Obama reverses abortion-funds policy
Associated Press
Published January 23, 2009 at 8:12 a.m.
Updated January 23, 2009 at 8:02 p.m.
Photo by Pool
WASHINGTON - JANUARY 22: U.S. President Barack Obama takes an impromptu tour of the White House press work area January 22, 2009 in Washington, DC. The president made the surprise visit on his second full day in office. (Photo by Ron Sachs-Pool via Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
Obama's move, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate." He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.
Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign.
Clinton said Friday evening that for seven years Bush's policy made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and health care services. "Rather than limiting women's ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families," Clinton said.
In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Obama is also expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), probably in the next federal budget. Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world." "Access to reproductive health is at the core of all of these issues," she said.
"We are confident that under the new president's direction, the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women's reproductive health and rights worldwide," Obaid said in a statement issued at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"President Obama's decision could not have come at a more critical time," she said. "If women are to stop dying in childbirth and if reproductive health for all is to become a reality, we need increased political and financial commitment at all levels to implement strategies that we know will work. With the renewed U.S. support to women and to UNFPA, the odds of that happening are greatly improved." Obama, in his statement, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries." UNFPA's executive director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world." "Access to reproductive health is at the core of all of these issues," she said.
"We are confident that under the new president's direction, the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women's reproductive health and rights worldwide," Obaid said in a statement issued at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"President Obama's decision could not have come at a more critical time," she said. "If women are to stop dying in childbirth and if reproductive health for all is to become a reality, we need increased political and financial commitment at all levels to implement strategies that we know will work. With the renewed U.S. support to women and to UNFPA, the odds of that happening are greatly improved." The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.
UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year, but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.
Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future." "Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning." Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world." "President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 23, 2009
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Barbarosa writes:
God, he's really on a roll. You go, Barry!
January 23, 2009
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleye writes:
I'm sure this will bring out lots of comments from both the pro-life and pro-choice sides, along with the accompanying name-calling. While I am strongly pro-life, I am critical of this decision for other reasons as well. Namely, why in the world are we funding foreign family planning groups in the first place? With our economy in shambles, and national security a continuing priority, why are our tax dollars going to these groups at all, whether they perform abortions or not?
January 23, 2009
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
What happened to Washington tightening its belt? I don't want MY tax dollars to fund the murder of innocent unborn children in the U.S. or abroad. Shame on you, Obama!!!!!!!
January 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
Letting terrorists out of Gitmo, federal subsidizing of infant genocide - I'm afraid to ask what's next.
January 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
I'll give Obama his due. He never denied he supported abortion from the beginning:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/stor...
and he's just giving NOW their payback for the election. I can at least respect him for standing by his policies - even though I disagree with them.
January 23, 2009
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
Finally a step in the right direction. Progress has begun.
January 23, 2009
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
I will go through the national budget line by line.........we will see.
January 23, 2009
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
kmeissner writes:
Funding INTERNATIONAL abortions? Isn't OUR economy already bad enough? We are helping foreigners get abortions now too? That doesn't sound right.
January 23, 2009
8:44 a.m.
leavemealone writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 23, 2009
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
JMH writes:
Gasp... A politician who respects the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions? The horror...
Truth is, it is quite refreshing to see a president who attempts to protect the rights of women rather than kneel down before a bunch of religious nuts stuck in the 19th century who want to keep women "barefoot & pregnet"!
Obama is on a roll! He shuts down "The American Gulag" at Gitmo and he protects a women's right to make her own reproductive decisions... within 2 days! Pretty safe to say he has already proven to be a better president than W!!!
Thank you PRESIDENT OBAMA! Thank you for showing you wont cower before the religious fanatics in this country, you wont let fear run your presidency and that you respect human rights, dignity and freedoms!
January 23, 2009
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
rapelje writes:
We all see how Obama plans on RULING, Executive Orders which circumvents the Legislative Process and ultimately the voters. Executive Orders were only supposed to be issued in important cases where the Legislative Branch was not able to meet in a timely fashion, or something of this level of importance. What Obama has started is governing by decree, how dangerous of a precendence is this? Obama has issued in the first four days more Executive Orders than all of the last 4 Presidents combined! All of the Presidents before him have used the Executive Order with great restraint and he has thrown off all restraints and run roughshod over the whole legislative process. I wonder what would have happened if a Conservative Republican had come in and done what he has done? The Left led by NARAL, ACLU, NAACP, Greenpeace, etc., etc. would be screaming, but their silence is extremely telling right now, as they show that they really don't have any values in upholding the Democratic process when the end result is all that counts!
January 23, 2009
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
UNV_ME - You call "this" progress? Well I guess you can say that, under obama, the U.S. has progressed itself to the world leader of infant genocide.
p.s. Don't you mean "a step in the LEFT direction."
January 23, 2009
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
leavemealone writes:
There are at least three quotes from staff saying "Rule"
unbelievable...
I have something Obama can take a rule too....
January 23, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
"he protects a women's right to make her own reproductive decisions..." Shouldn't a woman protect her own "reproductive decisions" BEFORE she gets herself barefoot and pregnant.
January 23, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnnyBallgame writes:
Obama, may god bless you and open your eyes to the value of LIFE, you need it, bad!!
January 23, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
The bama lama ding donggg at his best!
January 23, 2009
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
trinidad writes:
What happened to Washington tightening its belt? I don't want MY tax dollars to fund the murder of innocent unborn children in the U.S. or abroad.
Now you know how I felt having my tax dollars used to kill innocent civilians in an illegal war and my tax dollars used to torture and spy on me.
January 23, 2009
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
trinidad writes:
What happened to Washington tightening its belt? I don't want MY tax dollars to fund the murder of innocent unborn children in the U.S. or abroad. Shame on you, Obama!!!!!!!
_____________
So what Trinidad? I don't want MY tax dollars to fund bullets bombs and war ships.
Now we're even right?
January 23, 2009
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
One of the reasons why Obama got my vote was this promise.
rapelje: Bush create an executive order to refuse the funding, this and many of the executive orders he will sign are just reversals of Bush doing what you complained about
January 23, 2009
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
leavemealone writes:
keep going Hussein - no surprises so far - three days in & you're on a roll....
Your media orgy will start to smell sooner than you think.
January 23, 2009
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngryDragon writes:
Regardless of your stance on abortion, why should federal money go to funding one? I mean really, why not have federal funding for plastic surgery? It seems to me that 99% of abortions are elective, and the person getting pregnant 99% of the time was by their own choice.
I think if you are responsible enough to have sex in the first place you should understand that you may have to pay for an abortion yourself if you want one.
January 23, 2009
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Many posters here bring up a good point. The time has come to seriously cut back ALL foreign aid (yes, including Israel) - especially when we're on the verge of passing another $800 billion stimulus package.
We just don't have the money to pay for the World's irresponsible Choices any more.
January 23, 2009
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
Way to go Obama! Keep up the great work!
January 23, 2009
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
eagleye writes:
"I'm sure this will bring out lots of comments from both the pro-life and pro-choice sides, along with the accompanying name-calling. While I am strongly pro-life, I am critical of this decision for other reasons as well. Namely, why in the world are we funding foreign family planning groups in the first place?"
Exactly. The government first takes our money, and then uses it to fund programs in violation of the consciences of at least half of the people from whom the money is taken. Jefferson was fond of saying that a person should never be coerced into supporting something that violated his conscience. Ironically, most Leftists today would claim they are aligned with the principles of Jefferson.
JMH writes:
"Gasp... A politician who respects the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions? The horror..."
You're sort of missing the big picture here. I respect the right of my neighbor to own a gun, but I'm not going to take your money to buy him one.
Also, we'll just pretend this is about a "woman's right to choose", and has nothing to do with global population control.
January 23, 2009
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
sstnt writes:
From: BO
TO: NARAL
SUBJECT: BILL FOR CAMPAIGN SUPPORT
PAID IN FULL.
January 23, 2009
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Slimjim_800 writes:
rapelje-where did you get your information on executive orders?? President Bush had 288 executive orders. Herbert Hoover had 1,011 in only 4 years. I think Bush had a lot fewer because he wasn't as much of a micro-manager. I do think Obama will have more than Bush.
