Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

[obfuscator]

 

I can see the rationale in cases of impoverished families and such, my real problem is when abortion becomes replacement for birth control. Im not trying to be an anti rights person, but if the family would have no trouble raising a child or making sure it was placed in a good family, then killing it is horribly wrong.

 

That's kind of my view. If the mother/family has a good (And I mean good) reason to abort, then I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. If a couple has unprotected sex, and decides they don't want a baby a few months later (...Or if they're just that stupid), then no. However, if a couple has safe sex, and really does try to avoid a pregnancy, I'd let that slide.

 

You can't really compare abortion to flat-out murder, simply because murderers generally can easily live with their victim. Like I said...Mothers sometimes can't live with the burden of a child. Sometimes it'd just be suicide for both of them.

 

 

 

In my opinion, you are putting a condition on life. You are saying: If it is "easier" for me to kill off the baby, then it is ok. No matter the circumstance, you can never justify the murder of an innocent child, period.

[ThurinEthir]

 

In my opinion, you are putting a condition on life. You are saying: If it is "easier" for me to kill off the baby, then it is ok. No matter the circumstance, you can never justify the murder of an innocent child, period.

 

So you expect mothers who can't support a baby to have it anyway? And then without enough money and/or time, slowly kill herself and her baby?

 

And just to be picky, if you had to choose between killing a child or five hundred people, and you chose the five hundred, would that not be justified?

 

Also, last time I checked, up there with the right to life is the right to the pursuit of happiness. I know one's rights usually end where another's begin, but having an unwanted baby can restrict the mother's ability to pursue happiness.

[Sly_Wizard]

You're comparing violent acts to a question of morality. Big no-no.

 

 

 

???

 

 

 

Why aren't the ancient Greeks or Inuits ever mentioned in these arguments? Both of those cultures practiced infanticide and there was no questioning it because of cultural relativism.

 

 

 

Because we don't live in ancient Greece nor are Inuits.

 

 

 

But we're not even talking living, out of the womb babies here, we're talking about zygotes.

 

 

 

First of all, zygotes are alive. Second of all, people only attempt to make a meaningful distinction between a zygote/fetus and a baby when they're attempting to pass of the former as either being "less alive" or "less human" than the latter, even though there is no rational basis upon which to do this. There is no stage of the developmental process where you can claim as much. It's disingenuous to assert so, at best.

 

 

 

Tiny cells that if the average pro-life person looked at under the microscope, probably couldn't even tell you it was a human being in formation.

 

 

 

Well... That's because all living organisms look the same in the zygote/early embryonic phase.

 

 

 

You can't compare killing an embryo to killing a person because an embryo has no value for life. Hell, a 1 year old has no value in life. They don't know how precious life is or how great it is going to be.

 

 

 

But again, we're not killing infants here. We're killing zygotes that have no meaning in this world. This is a choice, not a choice like choosing which food you want to eat or "going off on a repercussion-less killing spree", but a choice left up to the people that decided to start the matter.

 

 

 

So you're okay with infanticide so long as the person in question is under one?

[obfuscator]

 

In my opinion, you are putting a condition on life. You are saying: If it is "easier" for me to kill off the baby, then it is ok. No matter the circumstance, you can never justify the murder of an innocent child, period.

 

So you expect mothers who can't support a baby to have it anyway? And then without enough money and/or time, slowly kill herself and her baby?

 

And just to be picky, if you had to choose between killing a child or five hundred people, and you chose the five hundred, would that not be justified?

 

Also, last time I checked, up there with the right to life is the right to the pursuit of happiness. I know one's rights usually end where another's begin, but having an unwanted baby can restrict the mother's ability to pursue happiness.

 

 

 

No, I would chose the 500. But if it was a choice between a baby and myself, I would chose myself. That is a much more accurate analogy of what abortion really is.

[ThurinEthir]

 

In my opinion, you are putting a condition on life. You are saying: If it is "easier" for me to kill off the baby, then it is ok. No matter the circumstance, you can never justify the murder of an innocent child, period.

