FOCA - Yay or nay?

[marlin29311]

I recently started hearting things about the new FOCA bill - the freedom of choice act...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act (i chose the wikipedia one because it's hard to find an unbiased interpretation...)

Inherently, this bill will federally legalize abortion in the United States, and will remove state controls on the measure.

My biggest gripe against it is simply the fact that it requires all medical facilities to perform abortions regardless of stance, at the risk of losing their licence to practice medicine if they do not.

Isn't that somewhat of a violation of the hippocratic oath? I mean, you can be pro-choice and all the what not, but requiring a doctor to perform an operation that goes against his/her own will at the risk of their licence seems a bit too much for my liking...

[OriginalWheelman]

Yay - Provisionally. If the bill does not REQUIRE a medical practice to perform abortions, fine. Telling an ethically opposed person they MUST do abortions is no better than telling a pregnant woman they MUST have the child. It seems there is debate over how the act could be interpreted, so I would suggest an addition of a statement explicitly saying that each institution can choose to not perform abortions.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Abortion is one of the few places I agree with the rhinos, but for non-religous reasons:At some point, that fetus becomes a human being.When, I don't have the knowledge to tell you.But the second it does, with rare exceptions, abortion is murder.

This part of the Bill:"fact that it requires all medical facilities to perform abortions regardless of stance, at the risk of losing their licence to practice medicine if they do not."

Is total bulls***. I thought they were pro-choice. Turns out, they're just pro-abortion.

[audtatious]

We will just have more and more OBGYN's bailing ship and going into other practices. My Sister-in-law is a OBGYN that is running the department at a doctors (owned) hospital in Indiana. She was in Ohio but when leaving the Air Force she skipped out due to high insurance rates and moved to a place where she was not as penalized for trying to help people. I know of other doctors who left practices to become a GP simply due to insurance rates (and they make more money due to their change) which is simply removing a whole lot of talent away from the sector.

If FOCA passes then I see even more reason for a percentage of doctors to jump ship or go into other forms of medicine. I do agree that this is a pro-abortion measure and not a pro-choice initiative. I bet NOW and some parenting associations are pressing this.

[Jacko3]

I have no idea why we as a nation are so transfixed with this abortion issue. This isn't the end of the world. There are many more important issues facing this nation beyond trying to save a foetus while we kill many innocent human beings in Iraq.

On one hand, i think abortion is important as a tool, especially if a woman is raped or harmed by an attacker. On the other hand, any foetus is just as important a foetus as any other from whence we were all created. Simply destroying a foetus because one can, and for no tangible, productive, or well-thought reason, isn't good enough. And yet, abortin as a tool is important in the worst circumstances surrounding the reproductive potential of a woman.

I take no sides on this issue. I can only sit and watch each side mangle and humiliate each other in this quest to be right.

[audtatious]

Actually, you did take sides...

FOCA is forcing people to go against their beliefs simply do to "protecting the choice of those wanting the abortion". What about the choice of the doctor? If some feel they should only try and save lives then why force them?

[marlin29311]

Actually, you did take sides...

FOCA is forcing people to go against their beliefs simply do to "protecting the choice of those wanting the abortion". What about the choice of the doctor? If some feel they should only try and save lives then why force them?

I agree - I am pro-life, but I don't go around camping out abortion clinics or what not - I do not support abortion, but I am not going to go make laws about how everyone else should determine their own moral justifications. I'm not going to tell doctors in a pro-life law that they will go to jail if they perform an abortion, which is essentially the same idea that this law would do - it would remove someone's livelyhood, simply because they are upholding a different moral standard. There are tons of places where you can have abortions performed already - why do we need to federally mandate that all doctors perform them under pressure of losing their licence?

[audtatious]

Which is pretty much my stance as well. You make your own decision and then find those who will gladly do it for you. Forcing this into law is bullcrap.

[Jacko3]

Can you eloborate on which side I took? And, by the way, an honest and vigorous debate sometimes requires taking sides---principles. I didn't see the need for taking sides in this debate because there are bigger problems in our nation that need immediate attention.

