What Is the Freedom of Choice Act?

reply to post by jsobecky


He was discussing it. Saying it shouldn't be discussed because there are more important issues is still on topic.

reply to post by sadisticwoman


Thank you for understanding. I get that reaction from people quite often, but if I offended the OP I apologize. I was expressing a sincere concern of mine.

I am a personal Pro-Life Conservative who believes that the government should not dictate what anyone can and cannot do with their own bodies... The problem with the whole Pro-Choice movement however is simple... Where do you draw the line? We can allow a mother to kill her very much alive child, as long as its in the womb and she is unable to support it? If that is the case, we might as well start allowing a mother who enters hard times to start murdering her 7 and 8 year old children, simply because they would be a drain financially. Which in turn means we need to release every mother accused of murdering her children from prison.

Originally posted by LittlePinky82
Just because one person you know thinks that doesn't mean it's the same way.

Every adopted person I know - both child and adult - is happy that they were not murdered by their mother.

Why do you say it's murder? It's not murder if it's not a human.

The child isn't a cat. It's not a dog. The heart that is beating is a human heart. Of course he or she is a human.

Please come to the 21st century.

Please grow up. (I can be just as snotty)

And what about people like me who believe in reincarnation?

So what? It's got nothing to do with this discussion.
(and I also believe that reincarnation is possible - perhaps probable)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're talking a lot about forcing, but I don't see anyone being forced to do anything.

of course you wouldn't.

USCCB statement The 1992 language provided coverage for the hospitals and medical faciltiies that, for religious reasons, did not perform abortions. In the latest version of the FOCA, this language has purposely been removed. Obviously there is a reason behind that removal. Someone has some kind of agenda.

These hospitals and medical facilities were set up purposely so that people could go to them and not have to be around those who murder unborn children... so that people could use healing medical faciltiies that weren't also used in acts of evil - according to their religion. They have a religious right to this. Freedom of religion. The fact that the language to protect their religious rights was purposely deleted from the documents is very telling.

balance out some of the drama.

Discussing the facts isn't drama. And before you pull the word 'tizzy' out of your thought process, no one is in a 'tizzy' either.

Originally posted by LittlePinky82
I don't think it's going to kill you to go to a hospital where they have abortions.

I don't think it's going to kill you to be TOLERANT of people's religious rights to receive medical attention in a facility that meets their medical AND religious needs.

Originally posted by its bologna
nowhere does it state that girls would be able to get abortions without their parent's consent

Planned Parenthood thinks otherwise.
see here

Q. Does FOCA prohibit states from limiting access to abortion services for minors?

A. FOCA prohibits states from enacting laws intended to deny or interfere with a woman's fundamental right to choose an abortion. Minors have long been included within the protections of Roe. Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
The problem with the whole Pro-Choice movement however is simple... Where do you draw the line?

YOU don't. That's the answer. The woman draws the line for herself and deals with whatever consequences may be, godly or otherwise.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
of course you wouldn't.

Good answer.

I'm not concerned with the Catholic Bishops' propaganda and fears about this act. I want to know where, in FOCA are hospitals FORCED to do abortions? They are not.

The fact that the language to protect their religious rights was purposely deleted from the documents is very telling.

What is it telling us? Don't keep me hanging on.

Discussing the facts isn't drama.

You aren't discussing the FACTS, though. You're talking about fears and fantasies of people being FORCED to get care in a hospital that is FORCED to murder innocent little babies... Freedom of religion and acts of EVIL... Please! That's pretty dramatic, considering none of it is FACT.

I ask again. What part of this act forces hospitals or doctors to go against their beliefs?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
YOU don't. That's the answer. The woman draws the line for herself and deals with whatever consequences may be, godly or otherwise.

Since you are arguing the semantics of my post instead of the substance I will re-word it for you..

Where does "society" draw the line?

