Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[WillowTree]

Costing lives of thousands of Americans, how do you come of telling me that I want Americans to die. See thats exactely what I am talking about you read the beginning and ignore the rest dont even think about using comprehension on any of the addtional text. No hypothesis or idea just come out with a irrevlevent response. If you dont like A, C and D are going to happen no matter what. I love this country more than pretty much anyone else. I know what its capable of good and bad. I want this country to show the world things can get done by doing it the right way. Not by just assuming it can do what ever it wants. But I will let you think what you want to by us doing what you want to do our soldiers will then have to face what you support. The reason we support the Geneva Accords but if we dont then our enemies dont have to either. You rather subject our soldiers to torture just so you could do it back here. I hope God can forgive you.

There was a reason people were waterboarded. You don't want waterboarding? You get the alternative. You are willing to sacrifice for the ability to say we don't torture. It's just that simple.

 

[WillowTree]

Costing lives of thousands of Americans, how do you come of telling me that I want Americans to die. See thats exactely what I am talking about you read the beginning and ignore the rest dont even think about using comprehension on any of the addtional text. No hypothesis or idea just come out with a irrevlevent response. If you dont like A, C and D are going to happen no matter what. I love this country more than pretty much anyone else. I know what its capable of good and bad. I want this country to show the world things can get done by doing it the right way. Not by just assuming it can do what ever it wants. But I will let you think what you want to by us doing what you want to do our soldiers will then have to face what you support. The reason we support the Geneva Accords but if we dont then our enemies dont have to either. You rather subject our soldiers to torture just so you could do it back here. I hope God can forgive you.

That argument don't fly, Our soldiers are tortured by other countries. If you haven't read the book Lone Survivor I highly suggest it might be worth your while. If you love our soldiers.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Eugenics in this country was begun by republicans and democrats....prescott bush was a supporter of such and got funding for eugenic projects of margaret Sanger early on....from what i have read....and George Bush 1 has been heavily involved as well...but so have the democratic Rockefellers...

Eugenics, a brief history
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: yu-'je-niks
Function: noun
Date: 1883
: a science that deals with the improvement by control of human mating, of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Eugenics began as a breeding science for horses in the late 19th century in the US. In the early 1900s No. Carolina and Virginia used it to control the population of humans that were deemed inferior though mental; retardation and handicapped. Hitler's Nazi Germany showe an interest in eugenics and expanded its use to control the population of those deemed unfit or unnecessary people: handicapped, gypsies, indigents, slavs, and Jews. This is the core of the Master Race way of thinking and it is alive and well in our world today. One can understand the need for birth control in today's world but who gets sterilized and who doesn't is not always a voluntary decision. The survivors make up the master race; the characteristics of which are highly defined by race purists. Here is a brief history.

General Draper was an advocate of eugenics. In 1932, William Draper financed the International Eugenics Congress and helped select Ernst Ruaudin as chief of the world eugenics movement. They promoted what he called Adolf Hitler's "holy, national and international racial hygienic mission." They worked closely with Prescott Bush who shared the same views on eugenics. In Prescott’s first run for office in 1950 he was exposed as an activist in the fascist eugenics movement. Due to the exposure, Prescott lost his first bid for office.


Meanwhile, General Draper founded the Population Crisis Committee, joining with the Rockefeller and Du Pont families to promote eugenics for population control. The administration of President Lyndon Johnson, advised by General Draper on the subject, began financing birth control in the tropical countries through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

General Draper was George Bush's guru on the population question. But there was also Draper's money--from that uniquely horrible source--and Draper's connections on Wall Street and abroad. Draper's son and heir, William H. Draper III, was co-chairman for finance (chief of fundraising) of the Bush-for-President national campaign organization in 1980. With George Bush in the White House, the younger Draper heads up the depopulation activities of the United Nations throughout the world.

On Eugenics ---- "The [government] must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge.... Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children.... The prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a period of only 600 years, would ... free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune."
-- Adolph Hitler

"The per capita income gap between the developed and the developing countries is increasing, in large part the result of higher birth rates in the poorer countries.... Famine in India, unwanted babies in the United States, poverty that seemed to form an unbreakable chain for millions of people--how should we tackle these problems?.... It is quite clear that one of the major challenges of the 1970s ... will be to curb the world's fertility."
-- George Bush Sr.

