I realized President Obama would start US funding for pro-abortion groups overseas, he did today. But I don't understand why I should be paying for that. OK- I admit it's hard enough for me to understand why I should pay (assuming tax $$ will one day pay for govt. spending) for abortions here. What purpose does it serve for US citizens to promote abortion overseas? I read that it helps population control, but that seems lame. Is it some moral crusade to decide the issue for the world. This doesn't make sense? I would rather that money buy food and clothing or drill water wells. Pork spending by the US overseas really is troubling.
I'm not too clear on the issue, but I have to agree. And this doesn't even matter if you are pro or anti abortion. Why would our tax dollars be spent this way?
I think a reasonable rationale would be that there are many international organizations that are otherwise acceptable that we couldn't give money to because of their stance on abortion. Reduces red-tape.
This is a political move if I ever saw one. This is Obama's first official move that I really don't like. I dislike the right to abortion as it is, but I really don't care for allowing funds to go to international groups for the purpose of abortions. Nothing like controlling another country's population growth.
It is just about allowing federal funds to go to groups that may be involved in international abortions. Sort of taking them off the banned list. DD
I guess I just don't understand why? If you need an abortion, I'm not going to tell you whether you can have one or not, that's between you and your God, but I sure don't want to pay for it or groups that administer them.
It would be interesting to see the reaction knowing who is pro-choice vs. pro-life. I know DD is very much pro-choice. I'm against it and pro-life. Are there people agree with it that are pro-life because it may help organizations that deserve funding for things they do other than abortion or any people that are pro-choice that are against it because they dislike the fact that it means more money will be spent in other countries.
I'm very pro-life and I don't really have a problem with this. If there are organizations that are doing a lot of good in the world, they shouldn't be denied funding because they may offer a pamphlet on abortion.
I'm sure there is alot of money sent overseas that would baffle me, I think we could target those funds a little better since we are in a recession. Since I oppose abortions as they are presently done and I understand the moral points- which is what both sides debate. Then why should our budget include foreign aid for that issue. Honestly, are we going to self righteously declare that it is our moral duty to be sure the poor of the world can have abortions? That sounds like population control. Send them food, water, clothing, textbooks, and teachers. Not $$$ to fund abortion services.
It's not really about providing international abortions. Let's say for example there is a group that works with impoverished people in Africa. They give food, medicine, hospitals and fund clinics. If one of the clinics they fund and build offers abortion services then previously that organization would be getting zero US dollars. With Obama's new order they can receive funding again. The funding isn't really for the abortions but for the whole package including the medicine, food, and hospitals. The rationale is that you don't cut off the nose to spite the face. I understand if some people disagree with this order.
From what I've seen, groups that provide information on abortions also usually provide information on contraceptives. Contraceptive awareness has a much greater chance at reducing abortions than abstinence advocacy. Many European nations are proof of this. Abortion is a valid concern, but many people completely disregard the root causes. What about the welfare of the mother? What emotional and socioeconomic conditions lead her to opt for an abortion? Also, in Africa, many pregnancies are due to rape. Just because an organization educates on the option doesn't mean they should have their funding revoked.
It's more puzzling that there should have been a wholesale ban on funding to groups who provide information on a procedure that's legal in the US. As others have said -- he's not proposing funding abortion -- he's simply taking groups who may have some involvement with abortion (including providing info) off a banned list. The groups would still have to meet other funding criteria. If you're against international aid as a whole -- that's a different issue.
i could almost swear that a large part of his job description is to have policies which necessarily are political.