January 23, 2009
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
hogarm writes:
"murder of innocent unborn children"
"infant genocide"
You people are a stitch!
Words have meanings. If you wish to advance your ideology argue with words that convey reality.
January 23, 2009
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Everything that he has done this week was made very clear during his campaign. And the people spoke and put him in office. So like him or his decisions he has acted on what he said he was going to do. Now everyone always complain about politicians and their broken promises. This guy so far is doing it and not messing around. So in around about way this week the people have spoken.
January 23, 2009
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
"The Democratic official and senior U.S. official who disclosed the plans did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt Obama's announcement."
"Not authorized" to do so... but he will anyway. Great person to have in your administration!
JMH - Women were never denied their "rights" to an abortion, only tax dollars. But somehow you see this as Obama "protecting" the rights of women?
Too funny!
I just wish he'd spend a little more time on cutting expenses rather than increasing them. The last eight years have cost us enough and we cannot afford to just keep pouring out the money. Will he implement at least one policy that saves rather than costs the taxpayers more?
We are ALL waiting.
January 23, 2009
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Answer me this Mr. Obama, at what point did your daughter gain full constitutional rights? I do not want my tax dollars funding abortion! If Obama and the Democratic congress pass FOCA, all Catholic Hospitals will have no choice but to shut down.
Abortion is murder!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR...
January 23, 2009
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
God bless the little children who will perish because of this bad policy.
This is nothing more than a financial boondoggle for Planned Parenhood.
"Planned Parenhood" is a misnomer. they only coerce and plan abortions. They don't offer alternatives such as adoption.
Sad day.
January 23, 2009
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
January 23, 2009
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Boobear27 writes:
I couldn't agree more with EagleEYe, Trinidad, & ILoveChipotle.... If I'm understanding this ban correct, are we not in a recession right now? Why our we funding international abortion and why are my tax dollars going towards it. I am pro-life, but i dont think the government should get involved in someones personal life. If a woman wants to have an abortion, that is her choice, however, because I do not agree with it I don't think I should have to pay for it!! The state is cutting how many millions of dollars from the budget..? And I MAY lose my job, but we can spend money internationally on personal causes?
January 23, 2009
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
I never wanted one of my tax dollars to be spent on the unnecessary war or innocent deaths of American and Iraqi people.
So funny, conservatives = love the fetus, hate the child.
Pro-Life, Pro-Life, Pro-Life yet when that fetus is born, no welfare programs, no healthcare for people who can't afford it, cut education funding et al.
You people crack me up!
January 23, 2009
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
missmilehi writes:
Soooo...it's a "black eye on America" to imprison and torture admitted terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but funding the murder of babies is okay? To my knowledge, those babies never beheaded any journalists or helped fly planes into skyscrapers.
I don't understand how people don't see the tragedy here. We're punishing the innocent and giving concessions to the guilty in a few strokes of a pen.
January 23, 2009
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
IRUNMAN
Don't forget blowing them up in one of our wars.
January 23, 2009
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
sstnt writes:
In the immortal words of a true President..."There you go again"...you liberal crackpot. You're the one that said you're cracked.
I've given plenty of money AND support to places that help mother's and babies...both privately and including paying my taxes that go to these welfare programs like WIP. I am a conservative, and pro-life.
YOU people ARE cracked up.
January 23, 2009
9:30 a.m.
TopGun writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 23, 2009
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
"Murdering babies" is hyperbole in the truest sense.
January 23, 2009
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
hogarm writes:
"murder of innocent unborn children"
"infant genocide"
You people are a stitch!
Words have meanings. If you wish to advance your ideology argue with words that convey reality.
The DNA of the egg matches the mother. The DNA of the sperm matches the father. At the moment of conception the new baby now has its own unique DNA different from both the mother and father. It’s pretty clear as to when a new life begins with what we now understand about DNA. From this point on it grows and develops until ~20 years after birth. Even after birth there are significant changes in muscular, skeletal, nervous, and all bodily systems for many years. Very similar to the changes that occur from conception to birth
Abortion is convenient. Slavery was also convenient for the slave "owners". We all now know the truth about slavery.
If a 6 mo old baby is injured and becomes paraplegic it would be convenient to kill it and not have to take care of it. Does that make it ok? Does the mother have a "right" not to have to take care of a disabled child.
The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to kill a child of any age.
January 23, 2009
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
IRUNMAN:
You are so misinformed. We do cherish life of the innocent, and we also feel that everyone will be better off in the long run if they learn to support themselves instead of being wards of the state for therest of their lives.
Socialized medicine has proven to be a dismal failure in every country where it has been tried. I certainly don't want the government telling me how to treat an illness.
Conservatives are not against funding for schools as long as it is value added. Just putting money in the hands of irresponsible administrators and the Teacher's union has not help the most important piece of this puzzle; the student. Also, why should my tax money be used to support radical left wing professors in the state universities who have a platform to spew their leftist ideas without debate?
January 23, 2009
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
"he protects a women's right to make her own reproductive decisions..." Shouldn't a woman protect her own "reproductive decisions" BEFORE she gets herself barefoot and pregnant.
_______________
Exactly right Trinidad!
A 14 year old girl in the Congo raped by 4 different rebel soldiers in less than 20 minutes should have been more careful. Even if she was already barefoot. She should carry the rapist's baby full term even if she doesn't know which soldier is the father.
Why? Because she didn't protect her own reproductive decisions, of course! A more perfect world according to Trinidad.
The christian right are myopic, self absorbed cowards! Do you need a better example?
January 23, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
missmilehi writes:
Murder means to intentionally kill a human. I fail to see the hyperbole.
January 23, 2009
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
This article is poorly written, and feeds the misconception present in many opposed to this move.
The Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion. That remains in effect. Family Planning groups cannot use our money to perform abortions.
The reason this is called the "gag rule" (which was first implemented by Reagan via Executive Order, so stop whining about that) is it prevents them from telling a woman that abortion is a legal option for her, where she might obtain one, or lobbying their government for better access to abortion.
Obama's EO overturns Bush's reinstatement of Reagan's policy, which had been overturned by Clinton.
January 23, 2009
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
missmilehi
If some of you right wing nuts would do a little research you would find that a lot of this funding goes into planned parenthood and the prevention of pregnancy. It also helps pay for abortions for mothers that have no insurance and the life and health + the child are at risk. You people just want to see one side of things. It is called an open mind and looking at the whole picture. Not just the part you want to see. Now there is only one requirement. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MIND.
January 23, 2009
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
now now republicans let it all out... Yes this was never discussed at length during the campaign. a brief discussion about teen pregnency and abstence education. a brief about keeping a child even if its life was never going to be without assistance.
nope YOU wanted to talk about gutting Moose, paling around with a has been terrorist. attending a radical christian church that hates America while secretly being a Muslin sleeper terrorist. like saying no thanks for a bridge to now where yet keeping the money. or being a foreign policy expert as one can see another country from home...
All that Maverickiey stuff. Uh uh you betcha...
January 23, 2009
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
1. Murder actually means to unlawfully kill a human, otherwise everytime we executed someone the guards at the jail would be charged. Abortion is legal.
2. You didn't say human, you said baby. Babies have been born.
January 23, 2009
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
BMat- 1% of women in the 2004 survey-based U.S. study became pregnant as a result of rape and 0.5% as a result of incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/f...
January 23, 2009
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
missmilehi writes:
My earlier point was not to argue pro-life, pro-choice or the definition of murder. Those arguments will never be resolved and we can spew words at each other all day and still end up the same place we started.
My intent was to point out how tremendously backward I think it is to cry about the HUMANITY when discussing Gitmo, and in the same breath support the funding of abortions. I don't understand why people don't follow through - if you're going to be upset about HUMANITY, stay consistent!
Where's the humanity in all the people who are jobless?
January 23, 2009
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
milesd writes:
Excellent!! I am still shocked to have a president who can speak in complete sentences. Thank God we are getting away from the medieval strategies of the last administration! Why is it that so many of the pro-lifers are so commonly war mongers and oblivious to the suffering in the third world?