These two quotations are alike in their mock show of concern for human suffering, and in their cynical remedy for it: Big Brother must prevent the 'unworthy' or 'unwanted' people from living. Because of Geroge Bush 250 million brown skinned people have been sterilized at the US taxpayer's expense - $300 million a year.

Sterilization:

The U.S. Agency for International Development says that surgical sterilization is the Bush administration's "first choice" method of population reduction in the Third World. The United Nations Population Fund claims that 37 percent of contraception users in Ibero-America and the Caribbean have already been surgically sterilized.
In a 1991 report, William H. Draper III's agency asserts that 254 million couples will be surgically sterilized over the course of the 1990s; and that if present trends continue, 80 percent of the women in Puerto Rico and Panama will be surgically sterilized.

The U.S. government pays directly for these sterilizations.

Mexico is first among targeted nations, on a list which was drawn up in July 1991, at a USAID strategy session. India and Brazil are second and third priorities, respectively. On contract with the Bush administration, U.S. personnel are working from bases in Mexico to perform surgery on millions of Mexican men and women. The acknowledged strategy in this program is to sterilize those young adults who have not already completed their families.

The spending for birth control in the non-white countries is one of the few items that headed upwards in the Bush I administration budget. In 1992 USAID said its Population Account would receive $300 million, a 20 percent increase over the previous year. Within this project, a significant sum is spent on political and psychological manipulations of target nations, and rather blatant subversion of their religions and governments.

In 946-47 Gordon Gray and Dr. Claude Nash Herndon conducted experiments in "medical genetics" at Bowman Gray Medical School. Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir to the Proctor and Gamble soap fortune, was the sterilizers national field operations chief.

The experiment worked as follows. All children enrolled in the school district of Winston-Salem, N.C., were given a special intelligence test. Those children who scored below a certain arbitrary low mark were then cut open and surgically sterilized. These are quotes from the official story of the project:

In Winston-Salem and in [nearby] Orange County, North Carolina, the Sterilization League's field committee had participated in testing projects to identify school age children who should be considered for sterilization. The project in Orange County was conducted by the University of North Carolina and was financed by a Mr. Hanes, a friend of Clarence Gamble and supporter of the field work project in North Carolina. The Winston-Salem project was also financed by Hanes. Hanes was underwear mogul James Gordon Hanes, a trustee of Bowman Gray Medical School.
the Bush Sterilization History

The Source for this ain't that hot, but i have read all of this before from credible sources...

Population Control is just eugenics, masked...imho.

care

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've read what you wrote... same old same old. Hysteria before everything else.

Jillian, its really hard to take you seriously when you don't even read what is posted and continue using the hysteria route, when no one but you seems to be hystercial. Go back in my posts -- never once did I mention the word 'abstinence' and never once did I shout 'religion or God'. You're so busy trying to defend a weak argument that you overlooked that fact that I fully support education and contraception as a means of reducing abortion. But you didn't bother to catch that . . . all you do is lump anyone who is anti-abortion into the 'radical, rabid, religious' group.

And note, I refrained from saying and also because of unbelievable "moral superiorty", which, again, in my view, you can all save. Because, guess what... you don't have the right to impose your judgments on other people.

How do you go from 'giving the unborn a chance to live' or 'providing all information' to 'imposing judgements on other people'?

As for "originality"...perhaps if you laid off the hysteria, stopped thinking it's ok to terrorize young women out of having an abortion by use of inflammatory, doctored and unrealistic images, we could move on to the real arguments.

So you believe its ok to let a woman make this crucial decision without having all information? Would you have surgery without knowing all the pros and cons, benefits and risks before consenting? Wouldn't you want to know what the outcome would be? Those photos are the outcome of what abortion is and does. Someone considering having an abortion should be shown these pictures so they can make a fully informed decision. Jillian, you belive that the graphic side of abortion is 'terrorizing tactics'. You are sadly so very wrong. Its reality and it is truth. And its pretty damn disgusting.

But you LOSE those... because the interests of GOVERNMENT (and that's what we're talking about) in determining what we can and can't do with our own bodies, doesn't kick in on conception.... UNLESS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SAY IT IS.

The government is wrong.

And your religious beliefs don't trump mine.