It is always a good advice for one to sometimes stand for something, rather than standing for nothing--its a defining mark of a principled personality.

[audtatious]

You stated that you are for abortions due to rape or instances where the mothers life is in jeopardy (harm), but not if the reason is not tangible, productive, or a well-thought reason.

That is effectively taking a stance on the issue.

[Jacko3]

But I took no sides. If you take the comments you just made, it can be broken into two sentences, which is really a form of centrist approach only for this topic.

You said, "You stated that you are for abortions due to rape or instances where the mothers life is in jeopardy (harm), but not if the reason is not tangible, productive, or a well-thought reason."

Statement 1: "You stated that you are for abortions due to rape or instances where the mothers life is in jeopardy (harm)" This the thesis.

Statement 2: "But not if the reason is not tangible, productive, or a well-thought reason."---this is the anti-thesis to the thesis.

Its like saying (-1) + 1 = 0

Thats all I was trying to say.

[audtatious]

Guess it would come down to what you think is a well-thought out reason. Based upon your comments it did not seem like you would agree with "because it would impact me being a businesswoman" or "because I don't like to have protected sex".

Now, how is #1 a thesis? Noun

* S: (n) thesis (an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument) * S: (n) dissertation, thesis (a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree)

You said: "On one hand, i think abortion is important as a tool, especially if a woman is raped or harmed by an attacker. On the other hand, any foetus is just as important a foetus as any other from whence we were all created."

That is a statement of your viewpoint and both seem to show you are against having an abortion for the sake of it. If you had said you also agree that women should be able to have one "just because they want to" then I would agree that you were taking no sides. You did not make that claim but if you want to now then I would agree you are not picking a side.

[Jacko3]

Guess it would come down to what you think is a well-thought out reason. Based upon your comments it did not seem like you would agree with "because it would impact me being a businesswoman" or "because I don't like to have protected sex".

Now, how is #1 a thesis? Noun

* S: (n) thesis (an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument) * S: (n) dissertation, thesis (a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree)

You said: "On one hand, i think abortion is important as a tool, especially if a woman is raped or harmed by an attacker. On the other hand, any foetus is just as important a foetus as any other from whence we were all created."

That is a statement of your viewpoint and both seem to show you are against having an abortion for the sake of it. If you had said you also agree that women should be able to have one "just because they want to" then I would agree that you were taking no sides. You did not make that claim but if you want to now then I would agree you are not picking a side.

You said, "That is a statement of your viewpoint and both seem to show you are against having an abortion for the sake of it." Can you please show us how you arrived at this comprehension?????????

You said, "If you had said you also agree that women should be able to have one "just because they want to" then I would agree that you were taking no sides." This is the most simplistic comment about an act that has a host of complexities associated with it. Complex situations demands that one makes exception or at least present credible variable(s) of conditions of when that thesis holds or when it does not hold. I made an attempt to that effect, when i said, "especially if a woman is raped or harmed by an attacker". So, if she is not harmed or attacked then it may not be a wise option to do so.

Don't get stuck on picking sides. It takes away from one's ability and propensity to make credible arguments. Focus on the strength of one's argument and I think one will be fine. And, i never said antyhing for you to agree with me. Far from it, agreement is far from the outcome i seek. Finally, I am sorry to suggest that I don't make simplistic comments that do not take into account, the variabilities in one's environment. So, what are you own thoughts on the original topic that might give one cause to muse???? Do you have any credible ideas or do you take pride in trying to pick apart the comments of others??? I can do that pretty well, if i wanted, with your comments. So, what do you think????


Modified by Jacko3 at 9:24 PM 2/23/2009

[Urabus GodofTraction]

There are many more important issues facing this nation beyond trying to save a foetus...

Like teaching you to spell fetus?

I know personal attacks in this subforum are a super no-no, but Goddammit, I'll take the hit for this one!

[Jacko3]

Like teaching you to spell fetus?

I know personal attacks in this subforum are a super no-no, but Goddammit, I'll take the hit for this one!

I like that. I think it is spelled either foetus or fetus. Man, my typing is horrible. I can't help it---my fingers types slower than the thoughts can be generated. Its been this way for a long time.