And for the people who say that the government shouldn't dictate morality, therefore they can't tell a woman what to do... Just about every law we have is based on morality. Its immoral to murder, its immoral to steal, etc. etc.

reply to post by nj2day


shouldn't it be the child's choice to live. what ever happened to unalienable rights. guess that kid doesn't get to share the american dream of a pursuit oh happiness huh? maybe your mom should have aborted you.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
We can allow a mother to kill her very much alive child, as long as its in the womb and she is unable to support it? If that is the case, we might as well start allowing a mother who enters hard times to start murdering her 7 and 8 year old children, simply because they would be a drain financially. Which in turn means we need to release every mother accused of murdering her children from prison.

No, Roe vs. Wade clearly protects an 8 year old child from abortion. At that point, they are viable outside of the womb.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


No. It is an infringement on a person's personal rights to kill them. It is an infringement on property rights to steal. It is not about morality, it is about rights as defined by the constitution.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Where does "society" draw the line?

Society doesn't. Same answer. I wasn't playing semantics. Each woman draws the line for herself. It's really not society's business. If I have breast cancer and want to have a lumpectomy or mastectomy, that's MY choice. Society does not get to decide that for me. If I want plastic surgery, it's not for society to decide. My body and my medical conditions are my business. No one else's.

reply to post by sadisticwoman


Oh, OK. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

so, jsobecky, as author of this thread, can YOU show me where this act forces the charges in your first post?

Christian hospitals and physicians will not have a choice regarding the performance of abortion (since their accrediting agencies are approved by the federal government), teenagers will not have to tell their parents about an abortion...

Isn't this just suspicion and fear mongering about the FOCA?

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor

Originally posted by LittlePinky82

Why do you say it's murder? It's not murder if it's not a human. Do you even know if there is a soul there?

I've always had an interesting question about abortion, its limits, and what constitutes a "human":

Why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder, instead of one count of murder and one count of practicing medicine without a license and medical malpractice? The "murdered" non-human was still unborn, after all. Apparently, in the eyes of the law the unborn can be considered a person; despite that running contrary to the Roe v. Wade case where it was ruled the term 'person' does not apply to the unborn per the 14th Amendment.

If your logic holds then a person can maim a pregnant mother and kill the non-human without fearing the death penalty. But, as evident with the Peters case, it just isn't so.

So obviously, there are instances where the unborn is considered a person with full legal protection (i.e. Scott Peterson's unborn son).

By what means, then, is a mother entitled to supersede the state in determining the status of the unborn -either a person entitled to full legal protection whose violation is ground for prosecution by the courts, or something unwanted that can be disposed of? Or is Scott Peterson and others who kill pregnant mothers being railroaded, and should only charged with killing the host of the non-human?

So by you every woman who is having an abortion for some reason is on the same level as Scott Peterson. You have to remember that with crime everything is about intent as well. When does the unborn have a right to the Constitution? It's feeding off the mother who does as a fetus does.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not my opinion alone. It should be a states rights matter, voted on by the people of that state. Let the people decide.

Nah, it shouldn't... That would be considered a tyranny of the majority...
How about instead, we don't legislate morality... and let people make a few decisions on their own.

I'm not disagreeing with you nj2day because I have agreed with everything you've said so far, but this is the slippery slope we have created by prop 8 in California. It is now acceptible to vote on people's rights.

As a gay man, I'd love to vote for this in California. I'd like to see how all those black women (the majority that voted for prop 8) feel when their rights are taken away.

But no. I'm not that evil.

Edit to add: Funny how this tyranny of the masses stops when it's medical marijuana eh? The voters voted yes in California but it is still illegal there.



[edit on 11/27/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
I am a personal Pro-Life Conservative who believes that the government should not dictate what anyone can and cannot do with their own bodies... The problem with the whole Pro-Choice movement however is simple... Where do you draw the line? We can allow a mother to kill her very much alive child, as long as its in the womb and she is unable to support it? If that is the case, we might as well start allowing a mother who enters hard times to start murdering her 7 and 8 year old children, simply because they would be a drain financially. Which in turn means we need to release every mother accused of murdering her children from prison.

The issue is about PRIVACY. Has anyone here actually read Roe v Wade and what it entails?

Link- caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[ 3. . State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. ]

The law also says not just any person can perform an abortion as it was done so when it was illegal with the back ally abortios. The state can decide who is a physicican to do such a task and only they can. I would say it's because of a safety issue and the physician would know what he/she is doing and can have safe medical equipment etc.

