JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Freedom of Choice Act should be stopped

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Friday, February 6, 2009 4:04 PM CST
LETTER: Freedom of Choice Act should be stopped

CATHY ABSTON, Charleston

I urge everyone that knows about President Obama’s FOCA bill (Freedom of Choice Act) to please write to your Senators or Representatives, make a phone call or write a letter to the newspaper. We must stop this bill.

For those of you that don’t know about it, you can google FOCA for all the information. But here it is in a nutshell. The President wants to legalize partial birth abortions and he wants to force us, the American people, no matter what our beliefs are, to be taxed for them. He also is wanting to strip parents of their rights to be involved in any minor child’s decision to have one. These children are precious gifts from God. We need to stand together to help protect these defenseless human beings.

Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Please urge your elected officials to oppose FOCA and not to promote this form of barbaric abortion. You can call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative, Tim Johnson, or your two Senators, Roland Burris or Dick Durbin. We need your help, now. You could save a live.

CATHY ABSTON

Charleston

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

elbert wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:56 AM:

" MS. Abston:

Thank you for telling me about the FOCA bill and wanting people to write about it. Following is the letter that I wrote.

I support the FOCA bill (Freedom of Choice Act) as I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. According to the americans United for Life web site, FOCA provides that [i]t is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

Since I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, I support these rights. "

Julio wrote on Feb 6, 2009 8:37 AM:

" Your proposition could also cost a life. Why don't you mind your buisness and let other mind theirs?
Thanks for the number though. I needed it to call in my support of the Presidents bill. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:14 AM:

" I too just sent a letter to my Senators and Representative supporting FOCA and speaking up against the immorality of the Christian Right. "

father bob wrote on Feb 6, 2009 10:52 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:14 AM:
" I too just sent a letter to my Senators and Representative supporting FOCA and speaking up against the immorality of the Christian Right. """"

i'll do the same....thanks susan! "

Billie Brant wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:05 AM:

" As most of you know my stance on abortion is I am against it. If one were to be performed for a severe medical reason only, I could possibly go along with it. These instances are very rare as I feel abortion shouid be.

Partial birth or late term abortions are particulaly disturbing to me. A baby who would be viable outside the womb and is killed is just is beyond me. If she were set on doing this, why wait until the little one would be able to survive outside her body?

I am totally against underaged girls having an abortion without parental consent. From a practical point of view, this is a surgical procedure for Pete's sake and there are ALWAYS risks involved with any surgery. To allow an underaged girl to decide this without her parents is ludicrous!

If this same young person needed her tonsils removed, appendix, or any other type of surgery, the surgeon would INSIST on parental permission. We are supposed to allow a young underaged girl to make a life altering surgical decision without her parent's input? I can not understand this. What happens if there are complications? If further surgery is needed to correct the complications, will parental consent be needed for the surgeon to proceed?

Yes we need to make women aware and men too of methods to prevent these unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I'm all for that.

No, I don't "look down" on a woman who has had an abortion. I've had friends and a cousin who have had them and I do not think any less of them because of it.We have discussed their decisions and we understand each other's positions and still remain friends. I have NEVER laid a "guilt trip" on any of them.Guilt or the lack of it, it's not my place to judge anymore than it's the woman's place to judge me for my feelings on it. I can hold her and comfort her just as easily as I could a friend who has had a miscarriage.

Many women who have had abortions especially multiple ones, find it difficult to carry a baby to term later on when they decide they want children. Many have regretted their earlier decisions which make a later pregnancy difficult.

One thing is for certain. It's an emotional issue for all concerned and we need to address it with compassion on all sides. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 6, 2009 12:55 PM:

" FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT OF 1993

section 2. Right to Choose

(b), a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy--
(1) before fetal viability; or
(2) at any time, if such termination is necessarey to protect the life or health of the woman.
.....

(c) Rules of Construction--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent a State-
(1) FROM REQUIRING A MINOR TO INVOLVE A PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR OTHER RESPONSIBLE ADULT BEFORE TERMINATING A PREGNANCY...

Be for the ratification or against the ratification, but at least keep your facts straight. IT DOES NOT STRIP PARENTS RIGHTS TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY MINOR CHILDS DECISION TO HAVE ONE.

It also means that a woman whose life is on the line cannot be denied a partial birth abortion if doctors have determined that this is the only way to save her life. This is the problem with most anti-abortion laws. They ignore issues of the health of the mother, rape, and incest in their drive to outlaw abortion. They ignore the needs of twelve year old girls impregnated by male relatives or neighbors. They ignore the woman violently raped and left with the legacy of a forced pregnancy. They ignore the predicament of a woman whose pregnancy is slowly killing her. And they do not provide for free and cheap access to contraceptives and the knowledge to use them.

I am against the practice of abortion. Come up with a viable solution that addresses all of the mentioned concerns adequately, and I will back you 100%. Keep on the present track, with its grandiose pleas and ignorance of the problems, and I will remain vigilant in the right to choose. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 2:15 PM:

" speaking up against the immorality of the Christian Right.

You mean the immorality of trying to save lives? Is that what you mean Susan? "

TommyTutone wrote on Feb 6, 2009 2:37 PM:

" I'm on the pro-choice side, but not if the child could survive outside of the womb. I guess I can't absolutely rationalize why it's different to me, but then again one isn't required to support their beliefs when they write a short letter to their congressman. I'm also not sure about the underage abortion without parental consent thing, Billy already stated my reasons for that one. Ditto on the sex ed and contraception. "

father bob wrote on Feb 6, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Billie Brant wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:05 AM:
"One thing is for certain. It's an emotional issue for all concerned and we need to address it with compassion on all sides. """"

billy, unfortunately that will never happen as long as this newspaper enables bible thumping so called "christians" like ms. abston, ms. duboise and jon vanatta a forum to rant about the sins of others.

out of the past 40 years, 31 of them have been controlled by conservative republicans who have brought this country to the brink of ruin by boasting they are doing the will of their so called "god" through this easter bunny ghost called "jesus"....and look at what it's wrought.

we have a president who is 17 days into his term and somehow he, and those who voted for him, have ruined the economy, put the nation in peril and spawned terrorism across the planet.

these people make hard working, tax paying, honest americans want to puke. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 4:17 PM:

" billy, unfortunately that will never happen as long as this newspaper enables bible thumping so called "christians" like ms. abston, ms. duboise and jon vanatta a forum to rant about the sins of others.

I see, and if those same people started a blog against these things, then can I assume that the athiest left will abstain from joining? "

medic57 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 4:20 PM:

" these people make hard working, tax paying, honest americans want to puke. "

I see FB, only you and your friends are hard working, tax paying, honest americans, right? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 6, 2009 4:43 PM:

" Sorry Techno-less, other than the mothers life being in danger; I can see no other rationale strong enough to justify taking the life of an innocent baby. "

Billie Brant wrote on Feb 6, 2009 4:48 PM:

" fb, you wrote

"billy, unfortunately that will never happen as long as this newspaper enables bible thumping so called "christians" like ms. abston, ms. duboise and jon vanatta a forum to rant about the sins of others."

With all due respect fb, is the newspaper just supposed to allow the flip side of the coin opposing the views of what you call "bible thumping so called "christians" like ms. abston, ms. duboise and jon vanatta to use this forum? Is that the way it's supposed to go fb? Just the subjects and viewpoints that happen to suit you and those who share your way of looking at things? No debates? No opposing viewpoints? No Christians at all? Just non-believers should be allowed to write LE's and post?

While enabling these "Bible thumping Christians" to use this forum, it also enables you and anyone else that wants to express themselves pro or con on a variety of subjects. It gives you the means to disagree with the "Bible Thumpers' to your heart's content.

You have a problem with so called Bible thumping Christians. That's a given fb. You and others make your displeasure known by a variety of pet names for their God such as "their so called "god" through this easter bunny ghost called "jesus"....and you expect them not to be able to defend their position? You folks defend yours on any given subject.

I realize fb that some of the extremists on what you call the Christian Right can be tedious and some can be downright hateful. But please don't paint all Christians with that broad brush of extremism.

You know my feelings on the topic of this thread. I hope I presented them calmly without ranting. As far as Cathy's letter, I don't think she was ranting at all! She presented her feelings in a respectful manner.

My feelings are imbeded deep within me fb. I can no more change them on this subject that I could change the color of my eyes. I know you can't change yours either. That's just the way it is. It sure doesn't mean I don't like you fb.I just don't go along with your "take" on the subject.

For lack of a better term, some on "your side" can get down and dirty too and be just as extreme. I guess it's just our human natures to disagree and it can get intense.

Post on folks. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 6, 2009 5:54 PM:

" Thanks Billie.

Very well said. "

tysnana wrote on Feb 6, 2009 6:12 PM:

" Wow I have read a few of these comments.First of all the negative ones unless you have walked in our shoes you have no right to judge the ones who are very much against abortion. Until your heart is broken by an aborted grandchild you will never know the pain we have went through, It is a ripple effect.My daughter aborted two of my grandchildren for no good reason. The last one she was 15 weeks pregnant & had promised me that she would have this baby. The daddy refused to take ownership so she just cut it from her life.We are not bible thumpers.You have a heartbeat at 3 weeks.When the negative ones hold the hand of a daughter who aborted her baby or watches her become addicted to drugs because of her own shame then & only then will you understand the pain all to well. Don't judge us until you have suffered as we have. "

ed miller wrote on Feb 6, 2009 6:19 PM:

" Yes, here is what your tax dollars get...

AP

TAMPA, Florida Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips. "

Tom Andres wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:37 PM:

" I can accept the grave reality of an abortion to save the life of the mother, IF the doctor who performs the abortion can accept the grave reality of being prosecuted if he or she can not justify the procedure after all the evidence is presented in a court of law.

Anyone remember the death of the newborn in Westfield last July? The mother, Cayla Wheeler, did the same thing that abortion clinics do - but whoa, wait a minute, she was charged with three counts of first degree murder.