[wawazat8402]

Abortion is one of the few places I agree with the rhinos, but for non-religous reasons:At some point, that fetus becomes a human being.When, I don't have the knowledge to tell you.But the second it does, with rare exceptions, abortion is murder.

This is where the entire pro-choice/pro-life argument lies. Its frustrating that they never seem to stick to the point because neither side has a leg to stand on. I think nearly every person understands murder is wrong, but when does a fetus become a human being and how do we define that transition. Many pro-choicers define it as the point where the baby could be removed and develop on its own. Some pro-lifers say it is at conception.

I believe all 3rd trimester abortions are wrong unless the mothers life is on the line. I also believe abortion as a means of contraception is unethical. I believe abortion should be used with extreme caution because Ive seen the emotional and physical side effects overwhelm a person. It should, however, be an option nonetheless.

IMO, if our system for caring for children not wanted by their parents was more efficient. Not allowing the common person to cram in as many "wards of the state" in their home for the paycheck alone, streamlining the adoption process, etc, etc would effectively eradicate most abortions. There are thousands of couples that are dying to have a child but cannot because of various reproductive hindrances. If they could adopt a child without paying thousands of dollars in fees or prove their competency and capability to support a couple of kids that were not wanted by their families the need for abortion would fall. I have seen enough homes where kids are sent from orphanages and I honestly believe the kids would have been better off aborted in the first trimester.

[Jacko3]

Very sound thoughts. I love them.

[C-Kwik]

I am pro-choice. But I do see the point that medical doctors might be forced to do something they morally do not believe in (assuming the interpretation of the act causes this; it seems disputable per the link to wikipedia provided). Then again, I'm not so sure they don't have to do this in some form or another already.

What I can say though is effecting such a rule could add some level of anonimity and protection from discrimination for both those seeking abortions and doctors willing to provide it. My understanding is most abortions take place at Family planning clinics and such. As there are few of these compared to the number of general practice and OB/GYN facilities, I'd imagine they become easy to target as a place to protest and perhaps harass people seeking abortions. A level of privacy is lost. This also applies to doctors who wish to be able to provide the service to their patients without fear of being protested against. Which may be a reason they may refer patients to family planning.

There are pros and cons to this and both are relative to a person's personal perspective on the matter.

[audtatious]

My understanding is most abortions take place at Family planning clinics and such. As there are few of these compared to the number of general practice and OB/GYN facilities,

Very true. Most doctors go into OB/GYN as pro-birth, which IMO, is different than pro-choice/pro-life. My sister-in-law is that way and I know she would not approve of being forced to go against her "moral fabric" if she happens to be pro-life. BUT, we can't let the time of "coat hanger" abortions come back to life either. It is a tricky subject that I think something like FOCA makes more difficult if the end result is to force mandates on doctors.

[Jacko3]

Very true. Most doctors go into OB/GYN as pro-birth, which IMO, is different than pro-choice/pro-life. My sister-in-law is that way and I know she would not approve of being forced to go against her "moral fabric" if she happens to be pro-life. BUT, we can't let the time of "coat hanger" abortions come back to life either. It is a tricky subject that I think something like FOCA makes more difficult if the end result is to force mandates on doctors.

Theoretically speaking, pro-life and pro-choice are just euphemisms for either less or more tolerance of a specific subject matter. It reflects the duality of purpose evident in many aspects of existence and our daily lives.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Another problem I have with abortions:

How f***ing hard it is to adopt a kid. Seriously, it's WAY harder than it should be.

Ban most abortions, open the path for most adoptions.

[C-Kwik]

Another problem I have with abortions:

How f***ing hard it is to adopt a kid. Seriously, it's WAY harder than it should be.

Ban most abortions, open the path for most adoptions.

The adoption process is irrelevant to this Act. But the adoption process is likely as strict as it is because stupid people created issues that made it more difficult to adopt. Namely things like abuse. To further the problem, due to the lack of "qualified" adopters, they tend to get to pick and choose who they want to adopt. Not all kids up for adoption are newborns.

