Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

[IGoddessI]

You twisted people aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth.

 

 

 

No. They aren't pro anything. Pro-life and pro-birth don't resort to violence or threats. Pro-life and pro-birth make the change silently within themselves, stick to their own morals, teach it to their generations and aren't out in the streets preaching to others or contributing to the mess. They are anti-abortion.

[mmmcannibalism]

There were some links to the bill on the first few pages which seem to suggest that later-term and partial-birth abortions are only alowed if the mothers health or life is in significant danger.

 

 

 

yeah, it clearly says you can restrict abortions of "viable" fetuses.

 

 

 

goddess--um where exactly did anyone in this thread suggest violence or threats? I know I didnt.

 

 

 

also, I still hold that it is hypocritical to say both that woman have the right to abort an unborn baby and that the church has no right to shut down its own hospitals. Shutting down hospitals, which we dont even believe would need to happen, would be a bad choice of action; however, for the church to sacrifice its own morals and do what it considers murder would be worse. Also, anti abortion=pro life because clearly if you dont want abortion to be legal you are trying to promote life.

[Zierro]

Are you joking me? Would you honestly put your life in the hands of your parent knowing full well they might decide to kill you as a plausible option?

 

 

 

I wouldn't like that because I am on a higher level of intelligence than a fetus. They don't even have the ability to be upset by that decision. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

 

The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself.

 

 

 

Something that can't make a choice should make a choice? What are you saying man??

 

 

 

Nobody in America is born into a 'bad' family and is destined for a crappy future (unless it's a bunch of crackheads, but the child can even escape that if they so choose - it's called governmental protection). The baby should have a choice in whether they grow up into a great person or a scumbag, but that decision should never be made for them.

 

 

 

I disagree. There are many factors a person has no control over in their life. Of course you can always make the best out of everything, but I don't agree with putting someone in a struggling situation in the first place.

 

 

 

...and furthermore, this really isn't a debate about abortion. It's about the FOCA; and the sanctions therein. Please stay a bit more on topic. -.-

 

 

 

I'll talk about abortion in a thread pertaining to abortion if I want to. You seem to be doing it too.

[WookieeMania12]

 

Everyone that isn't an idiot thinks Iraq was a bad mistake.

 

 

 

Thats just plain moronic of you.

 

 

 

Bombing terrorists is not the answer.

 

What if terrorists want to kill your friends and family? You gotta bring out the big guns and stop them before they kill anymore people. Thats logic, friend.

 

 

 

Abortion itself just seems like...I don't know. My logic on it is this:

 

 

 

If murdering a pregnant woman in any pregnancy counts as double homicide, why doesn't killing one member of that 2-member chain result in a single homicide?

 

 

 

Infallible!

 

 

 

I catch the U.S. government in hypocrisy yet again.

 

 

 

CURSE YOU, BARACK OBAMA!

 

 

 

Actually, this has been going on before Obama became president.

 

 

 

I only see it as murder if the baby is old enough to sustain itself (through the help of other human beings). Weighing under 500 grams and being just a few weeks old, I wouldn't say aborting the fetus is a form of murder. It could only stay alive through it's (it doesn't even have a gender at that point) mother.

 

 

 

If I somehow had the choice, I'd much rather be left unborn than live a life of hell & drug abuse, rape, etc.. In dire poverty. Some people are doing their future children a favor by saving them the misery of existence in the worst of the worst conditions. Cinderella stories are movie fantasies, most people who get born into almost-literal hell, will live through it for the rest of their life.

 

 

 

Aborting a child in a developed country, say France, Japan, Sweden, for example, even if it's way too young to sustain itself out of the womb, seems a bit wrong, because it could likely, nearly without exception, survive & life a stable life, even if in the care of a foster family. It is the choice of the mother.. But abortion with the mother's best interest in her mind (and not that of the child's well being) seems like selfish, pre-meditated killing. If the mother suspects the child has any chance of living a proper life, she should give him/her a chance.