January 23, 2009
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
JMH writes:
The hypocracy is asounding from the NeoCon's on here...
You cry about spending money in other countries, but support spending 14 BILLION a month in Iraq for the last 6 years? You say you want to make sure children aren't killed, but you support bombing Gaza and Iraq and anyone else who doesn't get in line with us? You complain about immigrants coming here to make a better life, but you are against helping them get the tools to keep their populations under control and make a better life for themselves?
Poor people having baby after baby isn't a good thing... and don't forget, Bush and the Jesus freaks have made even talking about any birth control illegal (not just abortion)... Obama is addressing this idiocity with this move too...
As far as the idiots who want to say this isn't about supporting a woman's right to chose, it's about the money... well, in poor countries, some people don't have the money to make this choice... but I suspect that is what you guy want all along! Keep them poor, ignorant and pregnet... so then we can have more "sweatshop babies" to keep making our Nike's for under $30...
January 23, 2009
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
>IRUNMAN writes:
I never wanted one of my tax dollars to be spent on the unnecessary war or innocent deaths of American and Iraqi people.
So funny, conservatives = love the fetus, hate the child.
Pro-Life, Pro-Life, Pro-Life yet when that fetus is born, no welfare programs, no healthcare for people who can't afford it, cut education funding et al.
You people crack me up!
Good point, but what do you say to those of us who are pro-life and DO support the govt programs you talk about- who want to support human life both before and after it is born? We support Obama in getting us out of Iraq, and for refunding programs for the needy, and national health care. But we don't support killing off unborn children at our whim. There are more of us than you might think.
January 23, 2009
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to kill a child of any age.
______
Exactly! We all know every child is conceived only after long and careful deliberation by both parents.
A girl in the Sudan who is raped and sodomized by her alcoholic father should carry the baby full term, then wrap it up and ship it to "flyingcouch" in the good ole' USofA to be raised up with proper Christian values.
It really is that easy girls! Just keep an open mind!
January 23, 2009
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Barbarosa writes:
Boy, if all you hard-core right-wingers have your panties in a bunch this much after only three days, it should really be a hoot to see how you manage to cope with at least FOUR MORE YEARS of this.
January 23, 2009
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
"Exactly right Trinidad!
A 14 year old girl in the Congo raped by 4 different rebel soldiers in less than 20 minutes should have been more careful. ...
The christian right are myopic, self absorbed cowards! Do you need a better example?"
A child is severly disabled by a drunk driver. Should we take that child to be "put down" It would be very hard to take care that child now?
Do two wrongs make a right? Bad things happen, killing innocent people does not make the bad things go away. Do you have a better example?
January 23, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
missmilehi writes:
PS: I think it's funny that people have to resort to name-calling in order to argue a point. It kind of represents the depth of their argument in the first place.
January 23, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Obama's selection of retreads for his administration are laughable.
Leon Panetta is a doozy!!
Sit back,watch, and get ready for Obama Trauma. It has begun!
January 23, 2009
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
flyingcouch writes:
"Exactly right Trinidad!
A 14 year old girl in the Congo raped by 4 different rebel soldiers in less than 20 minutes should have been more careful. ...
The christian right are myopic, self absorbed cowards! Do you need a better example?"
A child is severly disabled by a drunk driver. Should we take that child to be "put down" It would be very hard to take care that child now?
Do two wrongs make a right? Bad things happen, killing innocent people does not make the bad things go away. Do you have a better example?
________
What part of Obama's executive order provides funding to kill children disabled in drunk driving accidents?
You didn't read the article or the president's order did you?
This is exactly the myopic and hateful view of the christian right. Spoken in their own words, unedited.
Y'all are in for a loooong 8 years aren't you? Your religion only applies to YOU, not to ME. Get it now?
January 23, 2009
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
A girl in the Sudan who is raped and sodomized by her alcoholic father should carry the baby full term, then wrap it up and ship it to "flyingcouch" in the good ole' USofA to be raised up with proper Christian values.
------------------------------------
How many abortions are there each year?
How many of these are the result of rape/incest?
Lets just ship them to your house so you can kill them.
There are no easy answers, and killing people is definatly not the right answer.
January 23, 2009
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
BMat- A girl in the Sudan who is raped and sodomized by her alcoholic father should carry the baby full term, then wrap it up and ship it to "flyingcouch" in the good ole' USofA to be raised up with proper Christian values.
Sure, and that's the TYPICAL "unwanted" pregnancy, the result of incest and rape, right?
The strawman, the idiot's best friend.
January 23, 2009
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
danirobi writes:
BMat- 1% of women in the 2004 survey-based U.S. study became pregnant as a result of rape and 0.5% as a result of incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/f...
___________
The President's order does not provide any funding for any domestic program. Do you have any statistics that are actually relevant?
Neither does "flyingcouch." You two should get together and raise a child.
January 23, 2009
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
I will say it again. You go Mr President. I knew what you stood for when I and the other MAJORITY voted for you. That is the way government is suppose to work.
January 23, 2009
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
I'm a fiscal Conservative. I don't believe in the casual use of abortions for birth control but I DO think it should be an individual choice. SEE, you can't pigeon hole Conservatives. I also think the Federal Government has no authority being involved in this issue. It is hypocritical of Conservatives to say the Feds should stay out of their business, but should then enforce the abolition of abortion. You can't have it both ways. It should be a States' rights issue, just like capital punishment. Having said that, why should Federal funds be allocated one way or the other?
January 23, 2009
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
What part of Obama's executive order provides funding to kill children disabled in drunk driving accidents?
------------------------------------
I never said part of his order provides funding for that situation. My point was abortion is a convenient way to get end an inconvenient pregnancy. If that is ok than is killing an inconvenient child (hence the disabled by drunk driver child) ok also?
January 23, 2009
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
The question is whether the human being in the womb is entitled to the same protection we offer the human being in the crib. Roe v.Wade prevents the community from addressing the question in the usual way - in the voting booth.
The issue will remain an ongoing source of disharmony until Roe is overturned and abortion policy is determined legislatively.
January 23, 2009
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
Do you have any statistics that are actually relevant?
---------------------------------------
would "relevent stats" change the point at which life begins?
January 23, 2009
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Noia writes:
Actually BMat, I hate to burst your bubble, but cases of rape, incest or life-threatening conditions have always been excluded from the gag order.
I'm totally pro-choice. But I don't believe these programs should be funded by the American tax payers. We're not responsible for making sure that people in third world countries have access to birth control. That's the business of their own government not ours.
This is 400 million a year that should be going into our health programs.
January 23, 2009
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
Bagel:
So what do you say to the mother who is 6 or 7 months pregnant? Her unborn child is not a "baby" nor a human?
You will probably get your a$$ kicked. Rightfully so.
dilligaf:
So, you think the government should support everyone and make all of your decisions? Are you brain dead where you can't make your own decisions? Judging from your postings, I would say that is a safe bet.
Already, this obviously socialist president is pushing his leftwing agenda. It will be an intersting four years if he doesn't get impeached first.
January 23, 2009
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
BMat writes:
"A 14 year old girl in the Congo raped by 4 different rebel soldiers in less than 20 minutes should have been more careful. Even if she was already barefoot. She should carry the rapist's baby full term even if she doesn't know which soldier is the father."
And statistics clearly show that of the 3 million abortions performed in the US last year, in each case the woman was raped by 4 rebel soldiers from Congo.
January 23, 2009
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
flyingcouch writes:
A girl in the Sudan who is raped and sodomized by her alcoholic father should carry the baby full term, then wrap it up and ship it to "flyingcouch" in the good ole' USofA to be raised up with proper Christian values.
------------------------------------
How many abortions are there each year?
How many of these are the result of rape/incest?
Lets just ship them to your house so you can kill them.
There are no easy answers, and killing people is definatly not the right answer.
_____________
I just love that you don't know the answers to these questions.
It means that you admit that you don't even know the scope of the president's order but you already know that you're opposed to all of it and any of it. No matter the numbers.
That's the definition of "myopic" and demonstrates with abundant clarity why this view point lost so badly in November.
Gawd, it's gonna be a looong 8 years eh, couch?
