Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[jillian]

You pro-abortionists have it all figured out, don't you? Calling what is growing inside a pregnant woman 'a bunch of cells' or 'non-human' or 'potential human' or a 'necessary evil' is bullshit. It is life -- human life. You tell yourself otherwise because it is the only way you can rationalize murder.

You are so wrapped up in your body/your choice -- you don't for one minute think about the body and choice of the unborn child. You loudly scream 'no one can tell me what I can and can't do with my body' -- then you turn around and make the 'choice' about another's 'body'. Hypocrite.

You done with your rant? Good. Cause no one is a "pro-abortionist". There is no such thing. That's hyperbole created by people who think the more hysterical their language and the more they rant, the more they will be able to make moral and RELIGIOUS judgments for others.

Thanks so much, but again, no thanks. This isn't about hysteria. It's about when government can impose its will on someone.

Oh...and there's no such thing as a snowflake baby. Do you believe an egg is a chicken?

Didn't think so... .which is why life exists on a continuun between embryo and when it's a child.. .and why goverments interst in protecting that POTENTIAL LIFE doesn't kick in right away.

Cause THAT is what this issue is about. Not the hysteria of the anti-choicers. If you choose not to abort, that is YOUR choice. And I respect that. Now get government away from my uterus.

 

[midcan5]

Abortion remains the biggest hypocrite crutch because nothing is required of the anti-choice person. When nothing is demanded of you you can preach to others easily and support laws on their personal freedom. The greatest irony remains the very same people supported an unjust and illegal war and do not support preventive measures such as condoms. But again that is because the issue is just an abstraction to salve their moral hypocrisy and their lack of concern for the other.

"Judith Thompson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.html

 

[Zoom-boing]

Cause no one is a "pro-abortionist". There is no such thing. That's hyperbole created by people who think the more hysterical their language and the more they rant, the more they will be able to make moral and RELIGIOUS judgments for others.

Jiillian, you're pro-abortion. Your 'its just hyperbole' is a load of horseshit. Blah, blah, blah you ramble on . . . yet you support abortion. That makes you pro-abortion. Now you can say its not about abortion, its about 'choice'. Your 'choice' destroys life. You have to delude yourself with this crap otherwise, you'd have to admit that abortion is murder.

Thanks so much, but again, no thanks. This isn't about hysteria. It's about when government can impose its will on someone.

Do you really not see the hypocricy in your statement? You don't want the government imposing its will on you . . . yet you impose your will on the unborn by destroying it. The very thing you rant and rage against is the very thing you turn around and support. Like I said before, hypocrite.

Oh...and there's no such thing as a snowflake baby. Do you believe an egg is a chicken?

The egg is the beginning of the chicken's life.

Didn't think so... .which is why life exists on a continuun between embryo and when it's a child.. .and why goverments interst in protecting that POTENTIAL LIFE doesn't kick in right away.

Tell me, at what exact moment do you pro-abortion types agree that the embryo turns into a child? 12 weeks? 14 weeks? What about 11 weeks, 6 days and 43 minutes? You have to tell yourself that it is not in any way, shape or form 'human' because then you would have to admit that abortion is, in fact, murder. Its how you rationalize this whole issue.

Cause THAT is what this issue is about. Not the hysteria of the anti-choicers. If you choose not to abort, that is YOUR choice. And I respect that. Now get government away from my uterus.

You just figuring that out? Its ALWAYS been about the life of the unborn for pro-lifers. Just as its ALWAYS been about choice for pro-choicers. The pro-life group sets aside their choice for the good of the unborn; the pro-choice group puts their right to choose before the life of another.

 

[Red Dawn]

If you destroy a frozen embryo, is it murder?

Yes.

Then demand the Republican Party outlaw abortion, and prosecute any woman who gets an abortion for murder, or any fertility clinic that destroys excess embryos for murder, it that's what you really believe.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The abortion issue is full of inconsistencies.

Either a fetus is a human or it isn't.

If a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy at ant time during gestation and if a late term abortion results in a living breathing being that is not given any rights because it was the result of a botched abortion how can one be charged with double murder if one kills a pregnant woman?

Of course the only reasonable answer is a compromise.

For example, after X amount of time, abortion is no longer an option and if the mother does not abort in the defined time limit then she can deliver and give the child up for adoption. The one exception to the rule, of course would be to save the life of the mother.

But we all know that reason and compromise will not win out.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then demand the Republican Party outlaw abortion, and prosecute any woman who gets an abortion for murder, or any fertility clinic that destroys excess embryos for murder, it that's what you really believe.

Outlawing abortion will do nothing to stop abortion. Keeping strong restrictions, educating our children, and stop treating this human life as a 'thing' will go alot further in reducing abortion that what you suggest.

I do not agree with almost all of Obama's views on abortion. Here's his voting record on the issue. I agree on education to teens, including contraceptive eduction.

Voting Record
Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Barack Obama on the Issues

 

[Anguille]

Abortion remains the biggest hypocrite crutch because nothing is required of the anti-choice person. When nothing is demanded of you you can preach to others easily and support laws on their personal freedom. The greatest irony remains the very same people supported an unjust and illegal war and do not support preventive measures such as condoms. But again that is because the issue is just an abstraction to salve their moral hypocrisy and their lack of concern for the other.