Or, how about Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner; murdered by husband/father Scott Peterson? Hes now on death row in San Quentin because he took TWO lives.

How about Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children? Should she have been charged with murder, or merely practicing medicine without a license, you know, a very late-term abortion?

My point is, where do you draw the line? At conception, the first trimester, newborn, age six, age 10? Until Obama reaches the pay grade where he can decide when life begins, Id say we should err on the side of caution. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:58 PM:

" You aren't interested in "saving" lives Medic. If you were you'd be concerned about issues of birth defects, health of the mother, rape and incest, and the mental health of a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy and seeks help. The rights and life of the woman come first. "

ed miller wrote on Feb 6, 2009 8:11 PM:

" I like how everyone clamors about defects and health of the mother, when probably 95% of abortions are about convenience. It's easier to just kill the baby than deal with the hassle. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Susan

My oldest son is 22 years old, he was diagnosed with Learning disabilities, Cerebral Palsy and Epilepsy, he didn't learn to tie his shoes until he was 17. He now drives a car and has a girlfriend.

My youngest son is 21 years old, I had to rush my now ex-wife to the hospital one evening, it seems she had developed a bad gall bladder, while waiting for the doctor to come in we were suprised to be paid a visit by Dr. Laveck instaed, she told us that my wife was about 2 weeks along and offered us the option of an abortion, since there was now a chance that sugery could kill or injure the baby, we didn't hesitate to say no.

So you see, there is abolutely no way to tell if the child will be ok or not. By the way, my wife also fell down a flight of stairs carrying my second son.

The 1st son, who went through a normal pregnancy was handicapped, the 2nd son who had the odds stacked against him was fine.

Also, there is a couple in the church that I go to who had a baby some years back, the doctors told them that their son wouldn't live over just a day or so and if he did, he would be horribly handicapped for life. He is now in his 20's and finished high school. No matter what the doctors and tests tell you, you simply have no idea how something might turn out.

And by the way Susan, I have said many times on these blogs that I do believe in abortion under the right circumstances, Rape or Incest, but only for the 1st 3 months, (surely the mother can decide by then) If the mothers life is in dander, but only up until 5 months, after then, they can take the baby safely and save the mother. Quit making things up about people.

The rights and life of the woman come first.

Sorry, not if she willingly got pregnant, then a few months down the line decides she doesn't want it anymore. "

Billie Brant wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:12 PM:

" I tried not to rant BDD. :-) "

Locke wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:13 PM:

" LETTER: Freedom of Choice Act should be stopped

LETTER: Freedom should be stopped

LETTER: Freedom stopped "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:23 AM:

" Freedom to Choose

Freedom to Kill

Freedom to Murder

No Freedom to Live "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 7, 2009 7:36 AM:

" Billie...The issue is more basic than whether or not the media should present opposing views. What Father Bob is hinting at is much more dangerous than lopsided presentations. He sounds as if he would advocate outright censorship. And now my finger is wagging at Father Bob. Along with a healthy tsk-tsk-tsk.

And by the way, FB, the economy was already ruined when President Obama took office. Also, the nation was already in peril and terrorism was spawned long ago. Unless you expected them to magically disappear when he swore the oath. Now who believes in elves and fairies? Tsk-Tsk-Tsk number two.

BlueDog...from the tone of your posting it would seem that you would deny the woman impregnated by a rapist or the twelve year old victim of incest access to an abortion. In each of these cases the pregnant female did not voluntarily enter into a situation that she knew could result in a pregnancy. While many still cite the 14th ammendment as the primary source for abortion argument, in this case it has been argued that the 13 ammendment is more appropriate, since denying abortion rights, especially in these instances, is likened to compulsory motherhood.

...When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Ammendment...

So tell me this. That pregnant twelve year old forced to deliver her pregnancy, how does she support her child? Should the state then spend the next eighteen years providing the means while the mean spirited rant about welfare mothers? Or are you going to tell me that she should be forced into giving the child up for adoption after its birth to an older couple better equipped to support the child? If you believe this is the proper course of action, then I refer you again to the above statement.

This has lead to very bizarre cases. One that stands out is the case of a woman impregnated during a very violent rape whose attacker had been found and convicted. The woman decided to end the pregnancy, but was thwarted by her attacker, who argued that she would be violating his rights as a father. The court agreed, and even gave this criminal visitation rights, linking her forever to the stranger who violently, brutally assaulted her.

For those of you right to lifers out there who support the life begins at fertilization argument and who also practice contraception, be warned that a potential hypocritical status exists. Intra-uterine devices function to trick the uterus into behaving as if there is already an embryo implanted. They do not stop fertilization. They prevent the zygote from implanting since a uterus already pregnant cannot accept another. That new life is artificially denied growth just the same as if you had undergone an abortion. Birth control pills are also not 100% effective at stopping fertilization, so they increase the odds of halting pregnancy by also stopping a zygote from implanting. In both cases, the new baby cannot implant in the uterus, passes right on out of the body, and dies.

If you want me to consider that you are deeply serious about life beginning at fertilization, then I suggest that you confine yourselves to barrier methods and rhythm practices. Because as far as I am concerned, you are just allowing a pill, a patch, or a piece of plastic to conduct your abortions for you.

Do you know what they call couples who practice the rhythm method of birth control?.................Parents. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Actually Medic it is 24 weeks that a baby can survive outside the womb BUT that infant will be faced with lifelong health and learning disabilities. YOU take into consideration the health of the mother but OTHERS as we have seen ignore the whole issue of health, rape and incest and birth defects. AND yes many birth defects can be detected in utero. Many others ignore the whole issue of education and FREE birth control and actually go to great lengths to DENY education and birth control to those who need both. That is immoral in my book. The abortion issue isn't about cute little infants, the issue is much more complex, it involves health,mental, financial, public health (STDs), a whole slew of issues that the emotional appeal to save the "innocents" refuses to address. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 9:56 AM:

" So Locke

If effect, what you're saying is,

All laws are bad. "

INVICTA wrote on Feb 7, 2009 10:27 AM:

" Webster says....
Kill----Put to death, slay, destroy, extinguish, nullify, cancel, veto, neutralize.

Abortion? Termination? Right to choose?

If you can't be honest at least be accurate. The word is kill. The question is, when can it be justified? If a woman's life is truly in danger it is self defense. Civil and biblical laws both allow it. Unrestricted abortion gives a woman permission to kill. If you shoot your neighbor's dog you may be put in jail but kill his unborn child and it is sanctioned by the government. Until the pro's and Anti's find common ground it will continue. FOCA is just the democrat team's time to play with the political football. In four years the republicans may recover the ball and the game will continue. But don't be so politically correct that you can't even use the right word...Kill.
Donald L. Osborne "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 10:57 AM:

" Its kind of tragic Locke, people don't realize that the rights they demand for their self also have to be granted to the "other" IF they want to keep their rights. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:54 PM:

" Kill what Invicta? A mass of tissue that doesn't look human, can't survive outside a womb? Abort-fail to develop or to miscarry or to stop from proceeding. Yes let's do get our terms right. "

cedric66 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:03 PM:

" Very good post Billy! I agree with you all the way "

cd wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:39 PM:

" Since I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, I support these rights. "
------------
1. I can accept abortion in the case of saving a mother's life (if her life is indeed in danger), for rape, and incest. These are outside her control.

2. Excluding #1, a woman getting pregnant has shirked her responsibility and accountability.
a. She could have refused going to bed with a man.
b. She could have used legitimate birth control. Don't give me the line that it is the man responsibility for birth control. She doesn't want to get pregnant, and she wants total control of her own body, then it is HER responsibility to use birth control.
3. Having failed her two previous opportunities to avoid getting pregnant and control of her own body, she now wants a third opportunity; it is now time for her to do the ULTIMATE responsible action and have the child. This would require her to be ACCOUNTABLE for the health and welfare of the child during pregnancy. At birth, if the 'mother?' chooses to no longer be responsible and accountable for the child, she can put the child up for adoption. Their are many couples that can't or no longer able to have children of their own and would love to adopt a child.

A woman wants control of her body and life, should start by being a responsible and accountable individual that avoids even the first step to getting pregnant. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:54 PM:

" (Techno-less wrote "In each of these cases the pregnant female did not voluntarily enter into a situation that she knew could result in a pregnancy.")

Did the baby voluntarily enter into life?

Should the innocent life have a voice?

Compulsory motherhood outweighs the right for an innocent voiceless human being to live?

The quality of life for one individual,

justifies the ending of the life of another individual?

Really?

Didn't the Nazi's use that justification?

(Techno-less wrote - "Should the state then spend the next eighteen years providing the means while the mean spirited rant about welfare mothers?")

Uhm..... our welfare system already does that, much to the delight of Liberals like you, Tech. So why don't we just create another Stimulus Pork bill for this? Hey, Obama can always print more money.

(Techno-less wrote - "Or are you going to tell me that she should be forced into giving the child up for adoption after its birth to an older couple better equipped to support the child?")

Why not? If the child is such a burden, then why would this not be applicable?

(Techno-less wrote - "When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment")

So, Tech, if unfortunate circumstances ever place YOU in a position, where YOUR LIFE is dependent on my services, I can legally CAUSE YOUR DEATH by refusing you my services?

If anything the baby is an involuntary slave to the mother and to the overall circumstances, more so than the mother. But if the mothers right to freedom are violated, then how does that even compare to the violation of the baby's right to life?

A slave's freedom does not necessarily result in the owners death. BUT the mothers "freedom" does absolutely result in the baby's death.

So what we have here is a very narrow, temporary definition of "Servitude"; versus a very broad and permanent reality of "Death".

Mmmmmmm I choose the permanence of reality.

