PDA

View Full Version : Omg abortion



Llamas
01-20-2009, 03:17 PM
FOCA is likely to pass soon, and I don't think I like what I know about it.

* FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
* FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
* FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

I don't necessarily care about parental involvement laws... but I'm opposed to partial birth abortions, and I'm definitely against taxpayers funding people's abortions.

In addition, I don't believe in forcing all hospitals to perform them. Plus it's supposed to do away with legal waiting periods, which I think are important.

I feel pretty opposed to this... even though I am not completely pro life. But I don't like what this is gonna do. Thoughts?

WebDudette
01-20-2009, 03:54 PM
not my kid, not my problem.

Al Coholic
01-20-2009, 04:00 PM
I don't think you know poverty. What kind of a free country is it when you can barely afford an abortion, but the only hospital for miles won't do it?

I doubt taxpayers will be paying for many abortions. Just those of undesireable circumstances. Rape, abuse, complicated pregnancy, ect. And that's fine by me. A lot of moderate pro-lifers still believe in abortion where it endangers the life of the mother, or the fetus was concieved out of certain circumstances. If its ok for a woman to abort a baby for those select reasons, then its not ok that she should have to have the kid because she can't afford the abortion.

I also doubt we're bringing back partial birth abortions. I believe a do-away with state laws in favor of a federal ban isn't a big deal.

Llamas
01-20-2009, 04:00 PM
not my kid, not my problem.

But it kind of is now, because once you become a taxpayer (if you're not already), you'll be paying for people to have abortions.

wheelchairman
01-20-2009, 04:16 PM
This sounds like a positive thing. For society in general. Since when did morality enter into American politics? American foreign policy has always been about serving American interests first, it's time that American domestic policy did the same, it's hypocritical not to.

jacknife737
01-20-2009, 05:37 PM
This sounds like a positive thing. For society in general. Since when did morality enter into American politics? American foreign policy has always been about serving American interests first, it's time that American domestic policy did the same, it's hypocritical not to.

Pretty much agree with this. America or the world for that matter does not need anymore single mothers raising unwanted children in near poverty, of which many of them will grow up and continue to be burdens on either state welfare, or the criminal justice system.

IamSam
01-20-2009, 06:23 PM
FOCA will also allow the abortion of children up to the age of 6.

jacknife737
01-20-2009, 06:33 PM
FOCA will also allow the abortion of children up to the age of 6.

That's good, gives you a chance to try them out, to see if they're a good fit, or not.

IamSam
01-20-2009, 06:39 PM
That's good, gives you a chance to try them out, to see if they're a good fit, or not.

Exactly.
The phrase:

"Timmy, eat your green beans or we'll take you out behind the shed!"

would have a completely different meaning.

JohnnyNemesis
01-20-2009, 06:41 PM
I think that I really miss when Justin made these threads. *sniffle*

I don't know if I want to get into exactly how I feel about abortion and how it should/will/could/might be funded, but I do think that any discussion of abortion in any way that doesn't include feminist theory is inherently faulty.

Little_Miss_1565
01-20-2009, 07:09 PM
FOCA will also allow the abortion of children up to the age of 6.

Make it up to the age of 17 and you've got my vote! ;)


What I want to know is: how exactly does public funding fund abortions, anyway? or do you mean like poor people on Medicaid, in which case, I don't think poverty should impede access to abortion if someone wants it.

And show me where it says faith-based hospitals and service providers will have to perform abortions.

IamSam
01-20-2009, 07:22 PM
What I want to know is: how exactly does public funding fund abortions, anyway? or do you mean like poor people on Medicaid, in which case, I don't think poverty should impede access to abortion if someone wants it.


Because wouldn't that be discrimination? Or are money issues for health not covered under law?

bighead384
01-20-2009, 07:50 PM
I think abortion should be legal, but only up to a month, maybe two. I don't mean to sound arbitrary,(even though that kind of is) but I basically think there's not one good excuse under the sun why you wouldn't at least get the abortion before the damn thing develops into something wayyyy too similar to regular human being.