January 23, 2009
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
flyingcouch writes:
would "relevent stats" change the point at which life begins?
------------------------------------------------------
Excellent question and is exactly the point. The answer is No, it wouldn't. Science, not religion, tells us when the life of every human being begins:
The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
We know from science, not religion, that the human being in the womb is unique in all creation. You are who you have been since conception. Development from zyogte, fetus, baby, child, adult and finally geriatric is the seamless process of human life.
You are at every point in your life entitled to the right to life.
January 23, 2009
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
BMat writes:
"A 14 year old girl in the Congo raped by 4 different rebel soldiers in less than 20 minutes should have been more careful. Even if she was already barefoot. She should carry the rapist's baby full term even if she doesn't know which soldier is the father."
And statistics clearly show that of the 3 million abortions performed in the US last year, in each case the woman was raped by 4 rebel soldiers from Congo.
_________
The President's order doesn't cover any abortions at all anywhere in the US.
Either you didn't even read the article or you just didn't understand all the big words and complex sentence structure.
Which is it, MBR693? Are you really as stupid as your last post would have us believe?
January 23, 2009
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
LnL: "So what do you say to the mother who is 6 or 7 months pregnant? Her unborn child is not a "baby" nor a human?"
Of course it's human, nowhere did I state otherwise. And the mother who is 6 or 7 months pregnant and would get emotional about the difference between a fetus and a baby is not the kind of mother who wants an abortion, so it's an irrelevant question.
January 23, 2009
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
Obama is nothing but a hypocrite and advocate of killing the unborn. Then he uses American taxpayers dollars to promote it internationally. Washington is supposed to be tightening it's belt, yet he can still fund murder. This evil false messiah has the gall to use Lincoln's Bible and has the nerve to utter the words "So help me GOD" at his Inauguration.
He can fool his fellow pseudo Christians, but he can't fool God. How can a president who supports and subsidizes killing babies do any good for our nation. Good can never comes from evil. If he expects God to help him he's in for rude awakening and so is this nation. This is only the beginning of his immoral presidency. It sur didn't take him long. He trully is an "Obamanation"!
January 23, 2009
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
"Planned Parenhood" is a misnomer. they only coerce and plan abortions.
WRONG!!! Less than 10% of PPs business, whether measured by dollars or patient visits, both nationally and locally, is abortion care. Most of what they do is pregnancy prevention.
Obama's EO is about increasing access to family planning by funding organizations that offer their clients the full range of options. By doing so it will increase access to contraception that prevents unplanned pregnancies. Nicholas Kristoff in the NY Times has written many good pieces about the human cost of this "Mexico City Policy."
As far as legal abortion justifying the killing of born infants, the comparison is invalid because a fetus continues to grow and develop only at the expense of the mother's body. A born child does not.
Re:Sex=consent for pregnancy consider this interesting analysis:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/200...
"Members of the pro-life community who acknowledge the unique burdens that a fetus places on a pregnant woman nonetheless have a ready answer to the question of how the State can in most cases compel a woman to sustain such an assault on her bodily integrity. Their answer is consent. They contend that by engaging in sexual intercourse, at least when it is consensual, a woman consents to remaining pregnant and thereby sustaining the life of any fetus that results from the sexual contact...
"Sex is not, after all, an explicit consent or "invitation" to a pregnancy (in the way that, for example, a visit to a fertility clinic for in vitro fertilization might appear to be). Pregnancy is merely a risk associated with sexual intercourse. To characterize the taking of this risk as "consent" to the pregnancy thus requires something more in the way of an argument...
"Is an act of consensual sexual intercourse extremely risky with respect to pregnancy? The answer depends in part on the woman's age, on where she is in her menstrual cycle, and on whether she or her partner is using contraception.
Even if a woman has unprotected sex, however, her odds of conceiving are quite low (some estimates are of a 2% or 3% chance), and we do not ordinarily treat as "consent" the taking of such a low risk. Furthermore, the "odds" are complicated by the fact that many women - especially sexually active minors who have not received accurate and complete sex education - operate under misapprehensions about how likely they are to become pregnant, including the false beliefs that (a) pregnancy is impossible the first time, (b) withdrawal before ejaculation precludes conception, and (c) sex in positions other than the missionary protect against conception.
If one can be said to "consent" only by knowingly taking risks, it would seem in many cases to be inaccurate to say that a woman who has had consensual sex has thereby consented to nine months of pregnancy and labor."
January 23, 2009
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Oh Bmat- You know where this order is heading, it is leading up to the passage of FOCA. If FOCA passes, Catholic Hospitals will have no choice but to shut down.
January 23, 2009
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Dani,
How does FOCA close Catholic hospitals? Please provide support for this assertion.
FOCA isn't going anywhere, NARAL acknowledges the votes aren't there, and no-one is interested in pushing divisive dead-end legislation. It's a fundraisng tool for the anti-choice movement, nothing less.
January 23, 2009
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
Bagel: Sorry, maybe I misunderstood your posting.
All:
The real underlining question here is should US tax payers be funding abortions overseas?
With the out of control spending of this Congress, I don't how we can afford any of these special entitlements in foreign countries.
January 23, 2009
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Barbarosa writes:
LockNLoad: " It will be an intersting four years if he doesn't get impeached first."
Who do you think is going to impeach him? A Democratic Congress. Dream on.
This is not the Clinton administration. Those games don't work any more.
January 23, 2009
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Does anyone have an estimate of the number of abortions that have happened thus far?
What types of women have the MAJORITY of abortions? Single ones? Uneducated? Poorer? Maybe developmentally disabled or mentally ill people? Women who have substance abuse issues?.....or do you really think it is married, well to do couples, who are productive members of society, have great parenting skills and so on.
And what do you think would happen to the majority of these fetuses in a capitalistic society. I work in the human service field and the resources have always been tight. Want to help a family...maybe there’s a waiting list, maybe we don't have the service they need.....maybe you pro-lifers want to fork up another 20-40% of your income to these needy families.
Oh and don't forget all the unwanted children after they are born. Let me guess we will put them in foster homes (because that works huh). And I can see my workload sky-rocketing because of all the neglected and abused children.
Sometimes you have to think about the secondary effects of your actions...
January 23, 2009
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
LockNLoad
It cracks me up when you want to throw your anti socialist BS around. But you will not have any trouble collecting your social security, sending your kids to public schools, calling a fire department to put your house on fire out, call a cop when someone breaks into your house. I would think you should have the self responsibility to take care of your own. Why would you want any government doing any of that for you? You need to go buy your own fire fighting equipment. I get tired of people like you wanting the government taking care of things you should do yourself. Why should my tax dollars pay to put your house out. Or the police to protect your family. Aren't you man enough to it yourself?
January 23, 2009
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
BMat- The "barefoot & pregnant" was in reference to JMH's 8:46 a.m. post. I was just responding to it. You are right when you say the 14 year old rape victim from the Congo can't possibly protect her "reproductive decisions". The rapist took that away from her. If she decides to end the pregnancy that her decision. Just as it would if she chose to carry the pregnancy to term. I empathize and understand the arguments of incest, rape or when the mothers life is in danger due to the pregnancy. Where the line needs to be drawn is when a girl/woman uses abortion as a form of birth-control. One last thing BMat- Thank You, President Bush for having the guts to defend our country and protect her from more attacks. RMN- I won't be offended if you take BMats' suggestion to remove my 8:59a.m. post.
January 23, 2009
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
All you right wring idiots remind me I need to give more money to Planned Parenthood. Rates of sexually admit disease in 3rd word areas that Bush took back aid because went up. This helps bring back those programs. For those you who don't like it, I guess you like sick, dying, disease ridden people
January 23, 2009
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
anyone who opposes providing sex education and birth control must be pro-abortion
January 23, 2009
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
The Head of the Catholic Cardinals has said that if FOCA is passed, due to Catholic doctrine, Catholic hospitals could close.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/25...
http://www.catholicleague.com/release...
http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/
January 23, 2009
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
Queen_Gorgo writes:
As far as legal abortion justifying the killing of born infants, the comparison is invalid because a fetus continues to grow and develop only at the expense of the mother's body. A born child does not.