Minds and hearts always have the chance to heal. So far, there has been no cure for death. "

INVICTA wrote on Feb 7, 2009 4:58 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:54 PM:

" Kill what Invicta? A mass of tissue that doesn't look human, can't survive outside a womb? Abort-fail to develop or to miscarry or to stop from proceeding. Yes let's do get our terms right. "

" Kill what Invicta? A mass of tissue that doesn't look human (BUT IS), can't survive outside a womb(YOU MEAN LIKE AN ELDERLY PERSON IN A NURSING HOME CAN'T SURVIVE OUTSIDE OR A NEW BORN CAN'T SURVIVE WITH OUT HELP)? Abort-fail to develop (DIE) or to miscarry (DIE) or to stop from proceeding(KILL). Yes let's do get (BOTH) our terms right.

To stop something from living you have to kill it. I think what you are saying is that if someone dosen't meet your idea of viable we should crush it or chemically burn it to death and pretend we didn't kill it by using a word that hides the action. A rose by another name? "

ed miller wrote on Feb 7, 2009 6:26 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:54 PM:
" Kill what Invicta? A mass of tissue that doesn't look human, can't survive outside a womb?"

That described all of us at one point. So I guess if you were killed at that point it wouldn't have mattered to anyone. "

red,white,blue wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:49 PM:

" If the first poster, Elbert, truly believed in "personal responsibility and accountability" then it seems to me that taking the precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy would fall under personal responsibility and accountability, not getting pregnant and using abortion as a family planning tool. I am not totally against abortion under certain circumstances but do not see how anyone can justify letting a viable baby be put aside to die. Also, as the parent of a daughter who cannot have children but has given us grandchildren by giving a home to children of those unable to care for them, I do know that there are plenty of people out there willing to give unwanted kids homes and I thank God everyday that some of those kids are now my family. "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:59 AM:

" I never have condoned abortion but if people wanna mess up their own lives whatever, it is something I can't rack my mind with, abortion is an option that I would never ever consider but the right to be stupid is well exercised amongst many so let them do with their lives what they want to do, we have more things to worry about "

medic57 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:12 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:54 PM:

" Kill what Invicta? A mass of tissue that doesn't look human, can't survive outside a womb? Abort-fail to develop or to miscarry or to stop from proceeding. Yes let's do get our terms right. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Actually Medic it is 24 weeks that a baby can survive outside the womb

That may be true Susan, but you want abortion to be available at ANY time, for ANY reason during pregnancy, Right? "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:17 AM:

" Get off of it, CD. If a man is of fertile age and does not want a baby, then he has the ethical and moral responsibility to make sure that he doesn't make one. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Anyone who would believe that it is only the responsibility of the woman just because she is the one who actually carries the pregnancy is completely delusional (hey, completely delusional. CD. What a coincidence).

Guess what. Women may be able to become pregnant, but they can't do it alone. That takes two fertile people to accomplish, and at least one of them is using the world's oldest cop out to exclaim "It's not my fault." Followed by the ever popular "She tricked me into it." Nobody can trick you into anything if you are taking care of your own business. Any man who fails to do so deserves all the child support that he is ordered to pay.

And Blue Dog, that twelve year old incest victim is also a child. So I guess that you make a distinction between when children are allowed to be considered the important one as well. First you would force a child who is not physically mature enough to undergo a pregnancy, then you would top it off by stripping her of her parental rights and stealing her baby away to give to someone else. And in case it failed your notice, the cemeteries are filled with the graves of children who died giving birth to children. But I get your drift. Death at twelve okay. Death at minus zero bad.

These are exactly the scenarios that I think of while I continue to support the right to choose despite hating abortions. I repeat. The solution lies in attitude, education, and availability. Until anti-abortionists drop their pretense of only wanting to save lives and develop a workable plan that addresses all issues, I will continue to vote against them. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Mr. Miller it wouldn't have mattered to me, I wouldn't even have been aware. AND if reincarnation is right I could still get another chance to come back and give it another try under more favorable circumstances. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:23 AM:

" Medic the issue of whether an abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason is a responsible question and issue to address. Quite honestly at the way we are now I will have to go for yes in that it be allowed any time for any reason. Because....people will find a way around a law if needed, so if the law says up to 24 weeks, last I heard doctors still can't pin exact delivery dates since they can't pin exact conception dates, so there is room to fudge. Without an exact unfallible measurement tool a date cutoff will be unworkable. AND of course you know there should never be any limit that doesn't allow for the health of the woman. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:30 AM:

" Then Medic there will be the issue of if a limit is set at 24 weeks, since that appears to now be the viable stage, what about future medical developments? Medical technology keeps improving, it won't be long before there will be something more like an artificial womb, complete with amniotic like fluid. What do we do then? Someone said there are those willing to adopt, she should pull her head out of the sand, there are NOT enough adoptive parents, or foster parents, or orphanages to care for all of those infants that might be carried to the 24 week stage and delivered by C-section and put up for adoption or for the fetuses put into artificial wombs. AND then that doesn't address the expense issue, the health and developmental issues of the premature infants. OR what a child might be like that was created in a petrie dish, developed in an artificial womb, and comes into this world with no parents? Lots of moral issues Medic. I still think abortion has to be made available at any time for any reason. AND that as a society we should see to it that ALL people of reproductive age get full complete unbiased sex education and FREE birth control starting at puberty. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:24 AM:

" I still think abortion has to be made available at any time for any reason.

Sorry Susan, that's where we part ways, you're just wrong, but you have a nice day anyway. I'll argue more with you later. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:25 AM:

" AND that as a society we should see to it that ALL people of reproductive age get full complete unbiased sex education and FREE birth control starting at puberty. "

As I have said in the past, I agree with that completely. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:06 PM:

" (Techno-less - "you would top it off by stripping her of her parental rights and stealing her baby away to give to someone else.")

Not necessarily Tech. Each case could be dealt with on an individual basis, taking into consideration the immediate and extended family structure as well as any and all circumstances involved.

(Techno-less - "And in case it failed your notice, the cemeteries are filled with the graves of children who died giving birth to children.")

No, I haven't noticed that, Tech.
But I'm open to statistical evidence- as long as it takes into consideration the historical context of medical advancements, as well as the lawsuit-motivated practice of unnecessary Cesarean procedures, which was created and fostered by the trial lawyer, Democrat Senator John Edwards.

(Techno-less - "But I get your drift. Death at twelve okay. Death at minus zero bad.")

I beg to differ with you Tech, with modern medical advancements, not to mention the physical maturity of today's average twelve year old, the death of the mother is hardly a certainty in this scenario; but I'm sure you will agree Tech, that death of the innocent baby is a "dead-lock" guarantee in this case. No?

Besides Tech, you seem to forget, that I am NOT against a procedure that is performed to save the mother's life. But can you tell me Tech, for the sake of clarity, what specifically are the conditions that would endanger the mother's life in this or any other pregnancy, in the first place?

And what's most interesting Tech, is that you seem to want it both ways in this case:

First- you state that it is an infringement of the individual freedom of the girl to "force" motherhood onto her.

But- you then reverse course and argue that it is likewise an infringement on her rights to strip her of her parental rights?

Tech, you seem to be willing to entertain every possible view and consideration of the mother, no matter how contradictory, but you give zero consideration to the most basic, the most essential of human rights to the most innocent, defenseless, and voiceless, of all human beings.

Let's not forget a timeless truth here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *LIFE* Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And finally Tech, your scenario is a bit telling. First of all, you don't just present a rape victim, or an incest victim, or a minor. No no no. Instead you pull out the highly-charged emotional "Trifecta"; the "coup de grace" of the combined "12 year old incest rape victim".

Don't get me wrong, such a case is tragic and must be considered; but what percentage of the time does this scenario actually occur?

Obviously Tech, you find it necessary to present this most rare and tragic of scenarios. It's not surprising that such extreme examples are necessary to counter the most absolute unnatural horror of killing that which is most innocent.

Which begs the question, Tech:

Why do you claim to "Hate abortions" in the first place?

If we, as a society, cannot make any and all efforts to protect the most basic of rights for the most innocent of lives; then how can we really value ANY rights of any human lives?

That is the simple and timeless question that must be answered here. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:21 PM:

" I'm not WRONG Medic, YOU are the one that is WRONG. OR shall we just accept that we have different opinions, and neither is right or wrong. They are simply different views of how to handle/best address a complicated issue. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:39 PM:

" (Techno-less "Guess what. Women may be able to become pregnant, but they can't do it alone.")

Uhm....hello? Tech?

Sperm banks?....In Vitro Fertilisation?

This doesn't require dinner and a movie does it, Tech? "

elbert wrote on Feb 8, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Red White and Blue wrote " If the first poster, Elbert, truly believed in "personal responsibility and accountability"

Thank you for your comment. In response, I provide the following:

I believe in personal responsibility and thus accountability for ones actions. I, recognize that personal responsibility is not popular. When something happens, people want to avoid responsibility for their actions. That is unfortunate. If one would take responsibility for their actions, many of the issues surrounding abortion would disappear. Thus, all, including me, should always take responsibility for their actions. That would foster the concept of responsibility and reduce the possibility of abortion.

Taking responsibility includes using contraception and, having the means to do so. That means making information about contraception available and providing ways to obtain appropriate means of contraception. It also means teaching about responsibility for ones actions so that one is accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, not everyone will take responsibility for their actions. If you dont believe that is true, just look around and see what is going on. Thus, what happens if there is an unwanted pregnancy. To require someone to take care of a child, who is unwanted, is to abuse the child. Thus, those who are against abortion should be willing to come forth and adopt child and care for it so that the child will thrive. Yes it would be nice if the biological parents would take responsibility for their actions, but that doesnt happen.

I am sure that there are those who say, but it is the responsibility of the biological parents to raise the child. Sure, I agree. But, now you have condemned that child to a life of potential abuse, certainly the abuse of being unloved. If all one is concerned about is that the child has been born, then, in my opinion, they have not really expressed true concern for the child. "

ed miller wrote on Feb 8, 2009 3:14 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:17 AM:
" ...if reincarnation is right I could still get another chance to come back and give it another try under more favorable circumstances. "

Yeah, Good luck with that. "

cd wrote on Feb 8, 2009 6:24 PM:

" Techno-less wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:17 AM:

Guess what. Women may be able to become pregnant, but they can't do it alone.
- - - - -
Guess what, Technot. I'm talking about women who get bent out of shape with words about it being THEIR body, and having CONTROL of thier body, yet their actions of getting pregnant and wanting an abortion defies the words they speak.