 

So you expect mothers who can't support a baby to have it anyway? And then without enough money and/or time, slowly kill herself and her baby?

 

And just to be picky, if you had to choose between killing a child or five hundred people, and you chose the five hundred, would that not be justified?

 

Also, last time I checked, up there with the right to life is the right to the pursuit of happiness. I know one's rights usually end where another's begin, but having an unwanted baby can restrict the mother's ability to pursue happiness.

 

 

 

No, I would chose the 500. But if it was a choice between a baby and myself, I would chose myself. That is a much more accurate analogy of what abortion really is.

 

You seriously would kill 500 people to save one random baby? (If it was your own baby, which I didn't mean it to be, then I'd understand...)

 

And okay, so aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? As you put it (Unless I misinterpreted it?), a mother considering abortion is choosing between herself and her baby. If you're allowed to choose yourself, why can't the mother?

 

(I remember a few pages back you said that you agreed that if a mother/family couldn't support the baby, they could put it up for adoption. So this might be completely pointless...Eh)

[obfuscator]

 

In my opinion, you are putting a condition on life. You are saying: If it is "easier" for me to kill off the baby, then it is ok. No matter the circumstance, you can never justify the murder of an innocent child, period.

 

So you expect mothers who can't support a baby to have it anyway? And then without enough money and/or time, slowly kill herself and her baby?

 

And just to be picky, if you had to choose between killing a child or five hundred people, and you chose the five hundred, would that not be justified?

 

Also, last time I checked, up there with the right to life is the right to the pursuit of happiness. I know one's rights usually end where another's begin, but having an unwanted baby can restrict the mother's ability to pursue happiness.

 

 

 

No, I would chose the 500. But if it was a choice between a baby and myself, I would chose myself. That is a much more accurate analogy of what abortion really is.

 

You seriously would kill 500 people to save one random baby? (If it was your own baby, which I didn't mean it to be, then I'd understand...)

 

And okay, so aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? As you put it (Unless I misinterpreted it?), a mother considering abortion is choosing between herself and her baby. If you're allowed to choose yourself, why can't the mother?

 

(I remember a few pages back you said that you agreed that if a mother/family couldn't support the baby, they could put it up for adoption. So this might be completely pointless...Eh)

 

 

 

Oh, no, I meant I would save the 500. Sorry I wasn't clear. And I meant I would chose to kill myself, and let the baby live.

[ThurinEthir]

Ah, I understand.

 

There's really not much more I can say without being ridiculously repetitive. I'll ask just one last question - If you had to choose between your life and a baby-you-didn't-want's life, which would you choose?

 

Your selfless values are great, I have a feeling you'd save the latter. But not everyone thinks like you do, plenty of people would choose their life. :|

[Laura]

That's not what he or I were trying to convey. A fetus and a child don't have the capability to make decisions, thus they have no meaning in this equation.

 

 

 

There are many people who don't have the capability to make decisions, so we should just kill them? I'm really not understanding your logic here.

We are not questioning the fact of people and their capabilities of decision making. We cannot give those people the option or ability of an abortion in any manner. A fetus cannot make a decision itself; it's up to the parents. Giving the child the option of an abortion defeats the purpose, because it cannot be done.

 

 

 

Exactly. And because you are talking about an issue that is so important, you don't have the right to make that decision.

 

You do understand the world we live in, right? If it were, as others before had said, not a perfect society. Whos choice is it to make, really?

[Range_This11]

 

Because we don't live in ancient Greece nor are Inuits.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, zygotes are alive. Second of all, people only attempt to make a meaningful distinction between a zygote/fetus and a baby when they're attempting to pass of the former as either being "less alive" or "less human" than the latter, even though there is no rational basis upon which to do this. There is no stage of the developmental process where you can claim as much. It's disingenuous to assert so, at best.

 

 

 

 

 

Well... That's because all living organisms look the same in the zygote/early embryonic phase.

