

Theres a lot of things we want to know. But you have to remember we are all people, young and old, with our individual rights to privacy. :thumbsup:

[Lenticular_J]

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

 

 

By your logic, I should be allowed to go out and kill somebody just because they consist of less cells than all of humanity loses in a day. I find this thoroughly ridiculous. Also, claiming that a fetus doesn't have feelings? There have been studies on the development of fetuses, how they respond to music and touches and the like. If they were so unimportant, why is prenatal care and maternity such an important part of healthcare? Especially late-term, a fetus is just a baby trapped in a womb.

[p51mustang23]

your a communist...of course you think americans are irresponsible. We havnt had our worldwide revolt yet, have we?

 

 

 

irresponsible or not we have a rigth to make choices.

 

 

 

And taking a life? define life.

 

 

 

 

 

Nick_6464 wrote:

 

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

 

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

 

 

By your logic, I should be allowed to go out and kill somebody just because they consist of less cells than all of humanity loses in a day. I find this thoroughly ridiculous. Also, claiming that a fetus doesn't have feelings? There have been studies on the development of fetuses, how they respond to music and touches and the like. If they were so unimportant, why is prenatal care and maternity such an important part of healthcare? Especially late-term, a fetus is just a baby trapped in a womb.

 

 

 

 

An embryo is not a someone. a Fetus, you could argue.

[Lenticular_J]

Please point out where I said anything about embryos.

[raven_gaurd0]

Communist in name. I fully don't believe it works on a big scale. I have other reasons for believing that Americans are irresponsible. (Bush? Iraq War? A Civil Rights movement 50 years ago? They only abolished slavery 150 years ago, and that was decades after the rest of the civilized world had moved on.)

 

 

 

At any rate, I feel I may have been misjudging something in the resolution and would like to take a slightly altered stance.

 

 

 

I do not approve of abortion, but theoretically, without my opinion being added, I would think it be best for the parents to have to know about this ground-breaking advancement in their daughters' life, but not necessarily have the power to force their daughter to keep said baby. I, of course, would have them keep it and do their best, with the steady and loving support of their family and hopefully the father, perhaps with adoption at the end of the road.

 

 

 

Sex is NOT something to be taken lightly. While abstinence without facts is hardly good, mere education isn't a solution either. We need to educate fully, illustrating the severe complications that could come along with unprotected sexual intercourse. Education with encouraged abstinence under the age of 18, I feel, is the best way to go.

[Giordano]

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

 

 

By your logic, I should be allowed to go out and kill somebody just because they consist of less cells than all of humanity loses in a day. I find this thoroughly ridiculous. Also, claiming that a fetus doesn't have feelings? There have been studies on the development of fetuses, how they respond to music and touches and the like. If they were so unimportant, why is prenatal care and maternity such an important part of healthcare? Especially late-term, a fetus is just a baby trapped in a womb.

 

Most aboritions are caused before 30 weeks, usually between 8-15. At this stage, even if they can listen to Mozart and such, scientists say that they do not feel pain until week 25-30ish. So the death is painless.

 

A three-inch fetus is not a grown adaptable human being and why we are regard them as such is beyond me. The acts of maternity care usually imply after week 20 I would say, maybe later. Well off the average abortion age.

 

 

 

If its a baby trapped in a womb or a inch-long fetus, it is still inside the woman's body and they have the choice to remove it if they wish.

 

 

 

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

It was a joke. I thought that OT was sick of jokes when they told the point of it within it, like those Moti-fakes. I was just poking fun at Wookiee's relation between his thoughts and his grammar. Nothing more. :^o

[Tim]

Theres a Pro and Con to this in reguards to pregnant teens: There ARE times when something goes wrong during sex such as the condom breaks etc and you may get pregnant. In this situation the Girl might have either strict parents, Beliefs or simply couldn't bere to tell them, in which this err... policy thing entitles her to. the downside is some girls who think sex is a sport ( and we ALL know there are girls like this only 13-18 years of age) think of it as a escape route if it happens and doesnt realy teach them much of a lesson, unless the Doctors notice her in once every month then i think her parents might want to know. :|

[obfuscator]

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

 

 

By your logic, I should be allowed to go out and kill somebody just because they consist of less cells than all of humanity loses in a day. I find this thoroughly ridiculous. Also, claiming that a fetus doesn't have feelings? There have been studies on the development of fetuses, how they respond to music and touches and the like. If they were so unimportant, why is prenatal care and maternity such an important part of healthcare? Especially late-term, a fetus is just a baby trapped in a womb.