It may take 2 to make a pregnancy, but as for her demonstrating "Control" of her body is pathetic.

Her actions indicates that the only real control she wants of HER body is when she is line for an unwanted pregnancy. THEN she wants that control in the form of an abortion.

So we're not talking about how many it takes to make a baby, at least I wasn't, but the lack of control that women demonstrate in light of defiantly claiming it is THEIR body. That is what I was talking about.

Stay on the subject the next time. "

Rotty wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:00 PM:

" Soapbox Susie aka Genius Gnat's reincarnation....

Quick, someone get the Raid! "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:45 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:39 PM:

" (Techno-less "Guess what. Women may be able to become pregnant, but they can't do it alone.")

Uhm....hello? Tech?

Sperm banks?....In Vitro Fertilisation?

This doesn't require dinner and a movie does it, Tech? "

Oh my do we possibly agree on something, if this is about what I think it is about...Women own their bodies and are their OWN last line of defense, no means NO! and if it doesn't then it is rape, men need some self control but still the final choice is HERS "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:34 PM:

" (injustice - "Oh my do we possibly agree on something, if this is about what I think it is about...Women own their bodies and are their OWN last line of defense, no means NO! and if it doesn't then it is rape, men need some self control but still the final choice is HERS")

Not quite where I was going with that nj85.

We all "own" our own bodies- to a point.

When, however, our bodies create a third body- there is an obligation on the part of both the man and the woman to accept responsibility of this new, third little body.

Let's not forget, as blissful and enjoyable as sex is; it's first and foremost function is to procreate.

And procreate we shall! Sometimes when we never intended to. That's when we should cease to behave like animals in heat, and begin to act like the human beings we truly are. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:28 AM:

" ...We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal...

Really? Is that why it took the passage of a whole extra ammendment to recognize a black man as worth more that 3/4 of a man and give him his equality?

Is that why it took a whole other ammendment to recognize the citizenship of women, their right to own their own property, and to allow them the basic right of a citizen to vote?

Is that why it took a whole string of ammendments to clarify exactly what those rights were for everyone?

Evidently it wasn't so self evident. But since you are going to argue constitutional rights, then you are going to have to notice that nowhere in either the plain text copy of the constitution nor in any of the additions since its ratification is there anything stating that the unborn is a citizen with full rights.

But it should be pointed out that there are legal definitions of exactly what comprises a citizen of the United States in the Articles of the Constitution which were ratified to clarify details lacking in the original document. And in every one of them, a citizen is defined by where and under what circumstances they were born. Not conceived. Born.

So if you are going to argue legality, then you haven't a leg to stand on. Under the laws of the United States Constitution, the unborn have no legal standing. But the freedom to choose currently does.

I seem to remember reading complaints that the Supreme Court had over reached their authority and established laws to support abortion practices. But many of you don't hesitate to expect them to over reach their authority and establish laws declaring the unborn to be citizens and banning abortion. Pretty slick there, people.

May I suggest that if you wish to continue using the Constitution as your argument against abortion, that you contact your senator to present a bill requesting that a new ammendment be added to the Constitution declaring the unborn to be full citizens?

You don't even recognize the unborn as a person until birth. You don't start counting their ages until they are born. Despite the fact that they have already been around for nine months, you set their age at zero the day that they emerge from the womb. You don't legally give them a name until the day they are born. You don't apply for a social security card the day the pregnancy is discovered. You don't conduct funeral services for miscarriages, and those babies generally enter into eternity nameless. And even if you had been through the agony of a miscarriage, generally when someone asks you how many children you have, you usually don't count the one lost to miscarriage. But you would mention one that died after being born.

Hippocrites all. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:38 AM:

" Blue Dog...If sperm banks and in vitro fertilization remove men from the picture, then where does the sperm come from? Are you suggesting that women are actually visiting fronts for illegal human cloning?

And how many women do you know that used a sperm bank to become pregnant so that they could go and have an abortion later on? That procedure can cost up to one hundred thousand dollars or more depending upon difficulty.

And yes you are right. It doesn't require dinner and a movie. It also does not require picking his underwear up off of the floor for fifty years.

Think before you type. "

Becky wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:45 AM:

" I've got 2 questions for all of you. 1st, since when has making anything illegal ever completely stopped anyone from doing anything? If this were the case, we wouldn't need prisons. 2nd, if we make abortions illegal forcing women back into the dark ages of mutilation and death by either self aborting or back alley butchers, how many of you are willing to risk the life of your wife, daughter, niece, granddaughter because they can't get a safe abortion legally?

Abortions happen, whether we like it or not and they will continue to happen whether legal or not. All this bill does is make women (and yes many of them YOUR family members whether you know it or not)go back to tearing themselves up or having some dirty, cheap butcher do it for a couple of hundred bucks again. We all know the outcome of too many of these back alley, self imposed abortions. We can't go back to that. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:45 AM:

" CD...if you are out there spreading around your little man cells without regard to the potential results and using the excuse that it is the woman's responsiblity, then I will repeat. You deserve all child support that you are forced to pay.

It is your body and your little cells. If you are not prepared to behave responsibly where your own fertility is concerned, then may I suggest that you keep it in your pants. Lack of responsiblity on a woman's part does not cancel out your own.

Just one more man screaming "its all her fault". "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:47 AM:

" Any man whose personal behavior resulted in the creation of an unwanted pregnancy that is aborted shares the guilt for the abortion. He didn't have to tango either. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:26 AM:

" By the way. The word is "inalienable". The phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution upon which our laws are constructed. And if you are using this as an argument that this includes the unborn, let me remind you that it also intentionally left out all the black people held in bondage. And although there were those who argued otherwise, at the time that the declaration was released, it meant all men of European origin.

And it was also once used to argue that women were not included since the statement used the word men and not men and women. Women were therefore not considered to be citizens, with full rights and able to own property, for over two hundred more years. That would be more than one half of a century after black men were given their equal status, at least on paper.

It took legally attached ammendments to the constitution to correct this "oversight". With that idea, I will refer you back to my earlier post.

And yes, I do argue the extreme. Because you just as easily choose to ignore them. "

Rotty wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Great post, Becky!

My thoughts pretty well go along with what Billie & Becky have said. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Injustice, the final choice lies with any fertile individual, man or woman, who does not wish to become a parent. If a man does not choose to recognize this, then he should not become sexually active. When he decides to do so, then he is responsible for his own role in procreation.

But I understand the dissent. You are after all the sons of Adam. He was the first man to sin and then try to lay the blame on somebody else. He was the first to complain "it's not my fault!" Eve may have brought him the apple, but he decided to take a bite out of it. Men can say no as well.

Live up to your own responsiblities. If both parties took care of things for themselves, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no need for abortion. Two people are responsible for the need for an abortion, and are equally guilty. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Techno-less - "Evidently it wasn't so self evident.")

Apparently it was. Otherwise no Amendments would have ever been proposed to grant equality to blacks and women in the first place. No? Self-evident doesn't necessarily mean self-evident to everyone. Like abortion for instance.

(Techno-less - "Under the laws of the United States Constitution, the unborn have no legal standing.")

Then why do at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws?

And why do 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy?

And why did a Federal (pro-abortion) Judge, Scott O. Wright, refuse to deport a pregnant woman back to Mexico in May of 2004 because her unborn child was an American citizen with constitutional rights, and as such, the baby was entitled to stay in the country?

And then there's The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Maybe we need a legally attached amendment to the constitution to correct this "oversight"- huh Tech?

And by the way, the original word used in the Declaration of Independence was actually "unalienable" NOT "inalienable"

So again I ask you Tech,

why do you claim to "Hate abortions" in the first place? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:11 AM:

" (Techno-less - "And yes, I do argue the extreme. Because you just as easily choose to ignore them.")

I didn't ignore the extreme. In fact I just addressed it.

So why do you choose to ignore the possibility that the unborn are human beings who are entitled to life, Tech? "

father bob wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:38 AM:
"

Think before you type. """"

that his problem... the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting gets pretty old. he rarely thinks, researches or confirm before he types....he just fires away and hope something sticks. pretty pathetic actually. "

father bob wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:37 AM:

" just curious....isn't "freedom of choice" what this country is founded on?

the choice is a decision made by a woman regarding HER body in this instance. someone's so called "god" has nothing to do with it. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:06 PM:

" (Techno-less - "Blue Dog...If sperm banks and in vitro fertilization remove men from the picture, then where does the sperm come from?")

Uhm.... I'd say a glass vile of some sort.

You see Tech, the men never enter "the picture" in this case.

Their sperm does.

So I say - let the sperm pay child support!

(Techno-less - "It also does not require picking his underwear up off of the floor for fifty years.")

Uhm.....would you like to talk about your pent up resentment towards men, Tech?

.....and you're telling ME to think before I type?

LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:09 PM:

" (father bob - "that his problem... the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting gets pretty old. he rarely thinks, researches or confirm before he types....he just fires away and hope something sticks. pretty pathetic actually.")

Really Bob?

Like that bogus 600,000 Iraqi death count that you've been spewing on here? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:22 PM:

" (father bob - "just curious....isn't "freedom of choice" what this country is founded on?")

You first have to be free to LIVE before you can be free to choose anything.

("the choice is a decision made by a woman regarding HER body in this instance. someone's so called "god" has nothing to do with it.")

Not when her body contains another little body. "

buh wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:56 PM:

" I think we should have a 30 day return policy on our kids. If they cramp our life style we can just abort them. Running around after kids could be hard on a womans body and we don't want that. We could just throw them away like a real abortion clinic. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 1:38 PM:

" AND of course you know there should never be any limit that doesn't allow for the health of the woman. "

That may be true, but the health of the woman does not come into play past 24 weeks as the baby can be born by C Section at that time without danger to the mother or child. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 1:49 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Actually Medic it is 24 weeks that a baby can survive outside the womb.