 

 

 

I agree with you about abortion with the mother's best interest is plain ridiculous, however, I do disagree with you about aborting children that could possibly lead a horrible life. I of course do not have a counter argument because there is none. However, even if the child leads a horrible life, eventually they will find acceptance (whether here on Earth or with God imo).

[obfuscator]

The same people that want to make abortion illegal are the same ones that don't care for the health of women, they more than likely support wars/invasions/War in Iraq, they want to bomb people for being terrorists, they support the death penalty, they support guns, and they certainly hate social programs to help single mothers raise their child. You twisted people aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth. You only seek to make abortion illegal, you don't seek how we prevent it, and you care nothing for the mothers or children once the child is birthed.

 

 

 

If any party cares about abortion, they care about prevention. We do that with comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives; two things of which the pro-life people cannot stand. Don't tell us we don't care about "infanticide" because we are after the care of people currently alive with their own health, seek to make abortion as rare as possible, and support programs for mothers that happen to keep their child, while you plug away with your Godwin's Law violation shtick.

 

 

 

I do not support abortion.

 

 

 

I think iraq was a bad mistake.

 

Bombing terrorists is not the answer.

 

The death penalty does not work.

 

The only people allowed to own guns should be police, hunters, army, and museums.

 

I strongly support social programs designed to help single mothers.

 

 

 

Try not to generalize and blatantly accuse.

 

If you make the right to bear arms illegal, then only criminals have guns. It's the most ridiculous form of "protection" that the law could possibly offer. The death penalty doesn't work? I assure you people die quite often because of it. Iraq was a mistake? So you would rather Saddam Hussein, and other terrorists kill other innocent people?

 

 

 

But making guns illegal means it is harder for criminals to get guns.

 

The death penalty doesn't work - statistics show that violent crime is much higher in jurisdictions that have the death penalty then those that don't.

 

 

 

And no, I don't want innocent people to die. I do believe, however, that the US invading iraq was, while necessary, horribly planned and executed, and therefore a mistake.

The criminals will always find to get guns. If you take them away from people that aren't criminals, and thus don't have them, the fear diminishes in criminals. Simply put, crime rates would explode. Please show me the statistics you speak of.

 

 

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm

 

 

 

As for the guns, of course criminals find a way to get guns. In canada at least (and I have this directly from an ex-cop) 90% of the guns they seized were either bought legally from a gun shop or stolen from someone who bought it legally.

[dusqi]

Killing those who cannot speak for themselves while decreasing the fertility rate, ultimately plunging the replacement rate less than what's sustainable, therefore lessening overall productivity and forcing tomorrow's children to be unfairly burdened with disproportionate social security payments, is my business (See: Japan and Europe). In fact, it's everyone's business who lives in those countries.

 

 

 

I read that legalised abortion doesn't decrease the birth rate (or only slightly), because women just have the same number of babies later in life when they are more ready for them. Sadly I can't reference the original article since it was a few years ago. A quick google search came uip with this though which seems to say a similar thing: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_brief ... ndex1.html

 

 

 

 

 

The fetus, destined to be a baby, should decide for itself.

 

 

 

Something that can't make a choice should make a choice? What are you saying man??

 

 

 

Haha, also, don't forget, when the foetus does grow into a child, it's not allowed to commit suicide because that's a sin ;) So, in fact, no one is allowed to make any choices. The Bible already made them.

[IGoddessI]

goddess--um where exactly did anyone in this thread suggest violence or threats? I know I didnt.

 

 

 

Many people agreed to the hospital closing down which is contributing to the threats/deaths and the other bs that goes with it.

 

 

 

Many are also preaching that they are pro life. Pro life begins with yourself and your generations. Not out in the streets and taking it out on others over a government decision. They are not pro life, they are anti abortion.

 

 

 

If you don't belong in this segment of people, then it doesn't even make sense for you to open your mouth in the first place :wall:

 

 

 

goddess--a. I know what you are saying but that statement was still worded horribly

 

 

 

By the way, no you don't know what I was saying because your answer in response was horribly incorrect and completely out of context with what was written. I could also be a b*tch and point out which of your posts are poorly worded (there are plenty), but I choose not to. This is thread about abortion, not any other nonsense.