 

Most aboritions are caused before 30 weeks, usually between 8-15. At this stage, even if they can listen to Mozart and such, scientists say that they do not feel pain until week 25-30ish. So the death is painless.

 

A three-inch fetus is not a grown adaptable human being and why we are regard them as such is beyond me. The acts of maternity care usually imply after week 20 I would say, maybe later. Well off the average abortion age.

 

 

 

If its a baby trapped in a womb or a inch-long fetus, it is still inside the woman's body and they have the choice to remove it if they wish.

 

 

 

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

It was a joke. I thought that OT was sick of jokes when they told the point of it within it, like those Moti-fakes. I was just poking fun at Wookiee's relation between his thoughts and his grammar. Nothing more. :^o

 

 

 

Scientists have proven, time and time again, in all forms of life, that life begins at conception, the very beginning. There is no in between, you cannot put a condition on life. Have you ever seen a video of an abortion?

 

 

 

Even at 2 months old, the fetus squirms, tries to get away from the vaccum that is tearing it to peices.

 

 

 

You CANNOT put a condition on the life of a human being like this. Obama said "I wouldn't want my daughter to be punished with a child". Since when is a living human being a punishment?

 

 

 

Sure, everybody makes mistakes. I can't begin to imagine the agony a woman would go through having and unwanted pregnancy, or being raped. However, killing off the problem is simply not an option.

[Laura]

But onto the point; how is destroying an object immoral? An object consisting of a few hundred cells I may add, cells that do not have feelings or human life into it. An object with cells that numbers equivalent to a day's worth of scratching off skin cells and a shower's worth of hair clogging the tube. It is not a human being but as an object and thus should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its incorrect calling the unborn child a something, where it should be called a someone. Nick the Smartass strikes again. >=D

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

 

 

By your logic, I should be allowed to go out and kill somebody just because they consist of less cells than all of humanity loses in a day. I find this thoroughly ridiculous. Also, claiming that a fetus doesn't have feelings? There have been studies on the development of fetuses, how they respond to music and touches and the like. If they were so unimportant, why is prenatal care and maternity such an important part of healthcare? Especially late-term, a fetus is just a baby trapped in a womb.

 

Most aboritions are caused before 30 weeks, usually between 8-15. At this stage, even if they can listen to Mozart and such, scientists say that they do not feel pain until week 25-30ish. So the death is painless.

 

A three-inch fetus is not a grown adaptable human being and why we are regard them as such is beyond me. The acts of maternity care usually imply after week 20 I would say, maybe later. Well off the average abortion age.

 

 

 

If its a baby trapped in a womb or a inch-long fetus, it is still inside the woman's body and they have the choice to remove it if they wish.

 

 

 

 

So you recognize that the fetus is a someone, and yet believe they're an object? What?

 

It was a joke. I thought that OT was sick of jokes when they told the point of it within it, like those Moti-fakes. I was just poking fun at Wookiee's relation between his thoughts and his grammar. Nothing more. :^o

 

 

 

Scientists have proven, time and time again, in all forms of life, that life begins at conception, the very beginning. There is no in between, you cannot put a condition on life. Have you ever seen a video of an abortion?

 

 

 

Even at 2 months old, the fetus squirms, tries to get away from the vaccum that is tearing it to peices.

 

 

 

You CANNOT put a condition on the life of a human being like this. Obama said "I wouldn't want my daughter to be punished with a child". Since when is a living human being a punishment?

 

 

 

Sure, everybody makes mistakes. I can't begin to imagine the agony a woman would go through having and unwanted pregnancy, or being raped. However, killing off the problem is simply not an option.

 

And I'm sure if you were a women that you'd feel the same. Honestly, I'm not going to the bear the child when I have no idea who the father is. And I'm certainly not going to bear the child when I don't have the financial support to give him a good childhood. And, I never really understood the concept that humans should be valued as such, above other organisms.

[obfuscator]

 

And I'm sure if you were a women that you'd feel the same. Honestly, I'm not going to the bear the child when I have no idea who the father is. And I'm certainly not going to bear the child when I don't have the financial support to give him a good childhood.

 

 

 

This is what I have a problem with, however. Just because you don't know who the father is, you can just kill the baby? What did it possibly do to deserve that? My parents are quite poor to be honest. They struggle to make ends meet, and they have 7 kids. My childhood...I couldn't have asked for a better one. I wore old, hand me down clothes. I got crappy christmas presents. I never had the new toys that everyone else did. I have to pay for college on my own steam. But I was loved. And love is enough to make any life worth living.

 

 

 

In any other situation, it makes sense. But we are talking about taking a human life here, and it cannot be treated so lightly.