As of 2006, the youngest child to survive a premature birth in the United States was a girl born at the Baptist Hospital of Miami at 21 weeks and 6 days' gestational age "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 9, 2009 2:31 PM:

" that his problem... the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting gets pretty old. he rarely thinks, researches or confirm before he types....he just fires away and hope something sticks. pretty pathetic actually.

Oh but fb, don't you know he's whuppin' up on everybody on here. If you don't believe me, just ask him. I'm pretty sure he will be willing to tell you, right after he shares his educational background with nj85.... lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 2:55 PM:

" ("I'd say a glass vile of some sort.")

Make that a glass "vial". "

dct wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:04 PM:

" FOCA is about more than a woman's right to her own body.
Some of the things FOCA will do away with are:

Bans on Partial Birth Abortion

Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion

Only licensed physicians can perform abortions

Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter's abortion

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future. One other thing FOCA will erase is any Catholic or other faith based hospital will be required to perform an abortion. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:21 PM:

" Ahem

I didn't happen to notice when you posted YOUR educational background in here, Harry.

Where can we find that?

Oh and, maybe you'd like to show us all some factual verification for that bogus claim of 600,000 Iraqi deaths that you keep spewing in here.

That's right coward.

Just keep running away............. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:31 PM:

" (dct - "One other thing FOCA will erase is any Catholic or other faith based hospital will be required to perform an abortion.")

Yep.

The Catholic Bishops warned that they will close the doors on every Catholic health care facility in the country rather than be forced to perform abortions.

That's a third of all hospitals in the nation folks.

How's Obama going to replace them? "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:39 PM:

" Just one more example of how the average male has psychologically removed himself from the necessity of responsibly procreating.

It would now seem that women have available to them glass vials that seem to magically produce sperm cells on their own.

Or is it just that you believe that you don't have to own up to anything because you didn't get to have sex first. That is funny, because you also seem to have argued that you don't have to own up to anything even if you did get to have sex first. In fact, your argument seems to imply that men just do not have to own up to anything because they can't get pregnant.

Guess what, Blue Dog. There are billions of critters and plants in the world that use sexual reproduction, and the biggest majority never even see each other let alone touch each other.

Oh, and by the way. Apparantly it wasn't so apparant since ammendments to the Constitution had to be ratified in order to make it so. It even took two ammendments to ensure both equal status and voting rights: one to state that they were equal and another to prevent states from passing laws preventing them from voting. That would be the fifteenth ammendment, which was ratified to enforce that which was evidently not apparant in the fourteenth ammendment.

You can say something is apparant all you want, but the truth is in the old adage: legally speaking, if it doesn't state it, then that isn't what it says.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with men. It's the whiney little boys that irritate the crap out of me. Men know how to be responsible for themselves. Whiney little boys blame everybody else. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:08 PM:

" Would people at least please read the Freedom of Information Act before bandying about what it says?

So what, DCT, we've got a bunch of unliscensed physicians running around out there practicing medicine? Are you saying that FOCA will supersede the laws already governing the regulation and control of medical procedures in this country? Are you saying that the American Medical Association will go along with that? And do you visit a doctor when needed who does not make sure that you understand what is going to happen to you? If you are, it is probably time for a new doctor.

I believe that I already established by actually posting the relevant parts of the actual act that FOCA does not take away a parents rights. In fact it states straight out that states cannot pass any laws that would do so. That makes you either misinformed, or an outright liar.

FOCA also plainly states that the only candidates for abortion after viability are women whose health and lives are threatened. Maybe you should do a little research into the potentially lethal medical conditions that pregnancies have been known to trigger, conditions that, if left unchecked, lead to the deaths of both the mother and the baby. And yes, medical science has improved, which means that there are fewer women and children who die on the delivery table. But they are still dying.

It has been asked how I can be against abortion and still support the right to choose. I have already answered that question. The solution lies in attitude, education, and availability.
Attitude would also include that men begin to step up and take responsibility for their own personal fertility as well as the women. Education means ensuring that every individual from puberty on up has all the knowledge necessary to protect themselves. And availability means that those who decide to become sexually active can easily get their hands on the means to do so, and that both men and women are doing this for themselves instead of continually passing the buck to someone else. Until those issues are the ones being addressed, I will remain pro choice. "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Looks like pointing out someones lack of formal education has hit a sore spot. That's OK college isn't for everyone. There's always trade school. LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:28 PM:

" (Techno-less - "In fact, your argument seems to imply that men just do not have to own up to anything because they can't get pregnant.")

You apparently missed my Feb 8, 2009 9:34 PM post huh, Tech?

You'll find I really am a responsible man. More than you know.

I would suggest you go back and read it. And no, there's no need to apologize, Tech.

And finally Tech, you claimed that the unborn have no legal standing, and yet you didn't really address any of these points:

-Fetal homicide laws

-The Federal Judge, who refuse to deport a pregnant woman back to Mexico because her unborn child was an American citizen with constitutional rights

-The Unborn Victims of Violence Act "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:30 PM:

" What was that Harry?

Did you say you where ready to reveal your wondrous academic records to us? "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:42 PM:

" Blue Dog...The case of the late stage pregnancy of a woman shot in the abdomen during a robbery, whose baby was killed by the bullet. The judge refused to allow murder charges against the criminal since babies could also be legally aborted.

All of the cases where men have been indicted for one count of assault and battery against a woman, when the woman was actually pregnant at the time but the baby was left uncounted.

Men accused of battery against a pregnant woman resulting in the miscarriage of the fetus, but not charged with the murder of the fetus.

If you want to keep playing musical court cases, I've got a million of them. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:19 PM:

" So Tech,

Should we just ignore the case of the man who was prosecuted under the Wisconsin fetal homicide law when he was accused of causing his pregnant girlfriend's abortion by spiking her drink with RU-486?

Or the Virginia man who was sentenced to prison for giving his girlfriend a drug that caused a miscarriage?

Or the Pennsylvania murder case where a man was convicted on two counts of murder when he killed a pregnant woman and here unborn child?

Or the capital murder conviction in Texas of Gerardo Flores for causing the 2004 deaths of twin unborn baby boys by stomping on the abdomen of his pregnant girlfriend?

I thought you said the unborn had no legal standing, Tech? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:27 PM:

" State court boosts law on killing of unborn

Murderer liable even if unaware of pregnancy

April 6, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO AP The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law yesterday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the perpetrator is unaware of the pregnancy. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:38 PM:

" California Supreme Court Okays
Broad Application of Fetal Homicide Law

WASHINGTON (April 5, 2004) - - By a vote of 6-1, the California Supreme Court on April 5 upheld a murder conviction of a man who shot a pregnant woman to death, and then argued that he had not known she was pregnant.

Harold Taylor was convicted of two counts of murder in the 1999 shooting deaths of Patty Fensler and her 11-week to 13-week-old unborn child. A state appeals court reversed the fetal homicide conviction, saying the law did not apply to Taylor because he was not aware of the pregnancy. The California Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, ruling that it is not necessary for the state to prove that an attacker knew of the existence of a fetal victim, as long as the state proves criminal intent towards some victim. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:41 PM:

" NRLC Federal Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, "This ruling makes clear that under California law, as under the federal Unborn Victims of Vio-lence Act, if criminal intent towards one victim is proved, a criminal will be held responsible for the harm he does to other victims as well, including unborn children. This legal doctrine will serve to deter many attacks, including many attacks on women and girls who are not actually pregnant."

The California Supreme Court ruling is the latest in a long line of federal and state court decisions rejecting legal attacks on state fetal homicide laws. For example, in 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in upholding the two-homicide indictment of a man for killing a woman who was found, during an autopsy, to be about one month pregnant. The Minnesota court held: "The possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude." (State v. Merrill) "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:28 PM:

" Well gee, two states down, forty eight more to go. Plus the District of Columbia and a few territories to boot. And I see that you would like to play musical court cases. Gentlemen, begin your research.

I am of course assuming that you are aware that California state law does not apply in other states. And in most other states in the union those cases would not have made it to court. Because these matters are decided on a state by state basis since the United States Constitution does not establish on a national level the rights of the unborn. If it did, then every person in every state who assaults a pregnant woman, or who kills a pregnant woman, or who does anything resulting in the miscarriage of a pregnancy would be charged and convicted of a double crime: the one against the woman, and the one against the unborn child. But they aren't. Because it doesn't.

Walked into that one, Sonny. "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:44 PM:

" It appears that GEDdog may have bitten off more than he can chew with Techno. As soon as the maggot starts proclaiming a beatdown, we will know he know he gettin' a whuppin'. As most know, that's his tactic when getting beaten up on, on any topic. Who knows, perhaps old NeoCon will mysteriously appear and tell him what a great job he's doing. LOL! "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:04 PM:

" 36 states currently have fetal homocide laws, the majority of which deal with the commission of a crime that results in injury or death to a pregnant woman. Most of these restrict the condideration to what is known as a "quick child" which occurs on the average around week fifteen, although this varies from pregnancy to pregnancy. This is the only legal definition of the beginning of life currently on the books. Only nineteen states posess fetal homocide laws due to death of the fetus at any age, and most of these exempt death of the fetus through legal means.

Many of these laws were passed when Roe v Wade was again brought up for revue and are not often acted upon. They are fought by those who fear that the state may try to prosecute women for poor diet or lack of medical assistance, which would automatically make poor women at risk for charges should their pregnancies fail due to being too poor to provide proper nutrition and medical care. And possibly bring the fathers of these fetuses up on charges for not seeing to it that the needs of the pregnancy were met. In short, the fetal homocide laws open up a huge Pandora's box that relatively want to see open. These laws are also most liable to appear during election years.

And by the way, the gentleman in Texas was convicted of the double homocide because of his deliberate intent to attack this woman and kill her unborn quick children.