Little_Miss_1565
01-20-2009, 07:50 PM
Because wouldn't that be discrimination? Or are money issues for health not covered under law?

Not with a federal law on the books banning it. That is indeed discrimination but it's been happening in every state.

RageAndLov
01-22-2009, 07:26 AM
FOCA is likely to pass soon, and I don't think I like what I know about it.

* FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.


What does this mean? Will abortion be legal no matter what any state, parents or hospitals say?

RageAndLov
01-22-2009, 07:28 AM
I think abortion should be legal, but only up to a month, maybe two.

Many women don't know they're pregant before after one month. Then it's too late? Here in Norway abortion is legal up to three months I think. I guess we are a much more liberal country than other countries like Jesusland.

Little_Miss_1565
01-22-2009, 08:15 AM
Many women don't know they're pregant before after one month. Then it's too late? Here in Norway abortion is legal up to three months I think. I guess we are a much more liberal country than other countries like Jesusland.

Save the snottiness. Didn't we just elect an amazing president? Lighten up. Abortion is legal up to three months (the first trimester) in America under the religious right, too.

RageAndLov
01-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Yeah, I was hoping for Obama from the start, and I think he will do a good job.

Sunny
01-22-2009, 11:06 AM
I don't know if I want to get into exactly how I feel about abortion and how it should/will/could/might be funded, but I do think that any discussion of abortion in any way that doesn't include feminist theory is inherently faulty.

yes! kissyface @u.

Al Coholic
01-22-2009, 03:35 PM
I think abortion should be legal, but only up to a month, maybe two. I don't mean to sound arbitrary,(even though that kind of is) but I basically think there's not one good excuse under the sun why you wouldn't at least get the abortion before the damn thing develops into something wayyyy too similar to regular human being.

Assuming a woman finds out she's pregnant 1 month after being impregnated, which is more or less normal, what if she:

Didn't have the money right away?

Couldn't get an appointment?

Couldn't make arrangements with work/school/kids/obligations right away?

Found out later that the father had an std?

Ended the relationship with the father?

Found out the fetus had severe health problems?

Complications arose in the pregnancy that could be life threatening?

Researched and changed her mind about adoption?

Changed her mind in general? There's a million reasons for this one.

The list could go on. The first trimester law makes sense.

IamSam
01-22-2009, 03:46 PM
Assuming a woman finds out she's pregnant 1 month after being impregnated, which is more or less normal, what if she:

Didn't have the money right away?

Couldn't get an appointment?

Couldn't make arrangements with work/school/kids/obligations right away?

Found out later that the father had an std?

Ended the relationship with the father?

Found out the fetus had severe health problems?

Complications arose in the pregnancy that could be life threatening?

Researched and changed her mind about adoption?

Changed her mind in general? There's a million reasons for this one.

The list could go on. The first trimester law makes sense.

Was abducted to aliens?

Was going to give birth to a half man half bull creature after making love to a bull. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur#Birth_and_appearance)

As you said...the list can go on and on...

wheelchairman
01-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Not to mention the majority of birth defects can't be detected until the 3rd or 4th month.

Static_Martyr
01-22-2009, 04:57 PM
Was abducted to aliens?

Was going to give birth to a half man half bull creature after making love to a bull.

As you said...the list can go on and on...

I was eating cereal when I read this, and now I am not. Because I spit it all out everywhere.

Funny :D

XYlophonetreeZ
01-23-2009, 11:29 AM
I think that if you accept abortion in the first place, then you're accepting it as a standard medical procedure, and therefore it should be funded the same way other medical procedures are. It doesn't make sense to support abortions but oppose contributing to them as a taxpayer.