Once again, it isn't about who trumps who . . . . its about the destruction of human life. You can spin it anyway you want . . . . abortion brutally destroys human life. Like I said earlier, pro-abortionists put their right to choose before the life of another. Anti-abortionists put the life of another before their own right to choose. If you consider 'putting another's life before their own right to choose' as rabid well then, we might just be rabid at that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of ALL of the absurd rationalizations advanced by the infanticide evil, THIS is the most pathetic.

A human fetus is incontrovertibly... HUMAN. The assertion to the contrary is never less than short sighted and never more than a statement founded in simple ignorance.

Christ, you're as dumb as a post aren't ya. It is not infanticide,because the foetus is not an infant ijit. It is a foetus. look up the definition. You are one ignorant stupid dumbass.

of course the founder of the US were liberals of their days. Liberals are all about change, convervatives want to conserve the status quo, that is why they are called conservative you dumb, ignornat hayseed. Was America founded on existing European principles, or did your FF set some new rules. Think about it before you answer Oh Dim One...

 

[WillowTree]

Of ALL of the absurd rationalizations advanced by the infanticide evil, THIS is the most pathetic.

A human fetus is incontrovertibly... HUMAN. The assertion to the contrary is never less than short sighted and never more than a statement founded in simple ignorance.

Christ, you're as dumb as a post aren't ya. It is not infanticide,because the foetus is not an infant ijit. It is a foetus. look up the definition. You are one ignorant stupid dumbass.

of course the founder of the US were liberals of their days. Liberals are all about change, convervatives want to conserve the status quo, that is why they are called conservative you dumb, ignornat hayseed. Was America founded on existing European principles, or did your FF set some new rules. Think about it before you answer Oh Dim One...

You spell it foetus and tell her to look up the definition of foetus and you call her dumb! We should all just give the fuck up.

 

[jillian]

I've read what you wrote... same old same old. Hysteria before everything else.

Jillian, its really hard to take you seriously when you don't even read what is posted and continue using the hysteria route, when no one but you seems to be hystercial. Go back in my posts -- never once did I mention the word 'abstinence' and never once did I shout 'religion or God'. You're so busy trying to defend a weak argument that you overlooked that fact that I fully support education and contraception as a means of reducing abortion. But you didn't bother to catch that . . . all you do is lump anyone who is anti-abortion into the 'radical, rabid, religious' group.

And note, I refrained from saying and also because of unbelievable "moral superiorty", which, again, in my view, you can all save. Because, guess what... you don't have the right to impose your judgments on other people.

How do you go from 'giving the unborn a chance to live' or 'providing all information' to 'imposing judgements on other people'?



So you believe its ok to let a woman make this crucial decision without having all information? Would you have surgery without knowing all the pros and cons, benefits and risks before consenting? Wouldn't you want to know what the outcome would be? Those photos are the outcome of what abortion is and does. Someone considering having an abortion should be shown these pictures so they can make a fully informed decision. Jillian, you belive that the graphic side of abortion is 'terrorizing tactics'. You are sadly so very wrong. Its reality and it is truth. And its pretty damn disgusting.

But you LOSE those... because the interests of GOVERNMENT (and that's what we're talking about) in determining what we can and can't do with our own bodies, doesn't kick in on conception.... UNLESS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SAY IT IS.

The government is wrong.

And your religious beliefs don't trump mine.

Once again, it isn't about who trumps who . . . . its about the destruction of human life. You can spin it anyway you want . . . . abortion brutally destroys human life. Like I said earlier, pro-abortionists put their right to choose before the life of another. Anti-abortionists put the life of another before their own right to choose. If you consider 'putting another's life before their own right to choose' as rabid well then, we might just be rabid at that.

Don't patronize me, dear. You're just the latest of a long line of anti-choicers. Your arguments aren't anything unique. Nor are your justifications or the hysteria you evidence.

It's not about the "government" being wrong. It's about us being protected from governmental intrusion into our bodies unless the governmental interest outweighs our own. That is the constitutional standard. You've heard of the constitution, right? It's not the same book as the bible.

Certainly that concept can't be foreign to you? You should learn it. It's the basis for Roe v Wade.

And yes, you are trying to trump my beliefs. My beliefs allow for my own decision making which you would divest me of.

Now, again, justify why the religious right didn't a) educate kids in anything that would be helpful to them -- unlike "abstinence only"....

And justify why over the eight years you had power, you didn't fund education and training and day care for single moms, since you are all so worried about the unborn and all.