In some states legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women, but the focus is on the harm done to the pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:21 PM:

" Actually Techno-less

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

And at least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")

AND

As of Nov 2007 there have been 10 Constitutional Challenges to
State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

Including:

California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin

All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection.

All failed.

Now then Tech, you don't think this is a legal leg to stand on?

And again, why do you claim to "Hate abortions" in the first place, Tech? "

lemons89 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:22 PM:

" I know someone who had 3 abortions by the time she was 20 just for convenience and another who was about 5 or 6 months pregnant and had one because her dad thought it would ruin his reputation...now is that right?!! Hell no its not! If you're mature enough to make the decision to have sex then you better be mature enough to raise a child...and you can get birth control quit easily. so now whats the excuse for it? Yes, of course if there's health issues that's one thing but if people are getting tried for murdering an unborn child then why aren't people who have abortions also tried with murder? Sounds like double standards to me... "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:23 PM:

" Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:38 AM:
" Injustice, the final choice lies with any fertile individual, man or woman, who does not wish to become a parent. If a man does not choose to recognize this, then he should not become sexually active. When he decides to do so, then he is responsible for his own role in procreation.

But I understand the dissent. You are after all the sons of Adam. He was the first man to sin and then try to lay the blame on somebody else. He was the first to complain "it's not my fault!" Eve may have brought him the apple, but he decided to take a bite out of it. Men can say no as well.

Live up to your own responsiblities. If both parties took care of things for themselves, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no need for abortion. Two people are responsible for the need for an abortion, and are equally guilty. "

sure, but the woman is her own line of defense dude, preach it all you want, a man needs to have his crap figured out to but if he decides he doesn't care and she does or even vice versa she STILL has to be the FINAL say, not exactly physics "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:28 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:34 PM:
" (injustice - "Oh my do we possibly agree on something, if this is about what I think it is about...Women own their bodies and are their OWN last line of defense, no means NO! and if it doesn't then it is rape, men need some self control but still the final choice is HERS")

Not quite where I was going with that nj85.

We all "own" our own bodies- to a point.

When, however, our bodies create a third body- there is an obligation on the part of both the man and the woman to accept responsibility of this new, third little body.

WE AGREE! lol I agree once the woman is pregnant it is BOTH parents responsibility I just think that it is her final say whether she becomes that way, I agree the man needs to take on any responsibilities to make sure she wants to have unprotected sex or not but still...her say "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:31 PM:

" father bob wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:37 AM:
" just curious....isn't "freedom of choice" what this country is founded on?

the choice is a decision made by a woman regarding HER body in this instance. someone's so called "god" has nothing to do with it. "

>>>supposed to be founded on that freedom but can you think of a time in history where it has actually worked that way, women didn't even have rights for a long time "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:39 PM:

" 24 State Fetal Homicide Laws define a fetus as a person and a separate homicide victim. This gives the fetus legal rights distinct from the woman who was attacked.

These laws imperil abortion rights by giving personhood and rights to fetuses.

When a law exists that recognizes fetal rights, it creates a legal contradiction. Because if a fetus has the right not to be "murdered" in the womb by a third party, why doesn't it have the right not to be "murdered" by its own mother? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 9, 2009 8:09 PM:

" Well injustice85,

it looks like we DO agree.

I'm glad we found some common ground my friend. "

dct wrote on Feb 9, 2009 8:35 PM:

" techno-less here is the link to confirm what I wrote. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

www.focafacts.com/ "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:29 PM:

" I don't need to see a link. I have a copy of the act right here in front of me.

Considering that I offered two options, misinformation and lying, I do find it curious that dct chose to respond to the latter. Could that be the option that he identified with?

And it could very well be argued that a man has the final say on whether he becomes a father or not. He makes his choice the second that he fails to use proper contraceptive techniques. He fails ethically when he passes the buck onto the woman.

Abortion rights are not imperiled by the passage of these laws, since state laws cannot superscede federal ones. That is what antiabortionists have against FOCA. It emphasizes the decision made by the Supreme Court over Roe v Wade, which has stood despite thirty years of relentless attack.

What they do, besides giving an extra tool for courts to use to put violent criminals away, is to threaten prosecution for the deaths of fetuses through any other means, mostly directed at the mother. This would include poor diet and nutrition, lack of appropriate medical care, drug usage, smoking, among others. They have also gotten more than a few people elected, which was the actual political goal to begin with.

But of course, so far, these worse case scenarios have not yet occurred. No woman has been charged with murder because her diet lead to the end of her pregnancy. None have been charged who took over the counter drugs, such as advil, which are directly linked to birth defects and still births. This has not happened, because they do not address the rights of the fetus. They address the rights of a woman who has decided to carry her child to term the ability to do so. They provide severe penalties to those whose actions have denied her her right to complete her pregnancy as she has chosen to. They address the rights of the women. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:38 PM:

" FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT
H. R. 25 To protect the reproductive rights of women.

A Bill
To protect the reproductive rights of women.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

Section 1. SHORT TITLE

this Act may be cited as the "FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT OF 1993".

Section 2, RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
(a) IN GENERAL 1.---Except as provided in subsection (b), a state may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy--
(1) before fetal viability; or
(2) at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) MEDICALLY NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS.---A State may impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of women referred to in sub-section (a).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent a State-
(1) from requiring a minor to involve a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult before terminating a pregnancay; or
(2) from protecting unwilling individuals from having to participate in the performance of abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed.

Section 3. DEFINITION OF "STATE".

As used in this Act, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or posession of the United States.
____________________

There you go folks. The entire Freedom of Choice act. Notice the statement preserving the parents rights to be involved in the case of a minor child. Notice the one giving the States the right to pass laws defining what constitutes "medical necessity". Notice that States are allowed to protect individuals who refuse to conduct abortions if they are consientiously opposed to them.

Things that you don't find written here: Support for partial birth abortion, or for any abortion taking place after fetal viability is established outside of the existance of a threat to a woman's health or life. Threats to medical providers who abstain from performing abortions because of personal objections. Threats to medical facilities for refusing to conduct them on their premises.

Most of what you have been hearing is propoganda started by the opposition who hoped that you would just take their word for it rather that seeing for yourself. The worst that could be said is that tax money might be used to pay for abortions because of other laws already enacted that makes it illegal to deny someone access to medical services due to their poverty. And it might make insurance companies cover the procedure. Maybe the insurance companies would decide it is more worth their while to help make access to contraceptive devices more worth their while. Right now many do not cover the pill, but they will cover viagra. Go figure. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:26 PM:

" And just a little more personal research has resulted in the need for a little bit of a correction.

Currently only thirteen states allow the use of medicaid funds to pay for the abortions of those living in poverty. And since states control the purse strings where tax money for medical expenses are concerned, that means that the poverty stricken are pretty much out of the safe abortion loop.

While I am not opposed to actual involvement of parents in the decisions concerning the unplanned pregnancy of a minor child, keeping them in the loop has contributed to a bit of a problem. These minors are often terrified to face their parents with news of the pregnancy, and are therefore the group most likely to seek abortions of the unsafe, back alley types, along with those living in poverty. Many minor females are mutilated or even killed every year trying to avoid having their parents find out. Kind of creates a parental connundrum, doesn't it.

And the research goes on. "

dct wrote on Feb 10, 2009 7:19 AM:

" Perhaps techno-less, you need to look at hr1964 and s1173. These bills were drafted in April 2007. If you go to focafacts.com there is all kind of information. "

father bob wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:31 AM:

" your contributions to planned parenthood are tax deductible. "

INVICTA wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:47 AM:

" Techno-less wrote...
(b) MEDICALLY NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS.---A State may impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of women referred to in sub-section (a).

Section 2; subsection b. seems to imply there will be some kind of restrictions placed on abortions but in fact it guarantees unrestricted abortion on demand. A Woman's life and health are important issues but those words are not legal terms. Life can be easily construed to mean "lifestyle" and health is such a broad and vague term as to mean almost anything such as unhappiness.
This subsection should be the size of a labor contract with all kinds of legal and medical terms that are definable and understandable. FOCA as it is written here is just an attempt to nail down the lid on the coffin of the abortion issue on the pro-abortion side and prevent any attempt by the anti-side to ever get an equally ridiculous total ban on abortion.
If you ask most people if they are in favor of unrestricted abortion or a total ban on abortion they cling to one side against the other, but if you were to ask most people what they would accept if a third choice were offered you would see people quickly abandon both pro and anti abortion sides if honest dialogue was offered. No respect for life and no respect for women are poor choices to pick from. FOCA as it is written is not the answer.
Donald L. Osborne "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 10, 2009 10:40 AM:

" Why would I want to look at a highly political and biased web site when I can read copies of the actual bill? That is something that you might consider, instead of allowing yourself to be led by others.

S.1173 and H.R.1964 are actually the same bill. S.1173 is the form submitted to the United States Senate, and H.R.1964 is the form that went to the House of Representatives. Both houses must debate and vote on a new bill, which is then passed on to the President after it passes both houses. So the fact that each house has a copy of it is not unusual. Those who make others believe that these are actually two separate bills either failed government 1.01, or are deliberatly spreading misinformation.

Careful reading of this bill shows that it is actually a rewriting of H.R.1993 so that it includes the arguments used by its sponsors for submitting it to both houses for consideration. It also contains an explanation as to why this is a Federal issue and not one belonging only to each state to consider. Their point on this issue is legal and valid. And it identifies the original sponsors for the bill in each house.

Once again, there is no mention of partial birth abortion in the text. It repeats H.R.1993's insistance that abortions be unimpeded prior to fetal viability and those limited to life and health issues of the mother after viability.