---------------------------------
It is refreshing to see intelligent comments, thanks
It is a good point that an unborn child is physically connected to the mother and 100% dependant on the mothers body for food and nourishment. A born child is by no means self sufficient and is 100% dependant on others to provide food and protection. I am sure many parents agree that parenting takes a physical toll on their body as well. The physical connection in the womb is only for nourishment, no bodily fluids are exchanged.
January 23, 2009
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
WFW writes:
lockNLoad, I believe what was said in recinding this gag order was that it could actually talk about abortion as an option, not offer abortions. The out of control spending by congress, that everyone seems to be a rally point for people who turned a blind eye to it for the last eight years, is once again used to bolster the thought that it is now no longer acceptable because someone new is running things. I did not want my tax dollars spent spying on american citizens, or funding a stupid war we had no business getting into in the first place. We need to be in Afghanistan, where the taliban actually exists. We should not have invaded Iraq because it was a convinient way to keep people from actually paying attention to the fact, the admin had nothing else to offer, ya know - health care, bad economy, homeland security.
January 23, 2009
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Queen Gorgo writes "including the false beliefs that (b) withdrawal before ejaculation precludes conception"
Holy crap, I thought that was a sure thing. I practically lived through college on that assumption. Guess I was just lucky.
January 23, 2009
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
freedomfighter1
You must understand you are talking to Bushes little club of I got mine so to hell with the unfortunate. They all live in this fantasy world that there is no such thing as people with troubles like handicapped or unemployed. These rednecks say let them suffer or die. They don't care. They want what goes on in third world countries where children are dieing of starvation and decease. It is very easy to listen to their rich leaders that retire in the big Texas ranch in Crawford Texas and just say to hell with them I have mine.
January 23, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Good for him! He is doing what he said he would do!
And way to support women by helping to give control of their bodies back to them. It's interesting to me that the majority of people voicing their righteous objections to this are men, and don't even have the correct body parts to qualify to have an informed opinion on this topic.
January 23, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Beergut- Bush did more for 3rd world countries than Clinton did. Look at Bush's initiatives in Africa before you start posting stupid stuff.
January 23, 2009
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Joke:
Q: What do they call people who use withdrawal for birth control?
A: Parents!
January 23, 2009
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
Shaupeen writes:
....... It's interesting to me that the majority of people voicing their righteous objections to this are men, and don't even have the correct body parts to qualify to have an informed opinion on this topic.
----------------------------
Does that mean women are incapable of having informed opinions on Barack Obama? Afterall they don't have the right parts.
I am also curious to see the person that can get pregnant by themselves.
Just kidding.
January 23, 2009
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Just goes to prove, even reasonably smart people can be too stupid when it comes to sex.
January 23, 2009
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
kris writes:
Of course there are exceptions for when an abortion should be preformed, but using abortion as a form of birth control is not responsible.
January 23, 2009
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Re: FOCA closing Catholic hospitals (from your link):
'While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.” '
Too bad there is federal protection for such refusal to perform abortions: The Weldon Amendment.
"The Weldon Amendment allows the government to withhold federal funding from any federal, state or local entities that discriminate against doctors, hospitals or health plans that choose not to offer or cover abortion services. This federal conscience protection passed in 2005 and has been extended each year since."
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008...
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten...
There might be some conflict between FOCA if passed and Weldon, but reading the text of FOCA
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt...
I don't think there is.
I'd find an argument more persuasive if it were based on the actual text of the bill, rather than the Catholic church's hysteria.
January 23, 2009
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
BHS1976 writes:
An unborn child is genetically unique from the mother. An unborn baby is not a growth or a cancer. Why would a woman have any more right to murder your child than the unique human temporarily residing in her womb? Glad to see all you human rights activists and terrorist torture cry babies so ready to increase the butchery of unborn babies. A terrorist being temporarily inconvenienced by water boarding (yes, I have been water boarded as part of my military training) is bad, dicing a baby in the womb is good. In the new era of responsibility this is the ultimate cop out!
January 23, 2009
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
Queen Gorgo, I've been using the 'money-shot' method for 10+ years now, and no babies yet...
BTW, keep up the fight!
January 23, 2009
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
trinidad....
Yes this is progress. A law that restricts care and information to women based upon religious beliefs is like living in the dark ages. It's nice to be moving forward instead of backwards. Barack to the future!
January 23, 2009
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Well, if you really want to be in plain text, the Catholic Church could use that seperation of church and state crap that the liberals use and just close their doors....
January 23, 2009
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Whatever happened to "If you wanna play, you gotta pay?"
January 23, 2009
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
You mean "crap that the liberals use" like Thomas Jefferson?
I don't get your point.
January 23, 2009
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I'm confused by that as well. Separation of church and state would mean they wouldn't get any money from the federal government at all if they chose to act as a religious institution.
January 23, 2009
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Too many posts to read them all, but in case no one else did, I will note that lifting the funding ban does not mean the USA is automatically funding overseas abortions. It only means that overseas entities that perform abortions (or advise on the option of abortion) will be eligible to apply for funding that the USA may be making available, for whatever reason, such as funds for dispensing AIDS medication.
January 23, 2009
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
eagleeye writes: "While I am strongly pro-life, I am critical of this decision for other reasons as well. Namely, why in the world are we funding foreign family planning groups in the first place? With our economy in shambles, and national security a continuing priority, why are our tax dollars going to these groups at all, whether they perform abortions or not?"
I don't know. I am not familiar with these planning groups or the UN Population Fund. Perhaps money was originally given to them at a time when things were relatively peaceful here on the homefront, and the economy wasn't so volatile. Regardless, I agree with you that any focus on re-instating such funds is a misplaced priority at this point in time, and possibly any point in time.
It's probably a political bone being thrown at some of his constituents. I hope these programs are more about giving out birth control pills, etc. than performing abortions.
January 23, 2009
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
" A law that restricts care and information to women based upon religious beliefs is like living in the dark ages." What kind of care and information are you talking about? About medical,abortion or types of birth control. Obviously, one can't keep a woman in the dark ages by preventing a person from having an abortion. Roe v. Wade guarantees that. Women are informed about the risk/complications of abortions. Women are aware of the numerous types of birth control. Women who experience a botched abortion aren't turned away from emergency rooms.(under Obama, their babies will be denied the same benefit). They know about alternatives to abortion. I don't remember ever getting a religious sermon from my doctor when we discussed my reproductive options. I certainly didn't get one during sex education classes in the 6th grade. The whole point of the story is using tax money to fund abortions. "Barack to the future!" Those Hollywood slogans are so annoying. "It's nice to be moving forward instead of backwards." I bet a baby being aborted wouldn't agree with you on this one.
January 23, 2009
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
no_more_republicans writes:
As Mr. Bush liked to say, elections have consequences and President Obama won the election. Quite handily, I might add.
That he's issuing these executive orders is no surprise. He stated all along that he would reverse the Bush Administration on this and on several issues. And, guess what? Obama won by more than 7 points, with the largest vote total in American history.
The people have spoken - in landslide proportions. This is what we want, the whiners and hypocritics on this board notwithstanding.
Next!
January 23, 2009
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Actually, this issue has been a political ping-pong ball since Reagan. Clinton lifted the ban on his second day in office, W. enacted it again on his second day, and now Obama is lifting it again. Please feel free to make fun of Obama's tardiness on the signing. I really don't care as long as it gets done. I'm tired of this country bowing to the oppressive will of the religious right. Looks like you fundies will have to go back to your churches to hear the good word--it no longer will be emanating from the White House (thank your god!) What a country!
January 23, 2009
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
danirobi writes: "BMat- 1% of women in the 2004 survey-based U.S. study became pregnant as a result of rape and 0.5% as a result of incest."
Exactly! You can ALWAYS find some obscure personal interest story about one individual's suffering - you see this all the time when it comes to illegal immigration (the "Poor Maria might have to leave her school" stories, etc.).
The Left LOVES these kind of sob stories and have no problem setting the agenda (and the budget) for 300 million based on a handful of Congolese 14-year olds.
Is this 14-year old's story tragic - yes.
