Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]yorik wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Pookie, that is a ridiculous red herring argument and you know it. Many, many, many people who are pro life adopt kids, give to charities to feed and clothe kids, and volunteer time to sick kids. So also do people who are pro-choice.

And many of the pro-life don’t. Your argument also is a ridiculous red herring, as you call it.

What I don’t understand is why so many religious fanatics are are so dead set against legalizing abortion and removing free-will. Without free will, without CHOICE, you cannot choose do to the right thing, and you can’t be saved.

The person who is forced to do “good” cannot be saved any more than a person who deliberately chooses evil.

No choice, no salvation. There is no denying this fundamental tenet of salvation.
[/quote]

So is life, you are forgetting the unborn child may want salvation too.

62

[quote]pookie wrote:
This should be such a fucking non-issue.

Against abortions? Don’t get one.

There. See how easy that is? Don’t want other people to get them either? Well, why don’t you let them decide what they want for themselves. Nobody forces their decisions on anyone else and everyone live and let live.

If you care about kids so much, there are millions of born kids who could use your help. Kids living in poverty; struggling with disease; waiting for good foster homes, etc. Why not help one of those kids?

Ah. Right. Because you could. That might entail time and/or money. Shit, better pretend these kids don’t exist. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s waste time and energy on the unborn, for whom you can’t do shit even if you wanted to.

Man, I can’t wait for science to figure out how to transplant a fetus to a new body. I can already see the line-ups of pro-lifers who will be so willing to donate their uterus for six or seven months.
[/quote]

No maybe if we could teach people responsibility and accountability, that what they do has consequences not only on themselves but on others, some of whom being a child they should care for and raise. Then there may be less children that need adoption.

It is not a none issue, that child is a human who cannot be heard, so someone needs to stand for their rights. Yes we need to adopt. but we also need to teach people that they are accountable fo their actions.

63

[quote]pookie wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Pookie, that is a ridiculous red herring argument and you know it. Many, many, many people who are pro life adopt kids, give to charities to feed and clothe kids, and volunteer time to sick kids. So also do people who are pro-choice.

How many threads about adopting and helping kids in need can you find on this board?

How about abortion threads?

I rest my case.
[/quote]

Does not change the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life.

64

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
No maybe if we could teach people responsibility and accountability, that what they do has consequences not only on themselves but on others, some of whom being a child they should care for and raise. Then there may be less children that need adoption.[/quote]

I’m all for education. It’s the best way to curb abortion rates. If you look at the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world, they are all in Western Europe, where sex education and birth control are simple, matter-of-fact proposals. Of course, they aren’t full of puritanical retards who go nuts anytime anyone even thinks of saying “sex”.

Good luck getting a consensus on that. Embryos and first trimester fetuses have no higher brain function (which starts around week 20), so it quite debatable as to whether they get to be considered “full-rights” persons. If them, why not your kidney? 95%+ of abortions happen before the 12th week of pregnancy, so the whole problem is there, no matter how much the raving loonies like to go on and on about late-term abortions.

65

[quote]pat wrote:
Does not change the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life. [/quote]

An embryo is not a human. It is human tissue, but not A human.

But even IF we were to grant that an ovum with a sperm inserted into it is a full and complete human: So what? Natures itself makes it so that most fertilized eggs will never make it. For every successful implantation, there’s on average two others who never took. The Designer is sloppy like that, what can I say?

If nature gets to randomly decide whether an egg survives or not, why not humans? They have the added benefit of being able to reason and evaluate their situation; and whether they feel up to the task of raising a child. Same end result as random nature, but with the benefit of thought. Cool no? And some do decide to keep them.

Diseases kill millions and millions of people each year. Each a life. Where are all those countless threads calling for more medical research? Why aren’t you clamoring for less budget for armies and weapons (who, again, destroy human lives) and more for medical R&D? Why is life only precious to you before it passes the vagina? Why care so little about those who are actually here while going absolutely bonkers about those who might eventually make it?

66

[quote]An embryo is not a human. It is human tissue, but not A human.
[/quote]

Of course it is. It needs only food, water, shelter and oxygen in order to grow into a human of a later stage of development, just like you.

It’s a human in an early stage of development.

67

[quote]pookie wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Pookie, that is a ridiculous red herring argument and you know it. Many, many, many people who are pro life adopt kids, give to charities to feed and clothe kids, and volunteer time to sick kids. So also do people who are pro-choice.

How many threads about adopting and helping kids in need can you find on this board?

How about abortion threads?

I rest my case.
[/quote]

Ah yes, because we all know that the existence or non-existence of internet forum threads is the real measure of the pulse of societal issues. Right.

I can’t believe you just really put that one out here.

You were implying that because not 100% of the pro-lifers adopt, foster, or work in care facilities for kids that their argument is bunk. That’s retarded and you should know better.

Not only is it inappropriate to claim there needs to be 100% compliance in a population for their position to be consistent, it’s also ridiculous because there are many people of both sides that work in this fashion.

You could also look at it another way–nobody disputes that kids, once born, should be protected fed and cared for. It’s a completely uncontroversial issue. So why bring it up in the first place? There you go, another reason that argument is irrelevant.

Finally, they are distinct and separate issues. Even given one individual’s hypocrisy by not adopting a foster kid, which I wouldn’t grant you anyway, that hypocrisy has no bearing whatsoever on the defensibility or validity of positions regarding abortion.

This is because the ethical concerns core to the debate stand unresolved whether or not one chooses to foster a child.

68

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Does not change the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life.

An embryo is not a human. It is human tissue, but not A human.
[/quote]

Body parts and pieces are human tissues like the heart. People are a complete set of those tissues required for to be a human life at every stage of human development. Having more or less tissues does not make you more or less human.