SweetTatyana
01-23-2009, 12:16 PM
I dont think I can ever accept abortion as a standard medical procedure. I do agree with Lamas tho, although I am pro-choice but I do not think that faith based hospitals, whose faith is against abortions, should be made to perform them. I do agree in particular medical circumstances costs should be covered for the abortion as said earlier in instances of poverty, rape, etc., but outside of which, costs should be covered by the patient.
I think I am a little unclear on this partial birth part, as far as I know (not an expert so correct me) this type of abortion was designed for fetus' 16 weeks or older. So if that were true, does that mean abortion laws are being defined so that mothers can have abortions performed on fetus' past first trimester or just close to?
That is a brutal procedure it sounds tho, once you're removing a substantial amount of brain tissue, sounds more like murder than an abortion.

RageAndLov
01-24-2009, 05:02 PM
It is better that the woman would regret that she took abortion, than regreting she didn't take abortion. It's very easy to make a new baby than to get rid of the born one (and much more moralistic).

Llamas
01-25-2009, 11:49 AM
I listened to a guy yesterday explain to his friend why he is pro life. I'm pretty sure this was the most well thought out terrible reason I've ever heard. His reason basically came down to (it took him about a half hour to explain this) that abortion is a business that makes money, and he's not okay with giving his tax dollars to this business, because people do fund raisers and go on 50 k walks to get money for cancer research... and people who want abortion should do the same thing.

I really wanted to say to him... first of all, that doesn't make you pro life. Second of all, how can you think that would work?

Little_Miss_1565
01-25-2009, 12:07 PM
I dont think I can ever accept abortion as a standard medical procedure. I do agree with Lamas tho, although I am pro-choice but I do not think that faith based hospitals, whose faith is against abortions, should be made to perform them. I do agree in particular medical circumstances costs should be covered for the abortion as said earlier in instances of poverty, rape, etc., but outside of which, costs should be covered by the patient.
I think I am a little unclear on this partial birth part, as far as I know (not an expert so correct me) this type of abortion was designed for fetus' 16 weeks or older. So if that were true, does that mean abortion laws are being defined so that mothers can have abortions performed on fetus' past first trimester or just close to?
That is a brutal procedure it sounds tho, once you're removing a substantial amount of brain tissue, sounds more like murder than an abortion.

Partial Birth Abortion is a misnomer -- it's a marketing ploy on the behalf of anti-choice activists. It's a late term abortion, and it's not exactly done willy-nilly. Generally, it's only because a woman might be 5 months along and suddenly develop a life-threatening illness that would require terminating the pregnancy to treat. I heard of another once where a 12 year old girl had been raped by her 18 year old brother and was so ashamed that she didn't say anything to her parents and the truth only came to light when she was so far along she could no longer hide it. I agree that it should remain rare, but that is generally the case with all pro-choice people I've known -- abortion should be rare, but legal and safe and accessible to those who want to seek it out.


I listened to a guy yesterday explain to his friend why he is pro life. I'm pretty sure this was the most well thought out terrible reason I've ever heard. His reason basically came down to (it took him about a half hour to explain this) that abortion is a business that makes money, and he's not okay with giving his tax dollars to this business, because people do fund raisers and go on 50 k walks to get money for cancer research... and people who want abortion should do the same thing.

I really wanted to say to him... first of all, that doesn't make you pro life. Second of all, how can you think that would work?

There are people who aren't okay with their tax dollars going to fund wars too...and people DO have fund raisers etc. for this. I give to Planned Parenthood whenever I can.

Jojan
02-01-2009, 08:27 AM
USA's fucked up.

ily2
02-02-2009, 04:15 PM
i dont normally suport abortion but inouguration day i was at the park and this lady kept screamin obama sux
an i asked y, she said "did you know he voted with abortion 90% of the time"
i said "who cares!!! ur entitled to ur opinion but you dont have to parade around down here, and make a fuss about something you cant change"
(after a long lecture on abortion)

ShutUpYouFuckingMime
02-05-2009, 06:52 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-filipovic/killing-in-the-name-of_b_68521.html

Countries that have bans on abortions actually have more of them. So really, if you want to reduce the number of abortions, go pro-choice.