 

 

Also, anti abortion=pro life because clearly if you dont want abortion to be legal you are trying to promote life.

 

 

 

So you obviously have no clue what the difference is between "anti" and "pro". This clarifies a lot.

[mmmcannibalism]

So your saying I can't be against abortion unless I'm going to be crazy about it? Guess I only have freedom of opinion as long as I agree with you.

 

 

 

Again, refusing to help someone does not equal violence. For instance, you see a car crash and a clearly injured man and decide not to go help. You are not being violent, we could argue if your being a jerk or not a good person but you are clearly not acting violently. Closing down hospitals would be a horrible course of action, but it would not be violent.

 

 

 

also, saying be anti something causes more of it is a poorly worded statement. If that is true then being against rape and murder is encouraging it. I know what point you were trying to get across with that, but its too broad of a statement.

[Sly_Wizard]

I read that legalised abortion doesn't decrease the birth rate (or only slightly), because women just have the same number of babies later in life when they are more ready for them. Sadly I can't reference the original article since it was a few years ago. A quick google search came uip with this though which seems to say a similar thing: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_brief ... ndex1.html

 

 

 

I've seen that page before and have referenced it elsewhere. But you seemed to miss this in the article:

 

 

 

The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Fertility

 

 

 

While the simultaneous occurrence of abortion legalization and fertility declines might appear to show that the former was a cause of the latter, in fact the two are not necessarily linked. Some of the couples who aborted their pregnancies after legalization might have chosen another way (e.g., other forms of birth control, abstinence) to achieve the same levels of fertility.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, Klerman finds that legalization of abortion, particularly the broad access afforded by Roe, had some effect in reducing fertility. The effects were larger for first than for subsequent births. That is, legalization had a greater effect on couples who would be having their first child than it did on couples who would be having their second or subsequent child. Legalization had larger effects in cutting the fertility of unmarried women than for married women. Overall, the details of legalization do affect the magnitude of the effect on fertility rates...

 

 

 

...The net effect of abortion legalization and Medicaid funding therefore appears to explain little of the decline of American fertility since 1970.

 

 

 

That states that there is a negative correlation between abortion and the fertility rate. That is, abortion lessens it.

 

 

 

Oh, and here's something else :P

 

 

 

Link

 

 

 

The impact of the personal income tax dependent exemption, abortion availability, and other factors on fertility rates is analyzed. US time series data for 191588 are used in the empirical model. The results indicate that greater abortion availability in the USA is associated with lower fertility. A higher value of the dependent exemption generally is associated with higher fertility, but the magnitude and significance of the effect is sensitive to specification choice. The results suggest that restricting abortion availability in the USA will increase the fertility rate, but a change in the tax value of the dependent exemption will have a less predictable impact on fertility.

[Abe]

How can a person be so heartless to kill a helpless baby, just because they made a stupid mistake? :shame:

[IGoddessI]

So your saying I can't be against abortion unless I'm going to be crazy about it? Guess I only have freedom of opinion as long as I agree with you.

 

 

 

I'm saying the exact opposite #-o

 

 

 

 

Again, refusing to help someone does not equal violence. For instance, you see a car crash and a clearly injured man and decide not to go help. You are not being violent, we could argue if your being a jerk or not a good person but you are clearly not acting violently. Closing down hospitals would be a horrible course of action, but it would not be violent.

 

 

 

I've already answered this question last time but you didn't get it.

 

 

 

also, saying be anti something causes more of it is a poorly worded statement. If that is true then being against rape and murder is encouraging it. I know what point you were trying to get across with that, but its too broad of a statement.

 

 

 

You don't understand the concept of being "anti" or "pro". If you are anti abortion, then that means you are marching the streets protesting, which leads to anger, hate, sometimes even violence. If you are pro life then that means you don't agree with abortion and would never do it yourself, but don't contribute to the negativity that is going on. Instead, you choose to peacefully forward your beliefs generation after generation. You would also seek other methods of peacefully resolving the issue instead of closing down the hospital.