 

[cunclusion]

In the end people need to make the decision are we like countries that religion runs the country or do the people run the country with religion separate. In countries where religion runs the country people are alienated and thus treated differently. This country was not based on such things everyone is included and hopefully represented and treated equally.

 

[Dr Grump]

You spell it foetus and tell her to look up the definition of foetus and you call her dumb! We should all just give the fuck up.

I spell it the English way, not the American way. I spell 'colour' the English way, 'mum' the English way, and 'criticise' the English way. If you are going to start having a go at me for my English spelling (you know the original way, by the people who invented the language), then these are going to be some very long posts. I mean, you do know that there is American English and the proper way of spelling, right?? You aren't that ignorant are ya?

BTW, what's with all you lazy arses (English version of asses) hitting the quote buttons and quoting a couple of answers at once. To lazy to delete or somethin'....

 

[Anguille]

Here's a thought for the anti choice forced birth whackos. Why would you think the government has any business defending the so called rights and presumed wishes of embryos and fetuses? They are not even American citizens. The US government's first duty is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of others.

 

[WillowTree]

You spell it foetus and tell her to look up the definition of foetus and you call her dumb! We should all just give the fuck up.

I spell it the English way, not the American way. I spell 'colour' the English way, 'mum' the English way, and 'criticise' the English way. If you are going to start having a go at me for my English spelling (you know the original way, by the people who invented the language), then these are going to be some very long posts. I mean, you do know that there is American English and the proper way of spelling, right?? You aren't that ignorant are ya?

BTW, what's with all you lazy arses (English version of asses) hitting the quote buttons and quoting a couple of answers at once. To lazy to delete or somethin'....

I like the way some American on this board put it the other night. it was perfect. We stopped having to listen to your bullshit a long long long time age. We kicked yer assez to the curb.

 

[Dr Grump]

I like the way some American on this board put it the other night. it was perfect. We stopped having to listen to your bullshit a long long long time age. We kicked yer assez to the curb.

You didn't kick my arse anywhere....I ain't English....

 

[WillowTree]

I like the way some American on this board put it the other night. it was perfect. We stopped having to listen to your bullshit a long long long time age. We kicked yer assez to the curb.

You didn't kick my arse anywhere....I ain't English....

you are a lucky guy then ain't ya?

 

[Red Dawn]

For the same reason I've never demanded that Bush supporters like you be forced to look at the mangled and bloody bodies of dead iraqi babies that you killed in your war.

I'm not your judge, and I'm not in a position to force you to endure graphic images in a lame and disingenous attempt to sway your morality.

You'll be judged someday. We all will. Whether its by a christian God, or by karmic forces, I have no idea. But, that's for every individual to deal with. Your nobodies judge, priest, or morality counselor. And neither am I.

So a 2 month pregnant 14 year old walks into planned parenthood to find out her options. She's told she can have the baby and raise him, have the baby and give him up for adopton, have an abortion. And that's it?? No further information?

You don't think she should be given the pros and cons of raising a child, the pros and cons of giving the child away for adoption, the pros and cons of abortion? You don't think she should be fully informed before making a decision as crucial as this?

This isn't about judging, this is about providing all information -- and yes, pictures of these aborted babies is information that should be given so she knows exactly what she is considering doing -- so that she will be able to make her decision knowing what it entails, graphicness and all. Abortion IS horrific, or hadn't you realized that?

Swaying someone's morality? What a twit. Aren't you pro-abortionists the one's crying 'my body, my choice'? So you want that choice to be made without all information?? Unfuckingbelievable. Try going back and actually reading my posts.

If someone wants to voluntarily look at pictures, no one gives a shit about that.

What your suggesting is that women be required to look at your pictures. That someone shove those pictures in their faces.

Women don't need some law requiring moralist crusador shoving pictures in their face. We're adults. We don't need the government electing some bible thumper to shove pictures in women's faces. In my opinion, women are fully capable of judging the consequences of their actions without the harasment of bible thumpers.

If we're going down that road, why aren't war supporters required to look at pictures of dead iraqi children, and the bloody messes and body parts of american soldiers blown up in IED attacks? By your logic, should every war supporter be made to understand the consequences of their support for a war of choice, by being forced to look at the results of their war?

I don't think you would support that. Which is very hypocritical of you.