Should it decide how the US spends it's foreign aid - no.
January 23, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
mytwosense - Well said. Regardless of ones stance on abortion, we should all be able to agree that given our current economic downturn, now is definitely not the time to increase spending.
January 23, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
spelvin2002 writes:
Since when should a zygote be considered a viable human being? And by whom?
Organized religion has been demonstrated repeatedly to be corrupt at every level. In consequence, is there any reason to believe that any cult, sect, or religion has any authority other than to require payment and/or threaten its adherents with excommunication or hell-fire and damnation as a way of keeping them in line? These moral absolutists' concerns for life seem to end with birth (except when some of those resultant children might actually choose to follow a path different from the one prescribed).
Organized religions, sects, cults, and messianic maniacs have no monopoly on morals or ethics, and those who reject religion and myth altogether seem to have a much better understanding of humanity and ethics than the medieval-minded crusaders and fundamental--take your pick:-- born agains, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and "god" knows whomever else.
"My god is better than your god! Neener, neener, neener!"
How do we get into wars? Just think.
January 23, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
dilligaf writes: "These rednecks say let them suffer or die."
...and could you please provide ANY quotes that said "let them suffer or die"? No, you can't. Just more crap you made up out of thin air.
Can't you Liberals speak in anything other than hysterical rhetoric or personal insults? Try making a coherent statement for once.
January 23, 2009
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
WFW writes:
Amen to that no_more_republicans. Even after a couple of months after the election, all I hear is whinning about how bad it is they lost, without any fresh ideas or helpful hints, except to bleat on about what they wanted, which is why they lost in the first place. When Obama issues an exectuive order, it's suddenly socialism at it's worst, even if it is to overturn an executive order Bushy put in place, which was of course abosolutely necessary by the losers. These are the people who are demanding their religion be put back in school, work, everday life exactly how they want it. I was in a heated exchange with a person once about prayer in school. She was demanding it be put back in school. I said ever since testing, there has been prayer in school, but NOT a government sanctioned prayer. But she wanted government sanctioned prayer, but when I asked who's prayer, she looked at me like I was the devil himself. She felt she was qualified to say what kind of prayer would be in school. When I asked if it was to be a jewish prayer, she said there not enough jewish people to have that kind of prayer. How about muslims? She said it was not a real religion and should not be allowed. So you see how this was turning out, her prayer, her ideas only. So I do not feel easy at all when someone keeps hammering on about putting religion back in government, cause it's the 'right' thing to do.
January 23, 2009
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
michigfab5 writes:
it's been estimated that nearly 80,000 women around the world die each year because of "back alley" abortions not performed by doctors.
January 23, 2009
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Looks like you fundies will have to go back to your churches to hear the good word--it no longer will be emanating from the White House (thank your god!) What a country! Shaupeen
-----------------------------------------
Not really.
This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."
America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
-----------------------------------------
That's not Bush the fundie. That's President Obama.
Hard to believe but you guys on the left are even worse at winning then you are at losing,
January 23, 2009
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
spelvin2002 writes:
Since when should a zygote be considered a viable human being? And by whom?
--------------------------------------
The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
January 23, 2009
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
You don't have to be religious to be against abortion. You only have to consider the baby in the womb to be a living human. If you are against murder then you would be against abortion. How can you be against the killing of people in war but for it in the case of abortion?
The US should be sending a lot less money (and bombs) overseas. We have issues here that we need to address first.
January 23, 2009
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
WFW writes:
Hey cowboy63, speaking of crap and hysterical rhetoric, or even personal insults, how about the garbage neocons keep putting out about socialism, cause Obama wants to help the working man instead of corporate shams. Once again all you have to offer is name calling about 'Liberals' because of course, only frustrated neocons should have the right to name calling.
January 23, 2009
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Cowboy
I think I did.
January 23, 2009
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
WFW writes:
Yankee, where is it written that being on the left means a non believer? Oh yeah, more lies you have to keep telling to make yourself feel justified and moraly right. But I guess thats what whinners do when they have nothing else remaining.
January 23, 2009
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmo2 writes:
Back to where we were 8 years ago! Progress, which is much needed! Good work Obama!
January 23, 2009
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
spelvin2002 writes:
Since when should a zygote be considered a viable human being?
------------------------------
Viable - capable of existence and development as an independent unit
If viable human being means able to live independantly, that does not happen untill about 10-15 yrs old, maybe longer. That would be nice to be able to try out your kid for 5 yrs or so and then decide to keep it or not. Now that is pro-choice.
January 23, 2009
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
I'm amazed that you left wing nuts are more concerned about giving constitutional rights to terrorists caught on the battlefield than protecting the rights of unborn children.
January 23, 2009
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
dilligaf writes:
"It cracks me up when you want to throw your anti socialist BS around. But you will not have any trouble collecting your social security, sending your kids to public schools, calling a fire department to put your house on fire out, call a cop when someone breaks into your house."
You continue to be confused about the distinction between socialism and public finance. Socialism is the forced redistribution of wealth generally based upon some Leftist ideology e.g. in your case, the belief that people who work hard and make lots of money are evil. Universal health care and most entitlements would fall into this category. Public finance, on the other hand, is the provision of funding at various levels of government for services that everyone uses, but that nobody on his/her own would likely finance. Roads and police fall into this category.
January 23, 2009
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Cowboy63 writes:
"danirobi writes: "BMat- 1% of women in the 2004 survey-based U.S. study became pregnant as a result of rape and 0.5% as a result of incest.'The Left LOVES these kind of sob stories and have no problem setting the agenda (and the budget) for 300 million based on a HANDFUL(?) of Congolese 14-year olds."
Did you just use US statistics to come up with the comparative number of rape and incest in an African country?
January 23, 2009
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
It'll be interesting to see what he does with the money budgeted for this program. And how does a 14 y-o Congolese girl KNOW to even go to someone who could counsel her? She probably doesn't no matter whether we in the West want her to know (and we want her to know because this program exists) or not. Abortion is not legal every where in the world. Christians aren't the only fundamentalists on the planet. I'm sure that abortion is punished by stoning or rape in fundamentalist controlled Muslim countries. And we won't even get started on the Catholic controlled ones. This is another example of why the rest of the world hates America. We try to force our agendas on them. Be it religion, or social issues. There is more at stake with this EO than just what's on the surface.
January 23, 2009
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
GoBama! Now maybe we can see a little more human and womens rights progress. Obama and Clinton Rock!
January 23, 2009
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
If Obama keeps on with his support of abortion and passes his "Freedom of Choice Act" bill (Nice way of saying freedom to kill the babies) & Abortion on Demand, we will have to have to change his name from the Fake Messiah to "Herod The Great".
January 23, 2009
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
spelvin2002 writes:
Flyingcouch writes: "Viable - capable of existence and development as an independent unit
If viable human being means able to live independantly, that does not happen untill about 10-15 yrs old, maybe longer. That would be nice to be able to try out your kid for 5 yrs or so and then decide to keep it or not. Now that is pro-choice."
And that is why many people should opt for having pets instead of children. Pets don't last as long as children, and if they become disruptive they can always be put down.
January 23, 2009
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
BMat writes:
"Either you didn't even read the article or you just didn't understand all the big words and complex sentence structure."
I'll try to use monosyllabic words to make it easy for you to understand. The Left likes to quickly point out cases of rape and incest, as you just did, in order to justify abortion, while these cases amount to a very small percentage for the number of abortions performed.
You were the one who brought up Congo, not me.
January 23, 2009
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
michigfab5 writes: "it's been estimated that nearly 80,000 women around the world die each year because of "back alley" abortions not performed by doctors."
(I'd like to know where you got that 80,000 number and how they came to that figure.)
Tragic? - yes.
Proof of anything other than a million bad Choices all around? - no.
So called "back alley" abortions will continue to happen all over the world - including the US - regardless of how many checks Uncle Sam writes. No amount of money is going to save anyone from their own bad decisions.
flyingcouch writes: "If viable human being means able to live independently, that does not happen until about 10-15 yrs old, maybe longer. "
I know a few 20-somethings that could seriously challenge the "live independently" requirement.