 

 

 

If you were against rape then once again if you are out there marching the streets protesting, contributing to the hate, negativity, some of it might even once again break out in violence you are yet again contributing to negative factors. If you were to be against rape and want to get your point across without making other people suffer then you would do something peacefully such as getting signatures to pass through parliament, you would be educating, you would be teaching moralities to your generation which is making a difference without the negativity. So it is not encouraging rape.

 

 

 

You can be totally against something in two separate ways. You can be anti abortion, which is out there contributing to the negativity. Or you can be pro life, which means you are still against abortion but making the change peacefully. It works both ways you know, the people who are out there protesting for freedom of speech etc when they can just be "pro choice" by discovering other methods to get their point across without the negative attributes attached to it. That being said, we can now remove the "right" and "left" wing labels attached to it. Because it goes both ways.

 

 

 

And it does seem to me that you are "pro life" because you do agree that closing down the hospital would be horrible and I don't think you are out there being all negative. So there is nothing to be defensive about, I just think you and I had a bit of a misunderstanding.

[mmmcannibalism]

You don't understand the concept of being "anti" or "pro". If you are anti abortion, then that means you are marching the streets protesting, which leads to anger, hate, sometimes even violence. If you are pro life then that means you don't agree with abortion and would never do it yourself, but don't contribute to the negativity that is going on. Instead, you choose to peacefully forward your beliefs generation after generation. You would also seek other methods of peacefully resolving the issue instead of closing down the hospital.

 

 

 

oh, so youve decided what the word anti means, I didnt realize we could invent meanings for words to support our arguments.

 

 

 

Well then, being pro abortion means you march up and down the streets protesting, threatening anyone that disagrees with you leading to violence against pro choice citizens.

 

 

 

We can play the game of what exactly anti and pro mean for the rest of eternity, its not based on reality. I am anti abortion in the sense that I would like to see the occurence of abortions be as low as possible while allowing it where it is needed. I dont believe in forcing children on single mothers that will never be able to take proper care of that child, and I dont believe in forcing extremely disabled children on anyone. I support parents choosing life for unintentional children when it will not be a horrible problem for them.

 

 

 

Im not interested in debating semantics, you know exactly what I meant when I said I was anti abortion, trying to twist the meaning of words does not give you a good argument.

[Range_This11]

 

oh, so youve decided what the word anti means, I didnt realize we could invent meanings for words to support our arguments.

 

 

 

Well then, being pro abortion means you march up and down the streets protesting, threatening anyone that disagrees with you leading to violence against pro choice citizens.

 

 

 

We can play the game of what exactly anti and pro mean for the rest of eternity, its not based on reality. I am anti abortion in the sense that I would like to see the occurence of abortions be as low as possible while allowing it where it is needed. I dont believe in forcing children on single mothers that will never be able to take proper care of that child, and I dont believe in forcing extremely disabled children on anyone. I support parents choosing life for unintentional children when it will not be a horrible problem for them.

 

 

 

Im not interested in debating semantics, you know exactly what I meant when I said I was anti abortion, trying to twist the meaning of words does not give you a good argument.

 

 

 

You're an idiot. She's Pro-CHOICE, not pro-ABORTION. Jesus, I didn't even read more than 2 posts and I understood what she said. Her point is completely viable and isn't debating semantics.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

 

oh, so youve decided what the word anti means, I didnt realize we could invent meanings for words to support our arguments.

 

 

 

Well then, being pro abortion means you march up and down the streets protesting, threatening anyone that disagrees with you leading to violence against pro choice citizens.

 

 

 

We can play the game of what exactly anti and pro mean for the rest of eternity, its not based on reality. I am anti abortion in the sense that I would like to see the occurence of abortions be as low as possible while allowing it where it is needed. I dont believe in forcing children on single mothers that will never be able to take proper care of that child, and I dont believe in forcing extremely disabled children on anyone. I support parents choosing life for unintentional children when it will not be a horrible problem for them.

 

 

 

Im not interested in debating semantics, you know exactly what I meant when I said I was anti abortion, trying to twist the meaning of words does not give you a good argument.