I don't think any human being should be required by the government to be forced to look at pictures. The government isn't our nanny. I think women are every bit as capable as me or you at thinking through the consequences of their actions.

 

[Care4all]

i disagree red dawn...for the most part.

i don't think a bible thumper should be force showing graphics as you put it....so we agree there...

but i think ALL INFORMATION should be given to the girls getting an abortion, they should be fully informed....it could be in the form of pamphlets...one for adoption, listing pros and cons, one for single parenthood pros and cons, one for abortion, pros and cons.

if the girl, reads all three or none, it is up to the girl...

 

[jillian]

i disagree red dawn...for the most part.

i don't think a bible thumper should be force showing graphics as you put it....so we agree there...

but i think ALL INFORMATION should be given to the girls getting an abortion, they should be fully informed....it could be in the form of pamphlets...one for adoption, listing pros and cons, one for single parenthood pros and cons, one for abortion, pros and cons.

if the girl, reads all three or none, it is up to the girl...

But what material does she get that sets up the "cons" of abortion? Is it generic, non-religious and non-hysterical? what are the contents?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Christ, you're as dumb as a post aren't ya. It is not infanticide,because the foetus is not an infant ijit. It is a foetus. look up the definition. You are one ignorant stupid dumbass.


.

You should watch who you call dumb, Dr. G. You're right, it is a fetus. I posted this earlier but obviously you chose to ignore it.

A fetus (or foetus or fœtus) is a developing human, after the embryonic stage and before childbirth.
Fetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.
Embryo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can call the unborn a zygot, embryo, fetus, baby . . . the terms change as the child changes. But the one term that is common at all stages is I]human[/I].

 

[Care4all]

i disagree red dawn...for the most part.

i don't think a bible thumper should be force showing graphics as you put it....so we agree there...

but i think ALL INFORMATION should be given to the girls getting an abortion, they should be fully informed....it could be in the form of pamphlets...one for adoption, listing pros and cons, one for single parenthood pros and cons, one for abortion, pros and cons.

if the girl, reads all three or none, it is up to the girl...

But what material does she get that sets up the "cons" of abortion? Is it generic, non-religious and non-hysterical? what are the contents?

non religious....

It should cover the procedure itself, what it entails physically,

what is occurring in the early weeks of pregnancy regarding the developing offspring....

and other pertinent information that is known regarding the time period in which the foetus might experience pain...or any number of questions some women may have regarding such, before making their final decision.

There should be a part that does discuss the possible side effects from abortions, both physical and mental....that could occur and the chances of such things occurring....like with any other surgical procedure...

by no means should this be religious, just informative, is how i see it being jillian!

care

 

[Enigma]

non religious....

It should cover the procedure itself, what it entails physically,

what is occurring in the early weeks of pregnancy regarding the developing offspring....

and other pertinent information that is known regarding the time period in which the foetus might experience pain...or any number of questions some women may have regarding such, before making their final decision.

There should be a part that does discuss the possible side effects from abortions, both physical and mental....that could occur and the chances of such things occurring....like with any other surgical procedure...

by no means should this be religious, just informative, is how i see it being jillian!

care

Aren't these things already being discussed? Any good doctor should be providing all this information to her/his patients before any medical procedure. Do you know if they are or not? I don't think having an abortion is a quickie in and out procedure.

 

[Enigma]

thus its my position that 14 year olds SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE... and they DAMN WELL should not be given the RIGHT to KILL The HUMANS THEY CONCEIVE... and by that I mean they shouldn't be getting 'educated' to be sexually active

I don't think any one out there is encouraging 14 year olds to be sexually active. IMO, sex education is not encouraging sexual activity. What route do you propose people take then, because unfortunately there are plenty of 14 year olds out there that will be sexually active whether they're educated about sex or not. Wouldn't you rather they know what they are dealing with if they have sex (how to protect themselves from STDs, pregnancy, the emotional aspect of it, etc.)? Just ignoring the fact that teenagers may be sexually active certainly isn't doing anything to prevent teen pregnancy.

No one likes the idea of abortion, but in the circumstance of a 14 year old it may just be better off for the mother and baby if the pregnancy is terminated. I'd rather see that happen then a child grow up neglected, abused, etc. because its mother didn't want it or wasn't prepared to be a parent.

In the end, any one in this situation should have the right to choose what option is best for them and the unborn child.