"Judith Thompson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong."

Judith Jarvis Thomson: Abortion

Great analogy, However some of the anti choice nuts, the ones who say that fetuses that result from rape or incest have no right to life, will claim being hooked up to the violinist as you sleep equals rape.

 

[Article 15]

of course the only reasonable answer is a compromise.

For example, after x amount of time, abortion is no longer an option and if the mother does not abort in the defined time limit then she can deliver and give the child up for adoption. The one exception to the rule, of course would be to save the life of the mother.

But we all know that reason and compromise will not win out.

this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Then demand the Republican Party outlaw abortion, and prosecute any woman who gets an abortion for murder, or any fertility clinic that destroys excess embryos for murder, it that's what you really believe.

Outlawing abortion will do nothing to stop abortion. Keeping strong restrictions, educating our children, and stop treating this human life as a 'thing' will go alot further in reducing abortion that what you suggest.



Barack Obama on the Issues

But you just said abortion was "murder". Why would you only want to treat it as an educational issue? That doesn't make any sense. Murder has always been considered the most vile crime a person can commit by every human society in recorded history. Always punishable by severe criminal sanctions.

If you really think its murder, why wouldn't you support throwing women in prison for it?

It doesn't sound to me like you really think its murder. You just find it personally objectionable and morally distasteful.

Either that, or you know the GOP would lose 40 senate seats and go extinct as a party if they outlawed abortion or threw women in prison for it. In which case, you put personal politics way ahead of your supposed and alleged belief that abortion is "murder"

 

[Zoom-boing]

But you just said abortion was "murder". Why would you only want to treat it as an educational issue? That doesn't make any sense. Murder has always been considered the most vile crime a person can commit by every human society in recorded history. Always punishable by severe criminal sanctions.

If you really think its murder, why wouldn't you support throwing women in prison for it?

It doesn't sound to me like you really think its murder. You just find it personally objectionable and morally distasteful.

Either that, or you know the GOP would lose 40 senate seats and go extinct as a party if they outlawed abortion or threw women in prison for it. In which case, you put personal politics way ahead of your supposed and alleged belief that abortion is "murder"

Abortion is murder -- legalized murder. Hard to put someone in jail for something that's legal. The U.S. decided it was fine to kill the unborn. Want me to rant about putting the women in prison? Why? RvW will never be overturned so there is no argument here.

Whether abortion is legal or not -- it has and will take place. I am for reducing abortions as much as possible. Sure it'd be great to end all abortions -- but not very realistic. I believe educating women and providing them with all information, including graphic photos of aborted babies, is key in helping to reduce the number of abortions. Do I think abortion should be outlawed? Not if it would increase the number of illegal abortions, which I think it would.

 

[WillowTree]

I love it when liberals argue no one is pro abortion. yesss,, just like there is no war on Christmas.. It's funny as hell.

 

[ReillyT]

I love it when liberals argue no one is pro abortion. yesss,, just like there is no war on Christmas.. It's funny as hell.

I like green grapes more than purple grapes and think that White Sox fans are generally the most annoying baseball fans on earth.

Sorry, I wanted to try to match you for meaningless commentary. I hope I was up to it.

 

[Silence]

I love it when liberals argue no one is pro abortion. yesss,, just like there is no war on Christmas.. It's funny as hell.

Pro abortion means that there are people out there who cheer abortion on Willow. Hold rallies in support of abortion, recruit women to have abortions, etc. I've seen no such activity. I see people who are pro-choice. Which means they are in support of whatever choice the women makes, be it abortion, adoption or keeping the baby to raise.

 

[Red Dawn]

I believe educating women and providing them with all information, including graphic photos of aborted babies, is key in helping to reduce the number of abortions. Do I think abortion should be outlawed? Not if it would increase the number of illegal abortions, which I think it would.

Okay, so you bascially believe in the liberal position, not the conservative republican one.

I can't speak for women, but I'm sure they don't enjoy getting abortions. I'm sure if education, comprehensive sex ed for teens, and universal access to affordable health care and contraceptive choices were available the rate of abortion would go down.

The only think I don't agree with you on is shoving pictures of dead fetuses in the face of women. Why is it that conservative men are always obsessed with doing that? Women are fully capable of making their own choices, and evaluating upsides and downsides without having some male knuckledragging neanderthal shove a picture of a bloody fetus in their face. I wish conservative misogynists would give women a little more credit.

 

[Valerie]

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.

On the day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, President Barack Obama repealed a Reagan-era policy that prohibited foreign nongovernmental family-planning groups from receiving U.S. funds if they provided abortions or even lobbied for abortion rights in their country. It is an action his abortion-rights supporters have waited eight years for and one they had encouraged him to waste no time taking. But by first issuing a statement urging support for common-ground efforts to reduce abortion rates and then waiting to sign the Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon — a time traditionally reserved for the release of information an Administration would like to bury — Obama sent a clear signal that he wants to turn down the heat on an issue that has defined and divided American politics for more than three decades. (See pictures behind the scenes at the Inauguration.)