[raven_gaurd0]

Theres a Pro and Con to this in reguards to pregnant teens: There ARE times when something goes wrong during sex such as the condom breaks etc and you may get pregnant. In this situation the Girl might have either strict parents, Beliefs or simply couldn't bere to tell them, in which this err... policy thing entitles her to. the downside is some girls who think sex is a sport ( and we ALL know there are girls like this only 13-18 years of age) think of it as a escape route if it happens and doesnt realy teach them much of a lesson, unless the Doctors notice her in once every month then i think her parents might want to know. :|

 

 

 

The girl can be in there once a month, and under this plan it'd still be illegal for the Doc to tell her parents about it.

 

 

 

Like I said, too much control for the teens. And time has proven, again and again, that teenagers and children are not decision makers. (Melanine and gray-matter, anybody? I think I posted that science somewhere else...)

[Giordano]

 

And I'm sure if you were a women that you'd feel the same. Honestly, I'm not going to the bear the child when I have no idea who the father is. And I'm certainly not going to bear the child when I don't have the financial support to give him a good childhood.

 

 

 

This is what I have a problem with, however. Just because you don't know who the father is, you can just kill the baby? What did it possibly do to deserve that? My parents are quite poor to be honest. They struggle to make ends meet, and they have 7 kids. My childhood...I couldn't have asked for a better one. I wore old, hand me down clothes. I got crappy christmas presents. I never had the new toys that everyone else did. I have to pay for college on my own steam. But I was loved. And love is enough to make any life worth living.

 

You were lucky. Not all mothers are going to love their daughters. Having a child is a great responsibility, and unless you actually have been in the situation, you cannot relate.

[obfuscator]

 

And I'm sure if you were a women that you'd feel the same. Honestly, I'm not going to the bear the child when I have no idea who the father is. And I'm certainly not going to bear the child when I don't have the financial support to give him a good childhood.

 

 

 

This is what I have a problem with, however. Just because you don't know who the father is, you can just kill the baby? What did it possibly do to deserve that? My parents are quite poor to be honest. They struggle to make ends meet, and they have 7 kids. My childhood...I couldn't have asked for a better one. I wore old, hand me down clothes. I got crappy christmas presents. I never had the new toys that everyone else did. I have to pay for college on my own steam. But I was loved. And love is enough to make any life worth living.

 

You were lucky. Not all mothers are going to love their daughters. Having a child is a great responsibility, and unless you actually have been in the situation, you cannot relate.

 

 

 

I agree completely. Not all parents will love their children.

 

 

 

But my question is simple.

 

 

 

Does that give you(or anyone) the right to kill an innocent child? Does it? I think not.

[Lenticular_J]

Most aboritions are caused before 30 weeks, usually between 8-15. At this stage, even if they can listen to Mozart and such, scientists say that they do not feel pain until week 25-30ish. So the death is painless.

 

A three-inch fetus is not a grown adaptable human being and why we are regard them as such is beyond me. The acts of maternity care usually imply after week 20 I would say, maybe later. Well off the average abortion age.

 

Yeah, I was just saying. Late term abortions do not fly with me. Earlier are better, although I still find it bad. Partial birth abortions are pure murder.

 

 

 

If its a baby trapped in a womb or a inch-long fetus, it is still inside the woman's body and they have the choice to remove it if they wish.

 

Yeap.

 

 

 

It was a joke. I thought that OT was sick of jokes when they told the point of it within it, like those Moti-fakes. I was just poking fun at Wookiee's relation between his thoughts and his grammar. Nothing more. :^o

 

Oh. Muh buhd.

[Giordano]

 

And I'm sure if you were a women that you'd feel the same. Honestly, I'm not going to the bear the child when I have no idea who the father is. And I'm certainly not going to bear the child when I don't have the financial support to give him a good childhood.

 

 

 

This is what I have a problem with, however. Just because you don't know who the father is, you can just kill the baby? What did it possibly do to deserve that? My parents are quite poor to be honest. They struggle to make ends meet, and they have 7 kids. My childhood...I couldn't have asked for a better one. I wore old, hand me down clothes. I got crappy christmas presents. I never had the new toys that everyone else did. I have to pay for college on my own steam. But I was loved. And love is enough to make any life worth living.

 

You were lucky. Not all mothers are going to love their daughters. Having a child is a great responsibility, and unless you actually have been in the situation, you cannot relate.

 

 

 

I agree completely. Not all parents will love their children.

 

 

 

But my question is simple.

 

 

 

Does that give you(or anyone) the right to kill an innocent child? Does it? I think not.

 

No it does not, but abortion isn't the killing of a child its the killing of a fetus.