could it be he's just pro choice, also did you missed the part where this thing has flipped back and forth since 1984
Yes, one can be ethically opposed to abortion, and still support this decision if they are for international aid. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but it's possible that more lives could actually be saved than terminated via abortions. And perhaps other preconditions for funding will be added that aren't so black and white on the abortion issue.
What if these organizations were also providing food and services to the poor, but were banned from receiving funds because they also promote abortions? That is why he removed them, this is not a black and white world, it is full of shades of gray. DD
What if this is part of Obama's larger anti-immigration policies? Fewer births=Fewer immigrants. We can save money on the fence.
ok so the Choice is Don't push abortion . . but give them Food and Services or don't give them Food and Services so they chose to not give food or services Interesting Rocket River
The OP was definitely being deceptive. No link. No real argument. Inflammatory first sentence. This is a serious issue and it’s a shame the OP couldn’t approach it in a more honest and ethical manner. My personal belief is that human life begins at the point of conception, and terminating an embryo after that point is the termination of a human life. That said, there are some difficult questions about when that might be a just thing to do. A lot of rape has gone on in some of these places, including the rape of young girls. Often these women and girls are malnourished, sick, and/or seriously injured from being beaten. I’m sure there are a number of cases where the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life. There is also a whole range of different cultural issues to consider. To simply withhold information about abortion from these people as a blanket policy would be immoral. It’s pretty hard to see that any other way. The real question is, however, what is the best way to support people in this situation and facilitate positive outcomes?
I'm the OP, what deception are you referring to? I am questioning why we should be involved with providing funds for abortion groups overseas, I wasn't even being inflamatory towards the President after all this was expected, Clinton did the same thing. We all have seen the abortion issue debated here over and over. I think we can find a way to help the poor and needy overseas without deliberatley promoting abortions in other countries. I do not think that is right or a proper use of tax $$$. The 2 can be separated by intelligent people. If that wasn't clearly my intent in the OP I appologize. Using government money to support the promotion of abortion in other countries is wrong. (that is my opinion on a basketball board.)
Rhester, All this does is remove the constraints on whom can get the money. Maybe some organizations do abortions and lots of other things, but they were crossed off because of the edict, and now our government can look at the overall picture of good in deciding whether or not to fund them. A good move. DD
Your use of the verb "promote" belies your viewpoint that these organizations will have town criers in every village shouting "get an abortion now! Do it!" Come on. Do you really think any of these organizations are abortion-only clinics that set up shop in a third world country and "promote" their service? finalsbound has a very salient and relevant point here that is being overlooked: Let's not forget that the Bush administration was not only anti abortion, but anti sex education, anti contraception, and adamant in promoting "abstinence education", that utterly wrong-headed movement which increases unwanted pregnancies through the spreading of willful ignorance. Want to decrease the number of abortions? Want to help fight the spread of HIV in Africa and elsewhere? Promote sex education and contraceptive use. Bush was not down with that.
“No link. No real argument. Inflammatory first sentence.” Even here you’re using language intended to mislead. As far as I can tell, although I'm sure there is a range of different groups that this covers, these are not “abortion groups” per se, and they don’t “promote abortions”. They are groups that, among other things, provide information about abortions. You are unfairly trying to characterize them in a certain way, and by doing that you are exploiting the disadvantaged people in third world countries who they deal with, and the abortion issue in general, for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
I read about 4 articles on the ban before I posted, I have since read another 3-4. Still no link, sorry. (the breakdown on those articles was about 4 against 3 for the lifting of the Mexico City Gag rule as it is called) The US funds about 400 million $$$ in family planning services overseas. The 'gag rule' policy required grantees to refrain from performing abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), or lobbying to legalize abortion, or otherwise promoting abortion as a family-planning method. The policy explicitly allowed responding to questions about where abortions may be obtained, in countries in which abortions are legal. Thats all, you can google the executive order and read it for yourself. The lifting of the 'gag rule' allows funds to go primarily to International Planned Parenthood which is open about promoting abortion globally as a means of population control. Many family planning agencies overseas signed on to the 'gag rule' policy and provided contraceptives, sex education and other services without promoting abortion as an alternative. Those who support the lifting of the ban argue that thousands of women are denied proper health care and family planning services and women die becauses of the ban, but I could not verify that by the google method I have used. I'm not necessarily pro- the gag rule; I am opposed to just signing off on the executive order without coming up with a better solution. I oppose abortion so I am obviously against promoting it. I readily admit that I would want family planning services to omit the abortion options. I think it is wrong to fund groups like International Planned Parenthood who are blatantly pro abortion and promote it openly around the world. I can separate the use of sex ed and contraceptives from the promotion of abortions. Grizzled, you are a good poster, if you want links when I have more time I will go back and re-google. If you think I am trying to be deceptive to persuade someone or state my opinion you are wrong. I am only posting my personal opinion. I didn't say I was right. I could be totally wrong. But I am being perfectly honest and open about how I view the issue. No links are needed for that. If your intent is to prove me wrong, you missed my point... I am expressing how I feel about it. I am not wrong about that.
Now you’re making a real argument. There is substance here and you are dealing with the difficult issue of abortion by breaking it down and addressing the different key situations that people tend to have different opinions about. You still haven’t provided any links, however, so it’s not easy to check what you’ve said, and since I feel your first post was almost exclusively spin, I don’t feel very confident that you’re not spinning this information as well. Yes, I would be interested in seeing those links if you still have them handy. Thanks.
I really don't understand the term Pro-Life shouldn't that be Anti-Choice I understand through your logic you are looking out for the interest of the child but Generally, those who have abortions can't afford the necessities that are needed to care for a child. And quite often those who support no choice are against: Universal healthcare Public welfare Initiatives for sex education an contraception WTF? really ignorant to force people out of options and not be neighborly enough to assist those with life's most important chore Raising Our children Love thy neghbor.............................really
conveniently overlooked in the rest of the thread. you can argue for or against funding these groups overall, but placing a restriction based on something completely contradictory to the law of the land here in the first place is the confusing part. I'm pretty sure the majority in this country believe abortion to be okay. It's been legal (in its current form) since 1973, from the end of Nixon, through Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama. The basic tenant of this thread is "I don't believe in abortion", and if the OP or anyone else wants to have an discussion about that, fine, but couching it in disappointment over a change in US funding that actually re-aligns policy with law in this country is disingenuous in my opinion.
If people shouldn't be having kids they shouldn't be having irresponsible sex which will lead to a terminated pregnancy or a huge financial burden on the mother and almost assuredly have consequences on the child. Abstinence is a pipe dream. Sex education needs to be taught, this isn't the 1950s anymore. Knowledge is power.