Frankly, I only know one couple personally who has adopted and while they are good people and very finanically secure, they do not know how to be parents.

In any case, opening a path to more adoptions is not a simple solution and not without its own set of problems. Banning abortion spurs a need to open up adoption, which might further the problem.

My though it better sex ed (perhaps quantity and quality). And this does not necessarily mean we give contraceptives to all our kids. That's a parental decision. But our parents need to be educated about how to talk about it with their kids just as much as our kids need to be educated on the subject.

[audtatious]

I vote for mandatory birth control until you are 30

[dusred]

I am pro-choice.

Obviously, since you've already been born.

I vote for mandatory birth control until you are 30

I lol'd and TOTALLY AGREE!

I have no idea why we as a nation are so transfixed with this abortion issue. This isn't the end of the world. There are many more important issues facing this nation beyond trying to save a foetus while we kill many innocent human beings in Iraq.

More abortions happen every day than the entire total people killed in the war in Iraq.

I'm 153053021504534560435% pro life so I probably shouldn't get into this discussion. Even if someone is raped and gets pregnant the baby should be born and held up for adoption IMO.

I'll stop here.

[480sx]

I have a pen15. If i had a uterus, i might have some say in this discussion, but because of my pen15, i chose to avoid this discussion like poison.

[marlin29311]

I have a pen15. If i had a uterus, i might have some say in this discussion, but because of my pen15, i chose to avoid this discussion like poison.

My counter arguement to that is that you knew what could happen if you let the dude's pen15 spray and pray in your uterus (provided it wasn't rape).

[liquid_cool]

Again you all miss the larger picture here........seperation of powers..federal laws donot superceed state laws...untill this bill..there might be federal mandates to get funds..but a state has the rite by its voter population to write and change laws to suit the population in large...by the federal lvl mandating all doctors to follow there law regardless of the states choice..is against what the founding fathers intended..this is a dictatorship tactic.....the ramifications of this bill scare me..if the federal level can pull this one off..what else can they make the population do?..think on that a while..

as far as pro-choice..im pro-choice if you have been raped,molested,or risk the death of the mother due to an unforseen sercumstance......but by no means..is abortion to be used in-place of birthcontroll.

and late term abortion is merder!

[Jacko3]

Again you all miss the larger picture here........seperation of powers..federal laws donot superceed state laws...untill this bill..there might be federal mandates to get funds..but a state has the rite by its voter population to write and change laws to suit the population in large...by the federal lvl mandating all doctors to follow there law regardless of the states choice..is against what the founding fathers intended..this is a dictatorship tactic.....the ramifications of this bill scare me..if the federal level can pull this one off..what else can they make the population do?..think on that a while..

as far as pro-choice..im pro-choice if you have been raped,molested,or risk the death of the mother due to an unforseen sercumstance......but by no means..is abortion to be used in-place of birthcontroll.

and late term abortion is merder!

Federal laws almost always superceed or trump state laws----24/7 especially when it is codified, except when federal agents or agencies decide to defer a case to the states. usually, a federal agency such as the DOJ will tie funding of state and local law enforcement agencies to meeting specific ammo reduction goals. Many local law enforcement agencies get lots of funding form grants awarded by the DOJ. Without those grants/funds, some law enforcement agencies would literally not exist.

[liquid_cool]

thats the problem man...long ago the founding fathers new that the government many miles away could not govern the nation as a whole..hence the fomulation of state run territorys or districts..government was never intended to micro manage states in this manor.

[Jacko3]

thats the problem man...long ago the founding fathers new that the government many miles away could not govern the nation as a whole..hence the fomulation of state run territorys or districts..government was never intended to micro manage states in this manor.

I agree! In fact, during the first Congress of the USA, I beleive in Philadelphia (correct me if i am wrong), that was an unsaid plan of governing this new nation. If states have lost the rights they once had, blame it on these factors:

1. Hamilton and his Federalists----as a matter of philosophy

2. Expansion of the new nation towards the west

3. The civil war

4. And perhaps, arguably, the great depression.

With each successive event, states have significantly lost some crucial powers. without a doubt, the factors cited are not in anyway exhaustive.