The only additional instruction it lists not found in the original bill is that it informs states that they can no longer discriminate against those in poverty by denying them equal access to services, information, facilities, and benefits that are considered legal and available to all. Such discrimination in areas of medical assistance to the poverty stricken are disallowed by other laws, and the Federal Government states in this bill that such discrimination will no longer be tolerated. And yes, this means that they cannot deny financial support to those who qualify for such support to attain medical services. And it means that clinics and doctors would be free to provide such services without interference from any state and local government that might try to impede them. And it states beyond a shadow of a doubt that any interference with the rights established by this bill may be tried in a civil court. Which would include any individual or group of individuals who use violent or obstructive means to illegally block individuals from accessing their legal rights.

It would tickle me to no end if the first civil case tried under this act turned out to be against individuals who illegally interfered. Since they were so adamantly insistant, having them pay child support for the next eighteen year would be poetic justice. If they insist on saving lives, its time they put their money where their mouths are, instead of just walking away unemcumbered by the social, psychological, and financial hardships imposed by their actions.

It does not say that states must force private religious hospitals and clinics to perform abortions, although I have heard a few state politicians threaten to do so just to tick off the masses and thumb their noses at the federal government. If any state does follow through with that threat, blame them. They're just wanting to be cantankerous.

Now, I do not expect you to take my word for it either. You can print out copies of this bill, and any other bill very easily. Get your copy and read it for yourself. Don't continue being a sheep. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 10, 2009 10:57 AM:

" I just noticed one other difference. The 2007 bill also includes access to information, services, and devices/treatments to adequately prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring. This is an area of need sorely lacking attention in every state, and a great addition to the actions of the bill. This is the real route to eliminating abortion. States would be smart to focus their attention here, instead of trying to undermine everything. "

XTownie wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:41 PM:

" COOL!!!! Thanks for letting me know! Even though the writer is misleadingly trying to put this forth as "President Obama's FOCA Bill", I'm in full support! Off to call my Senators and House Rep in support and back it up with letters cc'd to Congressional leadership! "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Actually, it is not incorrect to call this President Obama's FOCA bill, although many representatives and senators can also claim this title. During his term of office in Illinois, ratification of FOCA was one of the issues that he worked toward. Now that he is President and is the one who can sign the bill if it passes the House and Senate, President Obama has promised to carry through with his previous activity and sign the bill into law.

I agree that FOCA is not perfect. In a perfect world the need for abortion would disappear because there would be no unwanted pregnancies, no toxic pregnancies, and no pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Everyone would have complete control of their procreation due to education and availability of contraception, and financial support would be assurred. And all people will behave with greater responsibility.

Until a better system comes, then this is what stands between us and over one million back alley abortions performed in what can only be described as butcher shops. Because passing a law making them illegal won't stop them. It didn't stop them before Roe v Wade, and it won't stop them now. Abortions have been performed for thousands of years. It is time to put energy into finding something else that has a chance of working. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:03 PM:

" That tired old line of one million back alley abortions is a fallacy.

Dr. Bernard Nathansonwho was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-lifeadmits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.

"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible." "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:04 PM:

" Most rational people would agree that partial birth abortion, which is actually a nick name used for several medical procedures, is pretty much something to be avoided. A fairly substantial number of medical professionals have expressed their consenses that these procedures should be banned. Most report that these procedures actually pose a threat to the life and health of the mother who may be undergoing one.

Here is the avenue that states may persue in order to legally ban this technique. The original intent of partial birth abortion was to remove a fetus that had already died while in the uterus. Unfortunately it has been misused by some medical providers who will kill a viable baby before it has completely been delivered and then claimed that the baby was already dead in the uterus. Maybe if a state, working with the medical community, could establish a procedure proving the death of a fetus a period of time prior to the onset of the abortion, they would have the ability to pass laws restricting its use to that incidence. It would not be difficult to find medical professionals willing to assist in this. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:17 PM:

" It is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.
That makes you either misinformed, or an outright liar Technoless. "

STINKY wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:28 PM:

" It never ceases to amaze me when people with radically different and equally strong viewpoints cannot come to a compromise. "

XTownie wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:55 AM:

" Techno-less wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Actually, it is not incorrect to call this President Obama's FOCA bill, although many representatives and senators can also claim this title.

That's why I used the term 'misleadingly'. The writer's trying to pin a bill on Obama that was introduced in 1993 before he was even in the US Senate, but my old babysitter is trying to make it appear as if Obama has just introduced it and is fast-tracking it through the red tape of Congress. That's misleading.

The rest I agree, with one exception. The issue isn't abortion; it's about handing over control to the Government. There would still be the back-alley and basement abortions if it were illegal, just as before.

But turning the control over to the Government also means the Government can mandate as easily as they can ban it. The anti-choice crowd refuse to see what they advocate is really Pro-government. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 11, 2009 5:15 AM:

" Ms.Palson...Do you see a time frame listed next to my one million abortions claim? You know, Lakeland offers classes that will enable you to work on your reading comprehension.

And just about how many butcher shop abortions per year are acceptable to you that you would continue to support a plan that has no chance whatsoever of stopping abortions. How much time, money, and energy do you suggest that we pour into a plan that will fail before it even leaves the gate? Those who continue to back making abortion illegal without offering a more viable alternative than moral arguments that has done little to end abortion ever aren't trying to save lives. They want revenge. They want to see people punished. That may make them feel good, and feel like they may have accomplished something, but the babies are just as dead. And they can add to their grab bag of victims a whole lot of scared, scarred, and even dead women. Nice legacy you are working on there.

Hats off to Dr. Kinsey, but I question his results. How many of those who participated in illegal abortions told the truth? How many of those picking up a few bucks by performing abortions in back halls reported their activities to Dr. Kinsey? How many medical doctors would admit to someone capable of reporting their activity to the medical board owned up to it? How many women confessed? That's the problem with polls. The more at risk for punishment or anger somebody risks, the more likely they are to either outright lie about the subject or end up telling the researcher exactly what they think they want to hear.

Unless the poles are about sex. In those the people involved, leaning toward the men, are more likely to claim greater activity that they actually experience.

Do you want to stop abortion? Put your time and energy into a plan that involves education, attitude, and availability. Work toward a goal that prevents an unwanted pregnancy from being conceived. Because once that pregnancy exists, you've lost. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 11, 2009 5:55 AM:

" Incidently, I am old enough to have been around before Roe v Wade. I personally know three women who underwent illegal abortions at this time. None of them had access to a trained physician. One was permanantly sterilized by the procedure. One is dead. I know two more who were "sent away" by their parents and forced by them to give the children up. Two marriages occurred during my high school period due to unplanned pregnancies. And three who kept their children, but suffered tremendous negative feedback from their commities as a result. One of these was voted out of her senior prom by her classmates, who felt she should be punished.

And I grew up in a small community with four churches that were well attended. One of the women that I have referenced was a minister's daughter. Considering the fact that I did not have access to the personal lives of every woman in my area, I could not begin to calculate how many other cases occurred in my area, but I learned enough to realize that anti-abortion laws and morality training wasn't working.

On a more humorous side, I even knew one, from a much earlier class, who married just before her senior year. The school board wanted to expel her because they didn't want her exposing the unmarried females to stories about "the marriage bed." Then she had the audacity to get pregnant early in her marriage, which would have made her very much showing by the time of her graduation. She was allowed to graduate, but not to undergo the ceremony. Most in the community believed that she "had to" get married, which would have resulted in an almost eleven month pregnancy.

Yep. Antiabortion laws and morality training were really successful, weren't they? "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 11, 2009 6:52 AM:

" Stinky...I understand your sentiments. Actually, those working for criminalization and I are not really that far apart. I do not like abortion. I do no accept it as a contraceptive procedure, which is a contradiction in terms, and I do not believe it should be used to contol what genders anyone's children are. I question the actions of those who use the procedure more than once. And I despise the practice of partial birth abortion in every respect except for the medical situations for which it was designed.

Our primary difference is that I see the utter futility, not to mention the destruction of lives, that exists by going back down a path that we already know will not work. It will not work. And I object to such laws because they are discriminatory against women, making them solely responsible for an event that required two people to initiate. Two people made that baby. Often it is the man who puts pressure on the woman to undergo an abortion, threatening abandonment if she does not comply. Some abandon them at the onset with a casual "good luck with that" attitude. These laws do not approach his penalty for this "crime." I compare that with two people robbing a bank, but only the one holding the gun is convicted. The other finds a new partner and a new bank.

Many of those involved in the criminalization movement, if they would admit to it, know first hand that morality training is futile. Sex among the unmarrieds is ages old and often did not result in a pregnancy. Yet they will insist that total abstinance until marriage is the answer. They can say what they want to in public, but in private they should admit at least to themselves that it didn't stop them. Quite a few even made fun of those who really did decide to wait until marriage. Young men often made a game of targeting the young women who waited.

And so those seeking to criminalize also fight against easy availability of contraception and the education of adolescents because this would "encourage" them to become sexually active. I lived at a time when contraceptive availability was much more limited, and the adolescents still found all the encouragement that they needed. Many of them are now antiabortionists. Some of them had abortions.

Why waste time and money on something that isn't going to work? Let FOCA stand for the moment, and put the time and money into more productive areas. Let's pay for research into better methods of contraception. Let's begin to completely educate young people at puberty, with emphasis on abstinance and respect for themselves and others. Let's recognize that some of those young people will decide to become sexually active anyway, and make access to contraception easy and affordable. And yes, let's put it in the schools. A school nurse approached by a student for contraception would be in an ideal position to reinforce their education and ensure that they are at least protected from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Parents will have to decide for themselves what they want. I would prefer to be open and honest with my children and hope that I harbored an attitude in which they would be comfortable talking to me about it. But I would also prefer that they would have that school nurse to approach if they find that they cannot face me. No matter which way the wind blows, I want to see them able to protect themselves.

Abortion will end when the pregnancies do. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:00 AM:

" You can insult my comprehension skills all you want Technoless because I understand that I caught you passing on an uninformed lie. You can talk and talk and talk and fill this page with your words and still say very little.
I can comprehend that you didn't offer any proof of your million back alley claim. And you haven't shown any evidence that contradicts the fact that the back alley butchers were mostly licensed physicians. And I also question all of your anecdotal evidence of the women you claimed to have known who had illegal abortions.