 

 

 

You're an idiot. She's Pro-CHOICE, not pro-ABORTION. Jesus, I didn't even read more than 2 posts and I understood what she said. Her point is completely viable and isn't debating semantics.

[/hide]

 

 

 

okay, I see the difference there; however, the change in meaning is signifigantly different between those

 

 

 

pro life and anti abortion imply nearly the same thing, with the phrase anti abortion being a tad more extremist

 

 

 

pro choice and pro abortion have vastly different implications, pro abortion being a label used to try and demonize the person holding that position

 

 

 

So I understand the point, but since noone was called pro abortion(unless I missed), I dont see how the difference between pro life and anti abortion is signifigant other then semantics.

[Sly_Wizard]

You don't understand the concept of being "anti" or "pro". If you are anti abortion, then that means you are marching the streets protesting, which leads to anger, hate, sometimes even violence. If you are pro life then that means you don't agree with abortion and would never do it yourself, but don't contribute to the negativity that is going on. Instead, you choose to peacefully forward your beliefs generation after generation. You would also seek other methods of peacefully resolving the issue instead of closing down the hospital.

 

 

 

Well, pardon me while I go tell the women, the gays, the blacks and just about every other minority group who has ever engaged in unpopular political activism (Marches, sit-ins, protests. You name it) that they really weren't pro- anything, but rather anti- something else, seeing as how they were doing nothing but perpetuating hate and hostility towards their cause.

 

 

 

And, just so you know, Catholic hospitals choosing to close down their doors rather than violating their principles is a peaceful solution. You have an odd definition of the word peaceful.

[Happysniff]

[hide=y_guy_4_life said]

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.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Exactly godammit. You people who support abortion, Jesus Christ, you're practically supporting murder. No matter how far an embryo or fetus or whatever is developed its still a living being. I don't give a [cabbage] if your pregancies weren't planned, you're denying a godamn life. Imagine if you were aborted, you would'nt be able to enjoy life. And anywaym, we're supposed to populate the planet, killing a fetus is destroying the natural evolution of the godamn planet godammit.

[IGoddessI]

Well, pardon me while I go tell the women, the gays, the blacks and just about every other minority group who has ever engaged in unpopular political activism (Marches, sit-ins, protests. You name it) that they really weren't pro- anything, but rather anti- something else, seeing as how they were doing nothing but perpetuating hate and hostility towards their cause.

 

 

 

What's your point? It works both ways left or right winged.

 

 

 

And, just so you know, Catholic hospitals choosing to close down their doors rather than violating their principles is a peaceful solution. You have an odd definition of the word peaceful.

 

 

 

So the rest of their patients (who aren't there for abortion) have to find other hospitals (and may not even get in because of limitations to hospital beds etc) and that's peaceful? You really do have an odd definition of peace. Someone might die or suffer a lot because of that decision. Not to mention the extra anguish people experience and then direct towards them in the process. There are more intelligent ways to handle it, but whatever. We have different opinions of the word "peaceful" so I'm not going to try and influence you, as I'm sure you're already aware you're not influencing me, either.

 

 

 

mmmcannibalism - You either really are an idiot or just really slow today. Everyone else seems to understand the concept but you don't, so we'll leave it there. Oh and I don't make up definitions. I really think you should go look at a few more sources and the history. But chances are you're still not going to grasp it anyway. Oh well you look bad for not understanding the obvious, not me. I'm done with this thread - have better things to do.

[Sly_Wizard]

What's your point? It works both ways left or right winged.

 

 

 

That your distinction based on whether or not how well a group's actions as received to be the defining point of whether or not they're pro- something or anti- another to be rather, well, pointless.

 

 

 

So the rest of their patients (who aren't there for abortion) have to find other hospitals (and may not even get in because of limitations to hospital beds etc) and that's peaceful? You really do have an odd definition of peace. Someone might die or suffer a lot because of that decision. Not to mention the extra anguish people experience and then direct towards them in the process. There are more intelligent ways to handle it, but whatever. We have different opinions of the word "peaceful" so I'm not going to try and influence you, as I'm sure you're already aware you're not influencing me, either.