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 03:54 PM
Lets try to cut through some of the horseshit surrounding this issue. First of all "Partial Birth Abortion" is NOT a medical term. It was created by religious extremists because it sounds good, and it frames the debate. What this actually means is a Dialate and Extract procedure in the later stages of pregnancy. First of all, this is not a really common procedure, it makes up about .2% of all abortions performed in the country. Also, the procedure does not always take place in the third trimester, some are performed beforehand. In a lot of these cases, which are in the minority, mind, it's done for the life of the mother, or if the child is seriously deformed, say born without vital organs, like a heart or a brain. What exactly is "humane" about forcing a woman to carry a baby which can't possibly live, go through the pain of childbirth, and compound the suffering of the offspring by keeping it on life support for a few hours? Or, for that matter, forcing her to go through labor that might kill her? This is just a talking point for religious nuts. Is abortion ideal? Hardly. But sometimes it's the more humane option, rather than forcing a woman to have a child conceived through rape, or a child she can't or won't support. Moreover, this is one of the most fundamental women's rights, the right over her own body. To outlaw it would be the real cruelty, not to mention it would essentially reduce women to talking incubators instead of people. I have no shortage of criticuism of the law in this country, but the general consensus is pretty solid, it's a woman's right up until the third trimester then only to save her life or if the child is hopelessly compromised. This "debate" is fueled by religious insanity and ignorance, nothing more.

rise_and_fall
02-09-2009, 04:44 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-filipovic/killing-in-the-name-of_b_68521.html

Fuck thats a hypocritcal view.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

42 million abortions a year worldwide?

Who are we to choose and assume that a child born with defects or as a result of rape will not have a future or ever be happy. People who argue about abortion forget about the innocent third party, the child.

Outerspaceman21
02-09-2009, 04:51 PM
I don't think is should be up to other people. I believe the decision should go to the one who is getting the aboration if they want to keep it or not.

I'm pro-choice, but this is a touchy subjects and I don't want to get into too much detail.

SweetTatyana
02-09-2009, 04:58 PM
I don't think is should be up to other people. I believe the decision should go to the one who is getting the aboration if they want to keep it or not.

I'm pro-choice, but this is a touchy subjects and I don't want to get into too much detail.

Agreed! Unless after 3 months...

renato piquette
02-09-2009, 06:56 PM
I`m totally against,you`re killing a baby,for god`s sake!!
People should be responsible of their own acts,you don`t get pregnant just for being unlucky,there are people who say that it is ok if the mother was raped,so it wasn`t her fault,but that would be fighting a crime with a bigger crime

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 09:16 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-filipovic/killing-in-the-name-of_b_68521.html

Fuck thats a hypocritcal view.

If you mean the perspective of the leading "Pro-Life' organizations, they're total hypocrites. Not to mention totally deluded.


[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

42 million abortions a year worldwide?

You need to put that in perspective. There are roughly at least 3 billion women on earth. I'm not going to bust out a calculator but I figure that makes it probably under .6%. Thats' really pretty small.


[Who are we to choose and assume that a child born with defects or as a result of rape will not have a future or ever be happy.

A child born with no brain or no heart will not be happy, the example I gave was children that are HOPELESSLY deformed, ergo, missing vital organs necessary for survival. (Or say, an ectopic pregnancy like in the article you cite) Sometimes these defects don't get noticed until later in the pregnancy. To force a woman to carry and deliver a child which she knows will live no longer than a couple hours on life support max, and in agony if it feels anything, is exceptionally cruel. As is forcing a woman to remain pregnant when it will likely kill her. Of course thats' disregarding the bigger issue; which is that women are human beings, with rights, the most basic being the right over themselves. There are children of rape that grow up happy, it's not impossible, but the mother should not be FORCED to have a child as a product of being brutalized, she has a right to that choice. It's also more humane for the potential child, because, and this is a fact that pro-lifers constantly ignore, bringing a child into this world that isn't going to get proper care or isn't wanted is inhumane.


[People who argue about abortion forget about the innocent third party, the child.

