Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[WillowTree]

Elaborate please.

[YOUTUBE]vXGhvoekY44[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Anguille]

No extra funds will be used. It's a matter of lifting the gag rule which was idiotic in the first place. Something the Republicans enacted to win votes from the anti choice forced birth movement.

 

[Mr. President]

If it wasn't forced sex its not forced birth

 

[WillowTree]

If it wasn't forced sex its not forced birth

 

[michiganFats]

Any word on whether or not we're going to deduct these expenses from our U.N. dues?

 

[Mr. President]

What are you talking about we'll probably get taxed for funding it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

The policy was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and continued by President George H.W. Bush. The policy was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instated by President George W. Bush in 2001.



I know you people think you own the bodies and minds of women but the world pretty much has already realized that its a personal choice. Be proud the ban meant that women were not given any reproductive healthcare because of this ban. It funds all choices and does not mandate what a Dr and patient can talk about.

Oh, yeah. Saying, "I don't want to spend money on someone else's abortion" is me trying to own HER body, rather than me trying to own MY money. How's about abortion supporters REALLY own their own bodies, choices, and freedoms by making those decisions COMPLETELY on their own, instead of proudly proclaiming their independence and then holding their hands out?

 

[Avatar4321]

Seriously, why are liberals so gung-ho on killing unborn minorities?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously, why are liberals so gung-ho on killing unborn minorities?

Liberals like simple solutions that don't require them to think, take any personal action, or deal with any sort of messy responsibility.

 

[Valerie]

Seriously, why are liberals so gung-ho on killing unborn minorities?

That is a bit of a mischaracterization, don't you think?

"gung-ho on killing unborn"

 

[Luissa]

Liberals like simple solutions that don't require them to think, take any personal action, or deal with any sort of messy responsibility.

No liberal are realistic and know some people won't take on their responsibilty.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is a bit of a mischaracterization, don't you think?

"gung-ho on killing unborn"

No. Not at all. Why else would one of the first acts President Obama does is fund pro abortion groups in countries with minorities? And why else would liberals be so happy about it?

Of course, I already knew the answer to my question. They do so because they have always been associated with eugenics. And they've also always thought poorly of minorities.

 

[Avatar4321]

No liberal are realistic and know some people won't take on their responsibilty.

That's why there are natural consequences for not doing that.

 

[Valerie]

No. Not at all. Why else would one of the first acts President Obama does is fund pro abortion groups in countries with minorities? And why else would liberals be so happy about it?

Of course, I already knew the answer to my question. They do so because they have always been associated with eugenics. And they've also always thought poorly of minorities.

World Population Growth - Solutions to Overpopulation

When we talk about world population growth statistics, we get into very large numbers with many confusing zeroes at the end. While lots of 0's may bring back fond memories of our days of test scores and playing hooky from school, they do nothing to help us understand a factual sentence like: "The earth's population is projected to rise from 6,400,000,000 in 2004 to 8,900,000,000 in 2050."

That means we will likely increase world population by 2.5 billion people in the next half-century, but how do we put such a large number in context to make it easier to grasp? Does population growth just mean a few more people at the next block party, or will the teeming masses start falling off the edge of whatever cliff they're closest to?

In this article, we'll try to make sense of world population growth statistics, and then we'll discuss why this increase in global population is significant.

For simplicity's sake, we'll assume the population increase between now and 2050 will be linear. (Experts predicts that population growth will be faster in the early part of the period than in the later part, but for our purposes, working with an average increase will be fine.) Remember, we're talking about the NET population growth—the number of new people born minus the number who die.

If we convert the total population growth of 2.5 billion for the first half of the 21st century to an annual rate of growth, we can expect 54 million additional people per year to occupy the planet. That large a number still seems pretty hard to relate to, though, so if we take it down to a per-day figure—which would be 149,000 net additional people per day.

So, should we be cold, calculating statisticians who see that a high number of deaths from a natural disaster or, say, the one million people who die each year from malaria don't matter because we've got so many new humans coming down the population-growth conveyor belt anyway? No, of course not. One of our top goals as a society should be to reduce and eliminate suffering wherever and whenever possible.

Does this leave us with the seemingly conflicting goals of keeping humanity's numbers at a reasonable (sustainable) level vs. not wanting people to suffer and die?

 

[Red Dawn]

Great. We can't even fix our own country and we are being forced to give our income to pay for other countries abortions.... pretty amazing.

Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

Been listening to the Sean Hannity show?

Reuters:

Q: WHAT IS THE MEXICO CITY POLICY/GLOBAL GAG RULE?

A: Under the rule, no U.S. government funding for family planning services can be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.

Q+A: What is the Mexico City Policy or Global Gag Rule? | Reuters

So republican presidents always institute this rule, and it's out of spite and ideology. Not out of concern for the taxpayer.

Why else would they deny funds to family planning groups that are using private money for abortion counseling?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No liberal are realistic and know some people won't take on their responsibilty.

No, liberals are airheads who assume people won't take responsibility, and make sure they're never inclined to by relieving them of the possibility before it ever comes up. Interestingly enough, they always seem to do it by forcing the responsibility onto OTHER people.

But hey, keep telling yourself how much everyone should admire you for always leaping to the default position that the best way to help people in need is by encouraging them to kill their offspring.

 

[Chris]

No, liberals are airheads who assume people won't take responsibility, and make sure they're never inclined to by relieving them of the possibility before it ever comes up. Interestingly enough, they always seem to do it by forcing the responsibility onto OTHER people.

But hey, keep telling yourself how much everyone should admire you for always leaping to the default position that the best way to help people in need is by encouraging them to kill their offspring.

What about the MILLIONS of frozen embryos?

Should the all be forcibly implanted?

 

[garyd]

Given that the average abortee in the 3rd world is a female, exactly how does this benefit women again, unless of course you think having many fewer women world wide is of benefit to the survivors

 

[jillian]

Given that the average abortee in the 3rd world is a female, exactly how does this benefit women again, unless of course you think having many fewer women world wide is of benefit to the survivors

before embryos develop gender specific organs, all embryos APPEAR female. Beyond that, you wouldn't know what sex they are because people don't test genetically on aborted embryos.

Nice effort at making up stuff, though. Abortees?

 

[jillian]

No. Not at all. Why else would one of the first acts President Obama does is fund pro abortion groups in countries with minorities? And why else would liberals be so happy about it?

Of course, I already knew the answer to my question. They do so because they have always been associated with eugenics. And they've also always thought poorly of minorities.

It was one of Obama's first acts because implementing the religious right's agenda by refusing funding to any group that even in part counseled reproductive choice, was THE FIRST act of the Bush administration. And the people who voted for him have waited eight years for that executive order to be lifted.

has nothing to do with "eugenics". That's one of those ridiculous arguments the religious right likes to raise as a red herring