 

 

 

Wait... So if you own a business which is being financed by the bank, and the bank suddenly says you have to do something you find highly unethical and morally wrong, you would do it in order to please your pre-existing customers? I really don't think so. If the powers that be want to legalize FOCA, overturning already standing "conscious" provisions which allow Catholic hospitals to receive federal funding without being required to perform abortions, then they do so knowing the risk of Catholic hospitals closing their doors. Instead of being mad at those people who refuse to stray from their principles, perhaps the anger would be better directed towards those people who want mandate abortions on demand?

 

 

 

...Naw. That'd be, like, sensible, so you can't do that.

[Zonorhc]

Exactly godammit. You people who support abortion, Jesus Christ, you're practically supporting murder. No matter how far an embryo or fetus or whatever is developed its still a living being. I don't give a [cabbage] if your pregancies weren't planned, you're denying a godamn life. Imagine if you were aborted, you would'nt be able to enjoy life. And anywaym, we're supposed to populate the planet, killing a fetus is destroying the natural evolution of the godamn planet godammit.

 

And I suppose you don't step on grass, pick flowers or eat meat and plants either?

 

 

 

Because if all living beings are equal in your eyes, well, I can see where a few complications might turn out.

 

 

 

Maybe you should consider that some children are brought into lives where death would be a blessing. And that they wouldn't have to suffer in the first place if their mother could have aborted.

[Sly_Wizard]

*Sigh*

 

 

 

And I suppose you don't step on grass, pick flowers or eat meat and plants either?

 

 

 

Because if all living beings are equal in your eyes, well, I can see where a few complications might turn out.

 

 

 

People/humans/whatever you want to call them are not animals nor plants. Why do people continue to engage in these non-sequiturs?

 

 

 

(And since some smart aleck is gonna' be all like "Humans are animals!", I'd like to point out that humans are under the kingdom Animalia, but animals generally refer to those non-human, non-plant, non-dinosaur, non-aquatic [usually] species).

 

 

 

Maybe you should consider that some children are brought into lives where death would be a blessing. And that they wouldn't have to suffer in the first place if their mother could have aborted.

 

 

 

So who are you to decide for them whether or not their life is worth living? That is a decision which should be left up to the individual.

[Zonorhc]

So who are you to decide for them whether or not their life is worth living or not?

 

And what gave you the idea that I would take the right to choose away from their parents?

 

 

 

Who, coincidentally, are the ones who will be taking themselves to the abortion clinic, rather than being rounded up and forced to abort.

 

 

 

The parents (or, as it happens, parent) are the ones who are in the best position to decide whether they can bring themselves to bring a child into their sort of life. Who are you to impose your morality on them when it is they who - as pro-lifers so love to point out - have to decide to destroy a life and live with the guilt of that decision?

[Sly_Wizard]

And what gave you the idea that I would take the right to choose away from their parents?

 

 

 

Answering a question with a question. Very nice.

 

 

 

/sarcasm

 

 

 

Even though you didn't even attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Choosing who lives and dies is not a "right" by any sense of the word. Let's just throw out the whole fetus thing for a moment and assume we have a three month old baby. If the parents decide they no longer want-- Actually, scratch that-- If the parents decide they can longer afford to have that child, would you support their right to kill it? That is, after all, they're "choice". If you say no, then I'd love to know the standards by which you assume the "choice" to kill a three month old is less so than the "choice" to kill a fetus for the same reasoning.

 

 

 

Oh, and try to make the standards somewhat scientific.

 

 

 

Who, coincidentally, are the ones who will be taking themselves to the abortion clinic, rather than being rounded up and forced to abort.

 

 

 

Yeah, allusions to China and/or Russia don't work too well. How about forming an actual response?

 

 

 

The parents (or, as it happens, parent) are the ones who are in the best position to decide whether they can bring themselves to bring a child into their sort of life.

 

 

 

*Refer to the question at the top*

 

 

 

Who are you to impose your morality on them when it is they who - as pro-lifers so love to point out - have to decide to destroy a life and live with the guilt of that decision?

 

 

 

Sweeping generalizations. Also very nice.