 

 

 

 

 

So you're okay with infanticide so long as the person in question is under one?

 

1) My point, which you obviously ignored, was that cultural relativism is what goes on in this world. Other cultures do things differently than we do, but that doesn't make them WRONG. You cannot say someone is morally wrong just because they are from another culture. These people are not so far off from where we were. In fact, if it wasn't for the Ancient Greeks, we probably would not be where we were today for government or literature. The same society that practices infanticide gives us our governmental structure. I do NOT advocate infanticide nor do I advocate third or second trimester abortion, but I do advocate abortion during the first trimester.

 

 

 

2) Plants are alive, trillions of things are alive. What's your point? The rationality is that if there is no human development and it doesn't look like or have any qualities different to any other zygote that any other mammal would develop, why is there such harm in removing it? The parents decided to bring it into the world. They can and will bring it out if they choose to.

 

 

 

 

 

What really bugs me about this topic is one single question. How does it affect you, personally, in your life? Can you honestly say that someone getting an abortion is going to affect your daily life in such a way to make it illegal? It's other people's business, not yours. Stay the hell out of it.

[magekillr]

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.

[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.

 

 

 

Ah, I understand.

 

There's really not much more I can say without being ridiculously repetitive. I'll ask just one last question - If you had to choose between your life and a baby-you-didn't-want's life, which would you choose?

 

Your selfless values are great, I have a feeling you'd save the latter. But not everyone thinks like you do, plenty of people would choose their life. :|

 

 

 

You know what, I would chose to let the baby live, quite simply because I feel I have a choice regarding my own life, but no-one else's.

 

 

 

I agree completely that the majority of people would chose their life over the life of a baby, which is why abortion is completely acceptable in the case of a medical condition where the mother will die if she attempts to give birth. However, you say a woman will not be able to support a child - that is why we have social programs designed to help single mothers, and welfare, etc. While I agree that it would be extremely difficult, people have lived through worse and survived.

[mmmcannibalism]

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.

 

 

 

That is a generalization if there has ever been one. We all agree iraq got screwed up terribly, thats another debate. Whats wrong with supporting the death penalty for very severe cases exactly? Dropping bombs on people for being terrorists, I mean I guess we could surrender to them, actually I see the light now. Going after Hitler was unjustified we killed a whole lot of people just to stop one evil person how dare we interfere :roll: . Gun control is also another debate, I dont think machine guns should be allowed without liscensing and I believe we should have good regulation of legal firearms. Saying "we" dont support social programs is an intentionally vague statement, I support programs to help people in bad circumstances but I dont think we should universally pour money towards everyone that messed up their own life. I support comprehensive sex ed in school, available and cheap contraceptives etc. Certainly there are some people that refuse to support some of what I said, but nothing annoys me more then classifying every pro life person as a right wing radical.

[Laura]

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?

[magekillr]

I think iraq was a bad mistake.

 

Everyone that isn't an idiot thinks Iraq was a bad mistake. That is of course after they saw the repricussions. You probably supported it in the beginning, just like the majority of Americans.

 

 

 

Bombing terrorists is not the answer.

 

I've seen your responses in the Gaza thread, and they differ from this completely. You blindly support Israel, claiming that they have the right to defend themselves in order to effectively achieve peace.

 

 

 

 

I strongly support social programs designed to help single mothers.

 

 

 

So you support government intervention? That opposes many of your political beliefs, no?

 

 

 

mmmcannibalism, your post fits my generalization perfectly.

[mmmcannibalism]

magekillr, I just want you to know that being a radical liberal doesnt make you right, you want to call everyone a right wing radical because you hate people not listening to you. Id love to know how being moderate makes me like your generalization of right wing radicals? To be honest, you come off as horribly bitter and abrasive, not the type of person I enjoy debating with.

[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.

[Laura]

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.