Shhh. Obama Repeals the Abortion Gag Rule, Very Quietly - TIME

The Mexico City policy, as it is known, has been one of the most visible differences between the two major political parties on the issue of abortion, in part because incoming Presidents have taken action on it within days of entering the White House. Bill Clinton repealed the policy on Jan. 22, 1993, citing his concern that the ban prevented women and children from receiving health services. Eight years later, George W. Bush reinstated the policy on Jan. 22, 2001. "It is my conviction," Bush said, "that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." (View new fronts in the abortion battle.)

Bush's statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries.

What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own country or if they provided abortion referrals — a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a "global gag rule."

As a result of the policy — which is named for the city in which the Reagan Administration first announced it at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population — some groups, including Planned Parenthood organizations in Romania and Colombia, altered their activities in order to qualify and continued to receive funding. But at least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been affected, with all NGOs in those countries denied U.S. funding to help provide contraceptives and other much needed services.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm SHOCKED to learn that conservatives lied to me!

Valerie posted:

"What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion"

Bush made them not use THEIR OWN funds for abortion services as a condition?

What kind of asshole does that? Cons told me that OUR tax money was being used for abortion services

 

[Valerie]

Obama Lifts Global Funding Ban, Unties Hands of HIV/AIDS Groups

WASHINGTON, Jan 23, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) today lauded President Barack Obama for lifting a ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information or counseling on the option. According to the Associated Press, "The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the 'global gag rule,' because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method."
"Ending the ban on federal funding of international aid groups will also further enable the global community to use every weapon available to combat the devastating worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic," said Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "Some of the groups affected by this funding ban also provide lifesaving antiretroviral AIDS medications to people in need in Africa and elsewhere. The ban essentially prevented such groups from helping to save the lives of some of the 33 million people estimated to be living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. As an international aid group providing HIV/AIDS medical care in 22 countries, AIDS Healthcare Foundation praises President Obama for untying the hands of so many worthy groups that are desperately needed in this life or death fight against HIV and AIDS."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-lifts-global-funding-ban/story.aspx?guid={1045BC19-1B62-44C5-BC89-420E18FE6FAB}&dist=msr_2

http://www.aidshealth.org/

http://www.usaid.gov/

 

[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?

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the U.S., abortion rates are at their lowest level in three decades — which gives both sides in the culture wars something to celebrate and plenty to fight over, while the rest of us try to figure out what happened.

Why Have Abortion Rates Fallen? - TIME

WORLD POPULATION GROWTH — SOLUTIONS

Once we recognize the fact that overpopulation is a problem and that increasing standards of living around the world will add to our resource-use and pollution-management challenges, it's tempting to start thinking that disease, poverty, and premature death are unfortunate but necessary (as long as they happen to someone else, of course). We must resist any such temptation and work toward better solutions.

We should:

* continue to strive to reduce suffering by combating disease and poverty around the world;
* continue to improve resource efficiency and pollution control so that standards of living can rise without negative impact; and
* keep human population to numbers that are sustainable.

On the population front, that means:

* making sure people around the world have access to family planning services;
* empowering women in developing countries economically, socially, and legally in a manner that results in them having an equal say (with their husbands) in reproductive decisions;
* modifying school curricula to include information on population levels and implications for the future;
* reforming tax laws in a way that encourages couples to have no more than two children. (They would still be able to have as many kids as they want, but the tax code would no longer subsidize more than two.)

People are a good thing, but population growth without limit is not. The US and all developed countries should reinvigorate their international efforts to slow population growth. The future of the world depends on it!

World Population Growth - Solutions to Overpopulation

U.S. Agency for International Development

 

[Zoom-boing]

Okay, so you bascially believe in the liberal position, not the conservative republican one.

No, the liberal position condones abortion under the guise of 'choice'. I don't. It is murder of the unborn.

The only think I don't agree with you on is shoving pictures of dead fetuses in the face of women. Why is it that conservative men are always obsessed with doing that? Women are fully capable of making their own choices, and evaluating upsides and downsides without having some male knuckledragging neanderthal shove a picture of a bloody fetus in their face. I wish conservative misogynists would give women a little more credit.

If you're under the impression that I'm a guy, you're wrong.

Why don't you think women should be shown pictures of aborted babies as part of their decision on whether to have one or not? Because those pictures are horribly graphic? Because they are awful to look at? Because when they see those pictures they see a tiny, innocent, human life destroyed? Because those pictures are the reality and brutality of what abortion really is? Don't like looking at what abortion really is and does, huh? You'd much prefer to put all that aside with your don't look, don't tell mentality. Coward.

 

[garyd]

The violinist arguement is of course completely absurd. As the person hooked up to him had no part whatever in the condition that caused the violinists' current condition. If you are pregnant and you weren't raped then you willingly engaged in an action that you knew full well could create a human life.

We aren't anti choice madam we are just arguing about when that choiceshould have been made.

A better comparison would be running through a hospital ward and removing the patients from life support without even bothering to check their status.