I'll offer my own stories. My very good friend worked in a counseling center with women and young girls who have had abortions or were considering the idea. And she can't recall a single one that didn't have a deep and lasting guilt over their mistake, or any that were considering the procedure that didn't instinctively know that their baby was a real person. I myself have had an abortion decades ago, and I don't want anyone else to carry the awful burden that I felt. Any sane and rational woman knows that the life they carry is a human being.

For all the talking you do why is it you never give any consideration to the possibility that the baby is a real human being with a soul?
Yes you love to read your own words so you talk and talk and talk. And you try to convince everyone and yourself that you are too smart to ever entertain the fact that abortions may just be murder. If you really cared about the mothers, then you would make it harder for them to make a mistake that will haunt them for life. Why don't we make all drug use legal? Since we can't keep everyone from using, why not allow them to do it in a safe and controlled environment?

All you do is talk and talk as more babies die. I can comprehend this much, I don't care how educated you try to appear you can't hide your dishonesty or your ignorance. "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians."

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, Jenette, how many would the other 10 percent add up to number wise?

I think the point that so many are trying to make is that what we're doing is not working. Let's face it, neither party is going to overturn Roe v Wade, so let's take a look at what we can do to minimize the number of abortions being performed in this country.

Is this issue is so polarized that it's hopeless? If neither side is willing to find some ground for agreement, this argument will be with us for a long time to come. "

father bob wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:23 AM:

" Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:17 PM:

" It is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. """""

glad you're quoting 40-50 year old data jenette.....shows just how out of touch with present day reality you really are.

perhaps you need to stick to baking brownies for the grandkids. "

father bob wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:27 AM:

" also jenette.....while your writing out that check to donate to the mother of the octuplets we taxpayers are going to support through college and in the case of the three older children who are disasbled....the rest of their lives.....

you can also cut one to planned parenthood.....and it's tax deductible. "

Techno-less wrote on Feb 11, 2009 9:31 AM:

" In a free country everyone is free to question everything. But when they start to call those in disagreement names, it is usually because they have run out of argument.

And it is equally true that criminalization of abortion and denial of contraceptive information will not end abortion. We have historical evidence for that.

I am sorry for the pain that your decision caused, and talking about that pain is part of the issue that should be talked about widely. It is information that those considering abortion need to know before reaching a final decision.

But that would still make you one of the individuals that did not respond to morality training, wouldn't it? Both you and that baby's father decided to have sex anyway. What if you had been well educated about how to protect yourself with easy access to the means to do so? Would you still had gotten pregnant? And only you could answer, had abortion been illegal at the time, if you would have gone ahead and found a means to get one anyway. While you are thinking that over, give a little thanks for having access to a legal and safe procedure then. The same one that you desire to steal away from everyone else now when confronted with your same situation.

As to all others reading this, they must decide for themselves. They were always supposed to. But at least now they have a broader picture of differing views to consider while making that choice. Once someone has taken the time to consider all the details, I have no problem with anyone choosing a different view from mine. But I do have an issue with those who would intensify a problem and offer little in the way of solution. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 11, 2009 11:12 AM:

" There is a new pregnancy test on the market that can determine gender. It takes a small blood sample, prick on the finger done at home, sample sent to a lab and the results returned to your home. Now babies can be aborted solely on gender bias. Technology advances faster than our ability to consider ethics and moral complications. The need for full complete information, about sex, reproduction, birth control, pregnancy, stds, abortion....and consequences is greater than ever. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:22 PM:

" You were the first to call people ignorant liars Technoless. And you make a lot of assumptions about things that you know nothing about.

Failure of morality training as you call it had nothing to do in my case. I didn't grow up in a particularly moral household. If anything there was a lack of morality or any religious influence.
We were using protection at the time and if abortion had been illegal I would not have gone through with it. My boyfriend was only concerned about his future and he kept using the excuse that abortion was perfectly legal and that thousands of people do it every year. Even though I knew in my heart it was wrong, the idea that it was legal was the one thing that allowed me to go through with it. But believe me, if I had to do it all over again I would never ever ever have killed that baby. I can talk about it for the rest of my life, but there is no rationale or statistics in the world that can ever reverse that wrong or ever make it right.
For all your talking Technoless you never said if you believe that the unborn are human beings with souls. And while you are not answering questions let me ask you another one. Have you ever had an abortion? Have you ever been in my shoes? "

father bob wrote on Feb 11, 2009 3:50 PM:

" Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:22 PM:
" But believe me, if I had to do it all over again I would never ever ever have killed that baby. """"

and my wife would still have her abortion, again, without a moment's hesitation.

next subject.... "

Billie Brant wrote on Feb 11, 2009 4:14 PM:

" Jenette, It takes a lot of courage to bare your soul like you have here. Thanks for sharing with us and giving us an insider view on this emotional subject. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 4:31 PM:

" May God rest that baby's soul father bob. "

Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 6:08 PM:

" Thank you Billie. More people need to hear the reality of abortion. What seems like a quick fix to avoid nine months or eighting years of hardship turns into a lifetime of regret. It's sad to see people like father bob be so flippant about it. He makes it sound like it's just going to the dentist to get a tooth pulled. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 11, 2009 6:20 PM:

" shumphreys

Not to long ago a friend of mine and his wife hade every test available to determing the sex of their baby, they went ahead with their plans with a blue sceme, the baby was born, needless to say, they had to redo everything in pink. Until the baby is born there simply is no surefire way to tell the sex of the baby. And one of these days, abortions will be granted on that basis. Tell me Susan, would that be a viablr reason for abortion?

Elbert

Susan does not agree with you on that one, she believes it is right to abort a fetut for any reason ant any time, period. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 11, 2009 6:22 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:14 AM:

" I too just sent a letter to my Senators and Representative supporting FOCA and speaking up against the immorality of the Christian Right. "

What you don't understand is, a lot of non-Christian people also dont believe in abortion, so your barking up the wrong tree there. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:16 PM:

" father bob wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:27 AM:
" also jenette.....while your writing out that check to donate to the mother of the octuplets we taxpayers are going to support through college and in the case of the three older children who are disasbled....the rest of their lives.....

you can also cut one to planned parenthood.....and it's tax deductible. "

Heh, I came to this thread solely to post the donation link:
http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

She surely will report every penny of the gifts to the state, right? After all, it counts as income regarding her eligibility for food stamps. "

CrowWoman wrote on Feb 12, 2009 7:57 AM:

" Jenette, thank you for sharing your story. People need to know how difficult abortion is--before, during, and after. What I remember most from listening to women who had them was how difficult the actual process was. None of them could afford sleep sedation, and they were traumatized by the procedure. After that came relief, then guilt--the emotions involved are ambiguous and complicated. In my own case, I was in the hospital asleep when the abortion was done. Mine was part of another surgical procedure--our pregnancy had been planned but went very wrong at about six weeks. I remember waking up, seeing the blood, and thinking, This is all that's left of my baby.

However, Jenette, you are not realizing that Techno is an ally. Re-read her/his Feb. 11 6:52 a.m. post, forgetting about the technicalities of the back alley abortions. Abortion is NOT going to be legislated out of existence. A huge majority of Americans favors permitting abortion in at least some circumstances. No way will it ever be mandated that women be punished for having abortions. And who would want that?

It is also true, though, that the majority of Americans view abortion as a necessary evil--the comments on these threads reflect that. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. There are ways to reduce the need for abortion; Techno mentioned some of them. I am sure you can agree with some of them, such as increasing the self-esteem of young girls and teaching girls AND boys a sense of responsibility. From the pro-life angle, you can (and probably do) support the crisis pregnancy centers. You can share your story with other women, when the situation comes up.

There are options, but simply proclaiming abortion is awful and wrong, let's outlaw it--that approach isn't going to work. "

father bob wrote on Feb 12, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Jenette Palson wrote on Feb 11, 2009 4:31 PM:
" May God rest that baby's soul father bob. """"

your "god" has nothing to do with anything, get a life. "

Rotty wrote on Feb 12, 2009 11:30 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Feb 12, 2009 7:57 AM:

Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion.

There are options, but simply proclaiming abortion is awful and wrong, let's outlaw it--that approach isn't going to work.

.......

Well said - good post! "

arrass wrote on Feb 12, 2009 7:27 PM:

" "Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion.

There are options, but simply proclaiming abortion is awful and wrong, let's outlaw it--that approach isn't going to work."

Hear!! Hear!!! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 12, 2009 9:55 PM:

" "Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion."

Really?

Then what's the choice?

The let the baby live or let the baby live?

To choose what?

Life or life?

Help me out here.......... "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 12, 2009 11:37 PM:

" at the end of the day....about 1.5 million children in the U.S. alone are aborted per year, another 3 million or so aren't, can anyone change those numbers? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 13, 2009 7:55 AM:

" (injustice - "about 1.5 million children in the U.S. alone are aborted per year")

1.5 million human beings a year.

The ultimate, out of sight-

out of mind.

Talk about burying your mistakes....... "

CrowWoman wrote on Feb 13, 2009 8:03 PM:

" BlueDog, what I meant was that many people personally believe abortion is wrong yet also believe that women should have the right to make that choice. People on these threads have tried to explain what they mean by that.

Also, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are categories some people opt not to plug themselves into. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 14, 2009 12:03 AM:

" CrowWoman, many people personally believe abortion is wrong yet also believe that women should have the right to make that choice?

WHY do many people abortion is wrong in the first place?

(CrowWoman - "Also, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are categories some people opt not to plug themselves into.")

I'm sorry CW, there is no third choice.
You see, it's a simple matter of life or death. "

longtimegone wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:30 AM:

" so you want abortions outlawed? Then it will go back to the good old days,when anyone with a rusty coat hanger were performing abortions nurses, pharmists,veteranians.morticians even some ministers. The all charged the same price $300.00. "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 17, 2009 7:46 PM:

" pretty sad huh BLUEDOG? "