[Sly_Wizard]

1) My point, which you obviously ignored, was that cultural relativism is what goes on in this world. Other cultures do things differently than we do, but that doesn't make them WRONG. You cannot say someone is morally wrong just because they are from another culture. These people are not so far off from where we were. In fact, if it wasn't for the Ancient Greeks, we probably would not be where we were today for government or literature. The same society that practices infanticide gives us our governmental structure. I do NOT advocate infanticide nor do I advocate third or second trimester abortion, but I do advocate abortion during the first trimester.

 

 

 

I didn't ignore anything. You, apparently, don't understand what cultural relativism entails. Cultural relativism does not say that whatever goes on in a culture is "right" or "wrong", but that by virtue of living in a different era we cannot label the actions of a culture as "right" or "wrong". Bringing up the ancient Greeks or Inuits is an irrelevancy, as we're not talking about what other people did at another period of time, rather we're talking about what we're doing today. What is going on today is not contingent on what other people have done in the past.

 

 

 

2) Plants are alive, trillions of things are alive. What's your point? The rationality is that if there is no human development and it doesn't look like or have any qualities different to any other zygote that any other mammal would develop, why is there such harm in removing it? The parents decided to bring it into the world. They can and will bring it out if they choose to.

 

 

 

Human development? I'm guessing that's a fancy way of saying "It's not human yet!", which I find to be a rather disingenuous argument. If it's not human, then what is it? Something which isn't human doesn't become a human. There is nothing else it can be. If something is a human today, then it was in it's fundamental nature to be a human from the beginning, meaning it's always been a human. We're human beings, not human becomings. We don't grow into humans-- We're made that way.

 

 

 

What really bugs me about this topic is one single question. How does it affect you, personally, in your life? Can you honestly say that someone getting an abortion is going to affect your daily life in such a way to make it illegal? It's other people's business, not yours. Stay the hell out of it.

 

 

 

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.

[BlueLancer]

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.

[mmmcannibalism]

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.

 

 

 

:shock:

 

 

 

an economic basis for outlawing abortion(to an extent), you sir are amazing.

[Sly_Wizard]

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.

 

 

 

:shock:

 

 

 

an economic basis for outlawing abortion(to an extent), you sir are amazing.

 

 

 

Not just an economic basis. See the whole "killing those who cannot speak for themselves" part :P

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

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.

 

 

 

:shock:

 

 

 

an economic basis for outlawing abortion(to an extent), you sir are amazing.

 

 

 

Not just an economic basis. See the whole "killing those who cannot speak for themselves" part :P

[/hide]

 

 

 

Oh I know, but its amazing to see a reason that is inpersonal and economic as opposed to the normal(and perfectly reasonable) moral arguments.

[scn64]

Generally, I tend to lean more towards the pro-life side of the abortion argument. However, I can understand the points made by the pro-choice side enough that I can't really agree 100% with either side. The thing that worries me about this Freedom of Choice Act are the two lines below:

 

 

 

- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions

 

- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions

 

 

 

I cannot agree or understand how late term and especially partial-birth abortions would not be considered murder. Admittedly, my only knowledge of this new act comes from this thread, so hopefully there are more details in the act that would not lead to a complete lift of bans on these two types of abortions.

[raven_gaurd0]

I just found out that my friend had cancer and has already had surgery and gone through physical therapy - without telling me! I'd feel bad if I didn't feel so sorry for her.

 

 

 

Anywho, O(n)T time.

 

 

 

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! *Fist shake*

[warri0r45]

Generally, I tend to lean more towards the pro-life side of the abortion argument. However, I can understand the points made by the pro-choice side enough that I can't really agree 100% with either side. The thing that worries me about this Freedom of Choice Act are the two lines below:

 

 

 

- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions

 

- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions

 

 

 

I cannot agree or understand how late term and especially partial-birth abortions would not be considered murder. Admittedly, my only knowledge of this new act comes from this thread, so hopefully there are more details in the act that would not lead to a complete lift of bans on these two types of abortions.

 

 

 

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.