January 23, 2009
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
freedomfighter1 writes:
"Did you just use US statistics to come up with the comparative number of rape and incest in an African country?"
Either way, does it trouble you that young girls are routinely raped in these countries? Or does it only matter to you that she can subsequently get an abortion?
January 23, 2009
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Cavalier, God is bigger than religion. President Obama is working to assist women in leading truly free and self-directed lives - why do you think that is evil? I believe in God, and love God and I Know God loves me. I also believe that women have the right to choose when it is right to be a mother. God didn't even curse women with childbirth, as many believe - if you read the original text of the Adam and Eve story, you will see that there are many conflicting verses, and that the common popular interpretation is twisted and a lie, as it stands today. I am so glad my faith isn't based on one collection of books, but instead based on my experiences with God and my own heart, which says that Women can choose to have or not have a child, according to what is right to them own selves.
January 23, 2009
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Shaupeen- It's interesting to me that the majority of people voicing their righteous objections to this are men, and don't even have the correct body parts to qualify to have an informed opinion on this topic.
Sorry "Shaupeen", but we men are humans, and therefore have a right to voice our opinions on a matter of basic human morality.
Or I guess you can't have any input into the criminal penalties for rape, since you don't "have the correct parts".
January 23, 2009
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
MBR
Both matter. And to insinuate that I only care that she can get an abortion is a tactic used to insult my character. I think we saw a lot of that during the elections.
January 23, 2009
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
obama will be reversing many ignorant policy stances.
this one is the first of many and long overdue.
January 23, 2009
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
DenverTea
I know you want to ease your conscious and excuse your support your support of killing unborn children by what you imagine God allows. I'm sorry but I can't do that for you. It doesn't matter what you personally believe God is all about. What is written in his word is what matters and what Christ told us about him and his true ways.
If you would bother to read it you would know his truth and not assume you know or second guess his will and what he accepts. All people are born with a conscious and know in their hearts what is good and what is evil. Most of us choose to ignore our conscious and do what we want. It is as simple as that.
A once great nation that kills it's unborn children is on it's way to becoming a 4th or 5th rate country.
January 23, 2009
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Freedomfighter, I agree with your stance and principals. You are working on the frontlines of poverty, and I appreciate your comments and efforts. I think many people get confused about the issues with this topic because so much propaganda has been flooded on the general public for so many years. It is good to see someone with an experienced standpoint hold their ground with integrity and intelligence - thank you.
January 23, 2009
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
ILoveChipotle writes:
"I'm amazed that you left wing nuts are more concerned about giving constitutional rights to terrorists caught on the battlefield than protecting the rights of unborn children."
Sadly, it's not surprising.
The same bunch oppose killing confessed murderers with capital punishment, but support killing the innocent and helpless with abortion.
Anyone willing to protect murderers, while supporting the killing of children, are the type to protect terrorists.
January 23, 2009
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Actually, Cavalier, I did read it AND I studied the bible in a gender issues class in college. This collection of texts is full of contradictions, has been re-written in eisegesis manner and is filled with exegesis as well. These texts have strayed so far from their origins, that I cannot credit current versions as much as I would like to. The men who re-wrote chapters and key phrases in the canononical texts are hypocrits and heinous, in my opinion. You should take your own advice, and actually read with an open mind and some literary tools; perhaps then you would be more hesitant in your judgement of others. Also, your persistent use of the word "he" to describe Gods personae is incorrect as well, God does not have a sex, or else it is dual - read Song of Songs and the Exodus stories for evidence of this, if you insist on getting your information from the Bible - there is still a lot of good information there, if you actually choose to look, and use all of your faculties, not just the sheep instinct.
January 23, 2009
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
benn writes:
Yankee-
Good references. I don't know anyone arguing that a zygote isn't a unique human, as far as biology is concerned. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to argue that a zygote is a PERSON.
Since it isn't a person, it doesn't have a right to life. It is simply a collection of cells that has the DNA and potential to develop into a person.
Once it develops to the point of personhood, then it has rights, and shouldn't be aborted. But, prior to becoming a PERSON, then the mother has the right to abort the cells.
The trouble is determining personhood. I would say that no fetus is a person within the first 3 months, but there is a high probability that it is a person in the last 3 months of pregnancy. Therefore, the 'change' occurs somewhere between 3 - 6 months. So, to play it safe, abortion should be legal for the first 3 months of pregnancy.
January 23, 2009
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
opinionatedcolo writes:
This decision cannot be a surprise to anyone who actually paid attention to the election or knows how this order has worked in the past.(although rapelje's hilariously ignorant post this morning shows that many apparently do not) Obama said he would do this and did. He won, he gets to.
Those who debate the cost should understand that this order does not authorize a single additional PENNY for birth control advice oversees. Any money being spent there now was allocated by Bush. The budget will need to be considered along with everything else. That is down the road.
Just a note, Now we can officially write off Cavilier for any logical thought. He/she now formally proclaims that he/she has specifically been told by God what is right and wrong and no argument is necessary, There can be no debate with a person with such beliefs. Believe me, I have spoken with enough delusional people to understand the uselessness of such efforts.
January 23, 2009
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
MBR693 writes:
BMat writes:
"Either you didn't even read the article or you just didn't understand all the big words and complex sentence structure."
I'll try to use monosyllabic words to make it easy for you to understand. The Left likes to quickly point out cases of rape and incest, as you just did, in order to justify abortion, while these cases amount to a very small percentage for the number of abortions performed.
You were the one who brought up Congo, not me.
___________
I'm going to type slowly this time. Make sure the person that keeps your helmet from bumping against your monitor is in the room before you read this.
Neither the article above nor the President's order has anything to do with abortions in the US. I know you want it to. It just doesn't.
I know you're not as stupid as your post would have us believe. Start typing now and prove it to us OK? Good dog.
January 23, 2009
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Just a disclaimer, of sorts: I do believe in God, whether he, she or both or neither; I am a christian, just not the kind that condemns, hates, or otherwise judges others. I figure I have enough on my own personal path to look at, I don't need to try to control others paths. I just wanted to be clear - I am christian, but pro-choice and pro-humanity.
January 23, 2009
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Most of the money we send overseas goes to countries where 12 and 14 year old girls are routinely married off to older men. These girls are barely able to get birth control, let alone an abortion without outside help. Many of them are very small and giving birth destroys their ability to hold urine and feces by doing enormous damage to their reproductive organs. They are then abandoned by their husbands for other wives.
First they need birth control, so that they can grow physically and mentally before being impregnated. Sex is never a choice for them, they are often beaten if they refuse.
All this information is available, even in the RMN they had stories on these little girls and their pregnancy related problems.
The amount of money we spend isn't much, when Bush cancelled even that amount a group called 34 million angles sprang up to replace the funding.
Instead of seeing in your minds eye an American grown woman having sex and then opting for abortion, try replacing that picture with a terrified 12 year old trying to give birth in some third world country.
January 23, 2009
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
rapelje, maybe "Obama has issued in the first four days more Executive Orders than all of the last 4 Presidents combined!" because he has SO Much damage to repair from the last 8 years...hmmm, good possibility, doncha think?
January 23, 2009
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoldenKid writes:
DenverTea
Cavalier was correct in what he wrote about you.
You sound like you had your eyes and heart closed when you supposedly "studied" the Bible. What were you doing? Looking for loopholes? You haven't a clue do you? How convienent for you so you can continue with your bloodlust. So where did you misplace your conscious at and you believe in God do you?
Now who's full of contradictions. What a lost soul and cause your Really are.
Cavalier don't bother to cast your pearls before this one anymore.
January 23, 2009
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
save_liberty writes:
Better him doing this, than spending more money we dont have trying to fix the economy. Our culture that to stop spending as a whole and start saving that includes the government.
January 23, 2009
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
HollyGoLightly writes:
It doesn't matter if I am pro-choice or pro-life with this article. I am completely against using federal funds for abortions and/or family counseling for foreign countries. How is this OUR responsibility? You know what? It doesn't even matter if I am a Democrat or a Republican. I am getting REALLY sick and tired of paying taxes to bail everyone else out while the average American is screwed dry.