The whole thing is WAY too long to post here so you can go there at the link and read the whole thing.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by LittlePinky82
Just because one person you know thinks that doesn't mean it's the same way.

Every adopted person I know - both child and adult - is happy that they were not murdered by their mother.

Why do you say it's murder? It's not murder if it's not a human.

The child isn't a cat. It's not a dog. The heart that is beating is a human heart. Of course he or she is a human.

Please come to the 21st century.

Please grow up. (I can be just as snotty)

And what about people like me who believe in reincarnation?

So what? It's got nothing to do with this discussion.
(and I also believe that reincarnation is possible - perhaps probable)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're talking a lot about forcing, but I don't see anyone being forced to do anything.

of course you wouldn't.

USCCB statement The 1992 language provided coverage for the hospitals and medical faciltiies that, for religious reasons, did not perform abortions. In the latest version of the FOCA, this language has purposely been removed. Obviously there is a reason behind that removal. Someone has some kind of agenda.

These hospitals and medical facilities were set up purposely so that people could go to them and not have to be around those who murder unborn children... so that people could use healing medical faciltiies that weren't also used in acts of evil - according to their religion. They have a religious right to this. Freedom of religion. The fact that the language to protect their religious rights was purposely deleted from the documents is very telling.

balance out some of the drama.

Discussing the facts isn't drama. And before you pull the word 'tizzy' out of your thought process, no one is in a 'tizzy' either.

Originally posted by LittlePinky82
I don't think it's going to kill you to go to a hospital where they have abortions.

I don't think it's going to kill you to be TOLERANT of people's religious rights to receive medical attention in a facility that meets their medical AND religious needs.

Key words: YOU KNOW. You don't know every person in the world who was adopted.

So now you're a scientist?

And what about my right to privacy as stated in Roe v Wade?

LOL I love you talking about tolerating other people's religious beliefs but yet you don't do that yourself. Hello hypocrite! This has nothing to do with religion. It's about privacy. Oh and you might want to read the fourteenth amendment as well.

Originally posted by its bologna

No, Roe vs. Wade clearly protects an 8 year old child from abortion. At that point, they are viable outside of the womb.

Originally posted by LittlePinky82

The issue is about PRIVACY. Has anyone here actually read Roe v Wade and what it entails?

No where in my post did I mention anything about Roe vs. Wade. I am not arguing the content and scope of Roe vs. Wade. My point is that if you allow women to kill their unborn children (which we do), how is that any different than allowing her to kill her child after its born? If you think just because it is outside of the womb then its now defined as a person with rights, I feel really sorry for you. Yes the unborn child is being supported by the mother, but so is a 5 year old child, the only difference is that one is inside the mother and the other is not. Earlier I said I was personally Pro-Life which means abortion would never be an option for my wife and myself. And again I DO NOT think the government should be allowed to tell a woman what she does with HER body, but if she is pregnant that is her body plus 1, which in my opinion constitutes Homicide:

hom⋅i⋅cide
   /ˈhɒməˌsaɪd, ˈhoʊmə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-]
–noun
1. the killing of one human being by another.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ExistenceUnknown]

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
No where in my post did I mention anything about Roe vs. Wade.

Perhaps you should, though. Because Roe V Wade protects a viable child from being "killed" (your word). THAT'S why it's important. FOCA would not override anything in R v W.

My point is that if you allow women to kill their unborn children (which we do), how is that any different than allowing her to kill her child after its born?

That's a moral argument. You can argue that all day long and people will still feel differently about it. But you decide for yourself whether or not it's moral and I decide it for myself.

Yes the unborn child is being supported by the mother, but so is a 5 year old child, the only difference is that one is inside the mother and the other is not.

Look up "viable". A 5-year-old is viable. It has nothing to do with supporting the child financially or emotionally. It has to do with being physically able to maintain life on its own.

but if she is pregnant that is her body plus 1, which in my opinion constitutes Homicide:

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But by the fact that it IS your opinion, you must recognize that others have different opinions. You don't have to agree or accept it, but it's true. Others' opinions are as valid as your own.

reply to post by jsobecky





[edit on 11/27/08 by niteboy82]