Woah, see you just made an enormous leap into left field. "Child"? Anyone who's taken high school biology should know better. First, after the cell is fertilized you have a zygote, a single cell, then a blastocyst, a small group of cells, after a few days that reaches the uterus, then it becomes an embryo, and around ten weeks it becomes a fetus, the word "child" definitely is not applicable until MINIMUM, 10-11 weeks (About three months.) into pregnancy. MINMUM. (Actually, the brain, the seence of what makes a human, isn't fully formed until at least about ten weeks in.) I mean, do you HONESTLY consider a cell to be a human being? Really? Thats' a dubious, not to mention dangerous precedent. Hell, if you're willing to go that far, then you could probably classify jacking off as manslaughter. No, whats' at stake here is the POTENTIALITY of a child, the POSSIBILITY of a person. Thats' the difference. You also, again, deliberately omit the moral consequences of bringing children into this world knowing they will not receive adequate support and care, I rate that as a considerably greater wrong than preventing the potentiality of a person from existing. Again, this stance also eradicates womens' rights. By this thinking a cell has more rights than a woman. Or think of it this way, how would you feel about mandatory organ donorship? Would you think it's right that if you're a match for me, a person you've never met, you should be forced to go through a painful medical procedure totally against you're will?

ShutUpYouFuckingMime
02-10-2009, 12:52 PM
I`m totally against,you`re killing a baby,for god`s sake!!
People should be responsible of their own acts,you don`t get pregnant just for being unlucky,there are people who say that it is ok if the mother was raped,so it wasn`t her fault,but that would be fighting a crime with a bigger crime

Clearly you don't understand what it is like to be pregnant. And if you're a dude, you really have no right to think that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. I'm a guy, I don't know what it is like to be pregnant and never will, so who am I to say they can't? Besides, banning abortions isn't going to stop it. Illegal abortions will be on the rise which is far more riskier and detrimental to the mother's health. So banning abortions will not only not prevent them, you could also be killing the mothers in the process. Read the "Killing In the Name Of" article that I and rise-and-fall posted to see what I mean.

[[Meli.x]]
02-10-2009, 01:24 PM
In england, the NHS pay for abortions unless you choose to go private.
Personally i think that this is better than if a bunch of unwanted children were brought into the world. I believe that if a woman wants an abortion, then she has the right to decide on it, unless of course, she is using it as a sort of post-contraception.
If a woman is raped, the child may have a happy life, but said child would be a constant reminder of what the mother went through to concieve, and i think that this is an aweful thing to do to a woman.
I am pro-choice and think that when a woman has a child, that she should want to, rather than raising it if she didnt want it in the first place.

metalmania
02-10-2009, 01:52 PM
hm its good cause you re thinking about babies and their lives and i see that -you all care about it and im sorry but i have to ask this question:500.000 baby died(beetween 1-5 yearsold) in iraq beetween 1991-1998 by means of medicine embargo.they couldnt destroy sadam but they've destroyed those babies in that time.what do you think about it?it was the abortion event by governments?;) so its just a iraq example,i can give you many examples.maybe you can say:hey dude,this event iindifferent with this thread but when i read these speechs;i remember these ;)

JoY
02-11-2009, 05:34 AM
I think abortion should be legal, but only up to a month, maybe two. I don't mean to sound arbitrary,(even though that kind of is) but I basically think there's not one good excuse under the sun why you wouldn't at least get the abortion before the damn thing develops into something wayyyy too similar to regular human being.

*raises eyebrow* have you got any idea what a "baby" looks like one month into pregnancy? it's a clump of cells about 4-6 millimeter, smaller than the size of one rice grain. it isn't even a fetus, it's an embryo & you can barely tell it apart from the embryo of a fish, chicken, turtle, pig, cow, or rabbit.


Not to mention the majority of birth defects can't be detected until the 3rd or 4th month.

true.

metalmania
02-13-2009, 01:58 PM
wow you all dont care about NOTHING;)