 

 

 

/heavysarcasm

 

 

 

I hate the "Who are you to impose your morality on others!" line, because it's idiotic. That's exactly what society, and the laws it implements, aims to do. If I suddenly decide that I like killing people and I go on a mass killing spree, I can guarantee you that the whole "Who are you to impose your morality on me!" spiel will fall on deaf ears, because it's nothing more than a feeble attempt at ignoring responsibility by claiming that what applies to others shouldn't, and doesn't, apply to you.

[Zonorhc]

Answering a question with a question. Very nice.

 

 

 

/sarcasm

 

 

 

Even though you didn't even attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Choosing who lives and dies is not a "right" by any sense of the word. Let's just throw out the whole fetus thing for a moment and assume we have a three month old baby. If the parents decide they no longer want-- Actually, scratch that-- If the parents decide they can longer afford to have that child, would you support their right to kill it? That is, after all, they're "choice". If you say no, then I'd love to know the standards by which you assume the "choice" to kill a three month old is less so than the "choice" to kill a fetus for the same reasoning.

 

 

 

Oh, and try to make the standards somewhat scientific.

 

I'm surprised that you were actually expecting a straight answer, given that your original question had no bearing on anything I'd said, and was verging on an ad hominem by implying that I am comfortable with murder. Your equating abortion to the slaying of a newborn child is one which is, I suppose, necessarily slanted to prop up your opinion on the matter; however, it is ultimately fallacious in that there is a world of difference between a three month old baby and a safely abortable fetus.

 

 

 

That being that the child has human cognitive functions, whereas the embryo/fetus does not.

 

 

 

Yeah, allusions to China and/or Russia don't work too well. How about forming an actual response?

 

I didn't even have to deliberately allude to China or Russia for you to make the connection in your mind. How fitting that you instantly link abortion to two of the cruelest regimes on the planet. It is certainly representative of the way you choose to approach the subject.

 

 

 

*Refer to the question at the top*

 

 

 

Sweeping generalizations. Also very nice.

 

 

 

/heavysarcasm

 

 

 

I hate the "Who are you to impose your morality on others!" line, because it's idiotic. That's exactly what society, and the laws it implements, aims to do. If I suddenly decide that I like killing people and I go on a mass killing spree, I can guarantee you that the whole "Who are you to impose your morality on me!" spiel will fall on deaf ears, because it's nothing more than a feeble attempt at ignoring responsibility by claiming that what applies to others shouldn't, and doesn't, apply to you.

 

I love the way you misinterpret the question as an idle alibi for murder. I ask you, in simple terms, how you can live with yourself for chastising others who, unlike you, are the ones who actually have to make the difficult decision to abort? If you were criticising them for a premeditated slaying carried out in the full knowledge of, and disregard for, the consequences of their act, you might have a case. Except, unlike your strawman of an example, the greater balance of people do not abort because they like it.

 

 

 

It's all very well for you to condemn them as murderers, but people who abort are not necessarily the callous butchers that you seem to imply they are. It is far from a trivial choice for anyone but the most maladjusted of people.

[dusqi]

I read that legalised abortion doesn't decrease the birth rate (or only slightly), because women just have the same number of babies later in life when they are more ready for them. Sadly I can't reference the original article since it was a few years ago. A quick google search came uip with this though which seems to say a similar thing: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_brief ... ndex1.html

 

 

 

I've seen that page before and have referenced it elsewhere. But you seemed to miss this in the article:

 

 

 

The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Fertility

 

 

 

While the simultaneous occurrence of abortion legalization and fertility declines might appear to show that the former was a cause of the latter, in fact the two are not necessarily linked. Some of the couples who aborted their pregnancies after legalization might have chosen another way (e.g., other forms of birth control, abstinence) to achieve the same levels of fertility.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, Klerman finds that legalization of abortion, particularly the broad access afforded by Roe, had some effect in reducing fertility. The effects were larger for first than for subsequent births. That is, legalization had a greater effect on couples who would be having their first child than it did on couples who would be having their second or subsequent child. Legalization had larger effects in cutting the fertility of unmarried women than for married women. Overall, the details of legalization do affect the magnitude of the effect on fertility rates...