Well, nature decided to off well over 100,000 people in the Tsunami why can we just decide to off people randomly as well?

Boy you do have the Red Herring thing down today. What do diseases have to do with the topic at hand? Diseases are bad and people dieing from them are bad, but these thing we cannot really control. A human can control whether or not they decide to pull the trigger on the termination of a human life.

69

[quote]yorik wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Pookie, that is a ridiculous red herring argument and you know it. Many, many, many people who are pro life adopt kids, give to charities to feed and clothe kids, and volunteer time to sick kids. So also do people who are pro-choice.

And many of the pro-life don’t. Your argument also is a ridiculous red herring, as you call it.

[/quote]

What is the Red Herring argument about stating that a human person exists as a person from conception and there for killing the person prior to leaving the womb is still killng a human and therefore murder? Perhaps, you do not know what a Red Herring is? This is a simple argument, all you have to do is to prove that life begins at birth rather than prior to that and you win! Simple enough, right?

71

[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
No maybe if we could teach people responsibility and accountability, that what they do has consequences not only on themselves but on others, some of whom being a child they should care for and raise. Then there may be less children that need adoption.

I’m all for education. It’s the best way to curb abortion rates. If you look at the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world, they are all in Western Europe, where sex education and birth control are simple, matter-of-fact proposals. Of course, they aren’t full of puritanical retards who go nuts anytime anyone even thinks of saying “sex”.

It is not a none issue, that child is a human who cannot be heard, so someone needs to stand for their rights. Yes we need to adopt. but we also need to teach people that they are accountable fo their actions.

Good luck getting a consensus on that. Embryos and first trimester fetuses have no higher brain function (which starts around week 20), so it quite debatable as to whether they get to be considered “full-rights” persons. If them, why not your kidney? 95%+ of abortions happen before the 12th week of pregnancy, so the whole problem is there, no matter how much the raving loonies like to go on and on about late-term abortions.
[/quote]

You know what for arguments sake I’ll give you to 12 weeks because it is at tha point that miscarriage rates drop drastically. I am in no way saying I support abortion til 12 weeks just for arguments sake

This bill is not looking at that, it is saying if a mother on the way to the hospital to deliver gets cold feet and says put me under I don’t want this baby, guess what she can. That is the real problem here.

No restrictions.

72

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
pookie wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Pookie, that is a ridiculous red herring argument and you know it. Many, many, many people who are pro life adopt kids, give to charities to feed and clothe kids, and volunteer time to sick kids. So also do people who are pro-choice.

How many threads about adopting and helping kids in need can you find on this board?

How about abortion threads?

I rest my case.

Ah yes, because we all know that the existence or non-existence of internet forum threads is the real measure of the pulse of societal issues. Right.

I can’t believe you just really put that one out here.

You were implying that because not 100% of the pro-lifers adopt, foster, or work in care facilities for kids that their argument is bunk. That’s retarded and you should know better.
[/quote]
Sweet! I have adopted, that mean my arguments are right spot fucking on!

Well Obama does, see his record against the “Child born alive” act. Mind you not child in utero, but actually born.

[quote]
Finally, they are distinct and separate issues. Even given one individual’s hypocrisy by not adopting a foster kid, which I wouldn’t grant you anyway, that hypocrisy has no bearing whatsoever on the defensibility or validity of positions regarding abortion.

This is because the ethical concerns core to the debate stand unresolved whether or not one chooses to foster a child. [/quote]

73

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pookie, as often as is the case, you are stumbling along here on one leg pulling a chained anvil with the other, bud.[/quote]

He could use the GPP :slight_smile:

74

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Of course it is. It needs only food, water, shelter and oxygen in order to grow into a human of a later stage of development, just like you.[/quote]

Right. Kids grow in a vacuum. Good parents? Bah. Who needs’em?

75

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Of course it is. It needs only food, water, shelter and oxygen in order to grow into a human of a later stage of development, just like you.

Right. Kids grow in a vacuum. Good parents? Bah. Who needs’em?

[/quote]

We’re talking about “growth” in the biological sense of the term. I’m trying to appeal to the science - you know, the thing liberals claim to be in love with. How would you like it if we declared your age bracket “a mass of tissue” and aborted you?

76

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We’re talking about “growth” in the biological sense of the term. I’m trying to appeal to the science - you know, the thing liberals claim to be in love with. How would you like it if we declared your age bracket “a mass of tissue” and aborted you? [/quote]

How would you scientifically back that?

77

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’re talking about “growth” in the biological sense of the term. I’m trying to appeal to the science - you know, the thing liberals claim to be in love with. How would you like it if we declared your age bracket “a mass of tissue” and aborted you?

How would you scientifically back that?
[/quote]

How would I back the idea that you’re a mass of tissue? I don’t think that idea needs any backing. You are a mass of tissue. We’re all a “mass of tissue.”

78

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’re talking about “growth” in the biological sense of the term. I’m trying to appeal to the science - you know, the thing liberals claim to be in love with. How would you like it if we declared your age bracket “a mass of tissue” and aborted you?

How would you scientifically back that?
[/quote]

Now your being silly,

If you want to get techinical when does life occur to deserve the rights of a human being, once there is tissue differentiation. because at that point it is no longer a clump of cells, at what point is that since you are so fond of gestational periods.

79

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
How would I back the idea that you’re a mass of tissue? I don’t think that idea needs any backing. You are a mass of tissue. We’re all a “mass of tissue.” [/quote]

Tonsils are masses of tissue. An appendix is also a mass of tissue. Do you plan to picket clinics who perform appendectomies any time soon?

All masses of human tissue are equal, after all.

80

[quote]pookie wrote:

All masses of human tissue are equal, after all.
[/quote]

Great. So why don’t we just nuke Canada? You masses of tissue are using our valuable oxygen. We have the military might to do it, why not?