 

 

 

...The net effect of abortion legalization and Medicaid funding therefore appears to explain little of the decline of American fertility since 1970.

 

 

 

That states that there is a negative correlation between abortion and the fertility rate. That is, abortion lessens it.

 

 

 

Oh, and here's something else :P

 

 

 

Link

 

 

 

The impact of the personal income tax dependent exemption, abortion availability, and other factors on fertility rates is analyzed. US time series data for 191588 are used in the empirical model. The results indicate that greater abortion availability in the USA is associated with lower fertility. A higher value of the dependent exemption generally is associated with higher fertility, but the magnitude and significance of the effect is sensitive to specification choice. The results suggest that restricting abortion availability in the USA will increase the fertility rate, but a change in the tax value of the dependent exemption will have a less predictable impact on fertility.

 

 

 

 

 

It says that the magnitude of the effect is 2% for whites and 10% for blacks. That's not a big effect, and they also say that it's not enough to reach the replacement rate. Of course, with this kind of study the details are the most important, and we don't have those.

[Maleficus1055]

The Freedom of Choice Act, which I hear has been signed off by Obama (but that doesn't matter) is a Federal mandate (ie, will override states' rights) that will overturn some many state regulations and place a new code for the practice of abortion. Here are just the things that it will terminate:

 

 

 

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states

 

- Forty-four states laws concerning parental involvement

 

- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions

 

- Forty-six states conscience protection laws for individual health care providers

 

- Twenty-seven states conscience protection laws for institutions

 

- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions

 

- Thirty-three states laws on requiring counseling before an abortion

 

- Sixteen states laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

 

 

 

This is...Wow. :shock:

 

 

 

So girls at any age who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant can now go and get abortions, with no repercussion, and, furthermore, without even altering their parents?

 

 

 

Remember when you were a small child, and you'd do something stupid and irresponsible? Your parents would learn about it from one medium and then punish you by putting you in time out. Do you know why they did this? Because they wanted to teach you a lesson! They wanted to teach you, 'What you did was wrong, and you will be punished so you won't do it again!'

 

 

 

Sex may or may not be bad, but getting pregnant when you're underage is, yeah, bad.

 

 

 

Let's say you're a father / mother, I mean, wouldn't you at least want to hear if your daughter was irresponsible enough to go off and have sex with some dude you didn't know about or even hear about?

 

 

 

How is this supporting 'planned parenting' if it's encouraging reckless underage endangerment?

 

 

 

And it even overturns the right of the doctors to refuse to do abortions, which means that many privately founded and funded hospitals, such as Catholic and Jewish foundations, will either be given the option to have to give abortions or close down. My own diocese has made it clear that if this act is passed, it will close it's hospital down to preserve it's ideals on abortion.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the FOCA would make it legal to do partial birth abortions and late-term abortions. Even pro-choicers have to concede that killing a baby who is quite obviously a human being at this point with the only difference being that it still has it's umbilical cord, must be unethical.

 

 

 

For conservatives, this is a huge step in the way of a completely government controlled society that can change at the whims of the Senate, and for liberals, this is a huge breach on the sanctity of the rights of the family to know what's going on with such sensitive subjects like sex.

 

 

 

I don't know. If this gets passed, I'm packing up and going to Russia, where there is at least some sanity.

 

 

 

...and because they're goin' back to communism WHOO!

 

 

 

EDIT: I got the statistics from: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/ ... e-act.html though I did some more digging to find the number of states that it violated and mixed around with the wording a bit. (The way I made it sound at first was unintelligent and unclear.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So abouyt the part I bolded. You think the parents should not let the daughter get the abortion to teach her a lesson? What about the child, who will most likely live a horrible life and be abused and neglected. I have not read any of this thread, but honestly choice is the way to go. People may say "but it's a life" well yes, but who cares? I may sound like a complete douche but it's true. You will kill a spider without thinking, but you couldn't do the same to a "human". It is better for the thing to never live than be abused and mistreated. Just my two cents.