January 23, 2009
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
benn writes:
Yankee-
Good references. I don't know anyone arguing that a zygote isn't a unique human, as far as biology is concerned. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to argue that a zygote is a PERSON.
Since it isn't a person, it doesn't have a right to life. It is simply a collection of cells that has the DNA and potential to develop into a person.
Once it develops to the point of personhood, then it has rights, and shouldn't be aborted. But, prior to becoming a PERSON, then the mother has the right to abort the cells.
The trouble is determining personhood. I would say that no fetus is a person within the first 3 months, but there is a high probability that it is a person in the last 3 months of pregnancy. Therefore, the 'change' occurs somewhere between 3 - 6 months. So, to play it safe, abortion should be legal for the first 3 months of pregnancy.
------------------------------
Did you just argue that a human life is created at conception and then turns into a person in 3-6 months? I am guessing that even pro-abortion people (humans?) are shaking their head at that. Hopefully you are joking.
What magic happens at 3-6 months? There is no change in DNA, just continued growth and development. Same pattern that continues through adolescence. For your theory to be correct, the DNA must change for the human "collection of cells" to change into a human "person". The only time the DNA changes is at conception.
January 23, 2009
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
save_liberty writes:
Ben is right about the first 3 months being ok and after that murder. Why does it have to be an absolute, yes or no to abortion and look at the facts.
It does bother me that obama is spending our money abroad. How about less imperialism and more non-interventionism. We spent 60% of our budget abroad?????? Why is our country going broke again????
January 23, 2009
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
IndependentSpirit writes:
To quote John McCain, "Election has consequences". Well this is one of the consequences. W is gone, and welcome to the new progressive age in American politics. I for one applaud him for this decision.
January 23, 2009
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
me2: the ability to have an abortion is not going to change things in the countries you are talking about. What is needed is a shift in culture. Many of these "men" believe that HIV can be cured by having sex with a virgin, and the only virgins are teens. Because the people in charge in their country have told them so. They can't have sex with anyone older because they're not virgins any more. Not that I'm condoning what they do. But the US CANNOT legislate or EO their culture. Cannot force them to conform to our customs and morality. We can't police their countries so that soldiers don't rape. There is only so much we, as a country, can do. It almost seems to me that most of Africa is a lost cause. With Muslims trying to take over the entire country, slaughtering anyone who isn't ideologically the same as them, there isn't much we can do. The aid that is going there isn't getting to those who really need it. Aid workers are being detained and even killed for trying to help because it's perceived (no matter where they're from) that they're spies of the US. Too many, especially in Kenya, think that Obama will be able to make things better for them. They're wrong. They have to stand up for themselves. They have to fight back against their own oppression. We can help, but we can't do it for them.
January 23, 2009
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
WFW writes:
Yankee, where is it written that being on the left means a non believer?
--------------------------------------------
Beats me. I've not written that. It probably does help though. Believing God, and not government, is supreme in the universe does tilt people to the right.
January 23, 2009
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
aRe writes:
Conservatives are hillarious!! They'll howl about tax paid abortions on unborn fetuses in third world countries but wont bat an eye to tax paid bombs that blow up 3 year old toddlers.
January 23, 2009
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
benn writes:
Yankee-
Good references. I don't know anyone arguing that a zygote isn't a unique human, as far as biology is concerned. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to argue that a zygote is a PERSON.
----------------------------------------------
Flyingcouch did a good job respond (Thanks) and i have something to add.
What you are actually doing with this "personhood" sematic business is trying to dehumanize the life in the womb. This is nothing new, human beings must be dehumanized before they can become disposable.
African Americans were dehumanized to justify their enslavement. Jews were dehumanized to justify loading them on cattle cars and gassing them in concentration camps.
No good can ever come of dehumanizing any human being and that includes the human being that is still in the womb. That human being has no voice and that is why it is important for the community to speak up and do wnat we can to protect her life.
January 23, 2009
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
aRe
How about Independents? We also don't like tax paid abortions for babies anywhere either. Blame your pals the terrorist for the bombs that kill those 3 year old toddlers. Does that justify killing the unborn? You could care less about those toddlers, you only use them for your own sick puropse to justify abortion. Phony hypocrite.
January 23, 2009
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
"Sorry "Shaupeen", but we men are humans, and therefore have a right to voice our opinions on a matter of basic human morality.
Or I guess you can't have any input into the criminal penalties for rape, since you don't "have the correct parts"."
OK, so by that reasoning a woman can accurately know what it's like for a male to get kicked in the crotch? The answer is no. They can assume it hurts, but they will never know the true degree of pain. Check your assumptions--you are assuming I'm female by my post. I'm not. I'm just humble enough to know that I would never try to tell a woman what's best for her body. Apparently you feel that need. And my wording was "informed opinion." You are welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't mean you know what it's like for a woman to have to even think about having an abortion.
Bottom line, if you don't like abortions, then don't have one.
And nice work Mr. President. Good to see the worm is turning.
January 23, 2009
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
benn writes:
Yankee and Flyingcouch,
Actually - I am simply defining a difference between a person and a human. You are absolutely and positively wrong to equate human and person.
Humans don't have rights, people have rights. Humans are simply animals, whereas a Person is a rational, self-aware being. A Person doesn't even have to be a Human... Corporations are considered People, but not Humans.
What happens between 3 - 6 months is that the fetus develops a few biological aspects that attribute to it Personhood. One such aspect is Fetal Viability, or the ability for the fetus to survive outside of the womb. Once it has that viability, then it has begun to develop its individual rights, prior to that, it has no rights, as it is 100% dependent upon the mother's body, and therefore her rights.
Just because you are too ignorant to understand basic Philosophy, and apparently Biology doesn't mean anyone is 'shaking their head'. Just having 'Human DNA' does not ascribe any rights. My dead skin cells have Human DNA.... they don't have any rights.
January 23, 2009
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
aRe writes:
Cav,
You're naivety is beyond reproach. Go on shoving the American flag in your ears and covering your eyes. I'm sorry friend, but war is messy and our country's hands are not clean of the blood of the innocent. To think otherwise is not only naive but plum stupid. You're no patriot - you're an enabler to injustice.
January 23, 2009
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Triumph writes:
Shaupeen's incoherent ramblings and crude remarks should not be mistaken for wit and creativity or sincere compassion since they are from the mind of cruel person and one who suffers from a bloodlust. All fake and tired arguments that ring hollow to true humanitarians and people of compassion.
January 23, 2009
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Bush sent a lot of our money to Africa to fight AIDS and yet here you guys are, b*tching about just stopping a gag rule.
Pathetic.
January 23, 2009
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
aRe writes:
I'm personally opposed to abortion. That said, I don't have a uterus or the moral authority to dictate to someone who does what they should do with it. No one does.
January 23, 2009
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
I am an Obama supporter; however, this is one issue that I do not necessarily agree with him on. That said, the money is for groups that do alot more than just perform abortions. These groups also educate people on other methods of population control and STDs. They do a tremendous amount of good outside of performing abortions. Bush's stance was that any organization that aids in abortions was not to receive any money from the US. Unfortunately, I think Bush's approach tended to win the battle while losing the war.
January 23, 2009
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
flyingcouch writes:
benn,
Viable - capable of existence and development as an independent unit
If viable human being means able to live independantly, that does not happen untill about 10-15 yrs old, maybe longer.
Dead skin cells don't have rights because they are dead.
Reread your post - "Humans don't have rights".....................good luck with that.
thanks for putting up with my ignorance.
January 23, 2009
4:17 p.m.
Triumph writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 23, 2009
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
been writes: "Humans don't have rights, people have rights. Humans are simply animals, whereas a Person is a rational, self-aware being."
Where does it state that a living being has to be "rational and self-aware" to have rights? If that were the case, special needs kids, Alzheimers' patients, and a host of other vulnerable groups would have no rights at all. We wouldn't even be able to have animal cruelty laws on the books, because animals, according to your definition of who and what get rights, isn't "rational and self-aware."
benn writes: "Just because you are too ignorant to understand basic Philosophy, and apparently Biology doesn't mean anyone is 'shaking their head'."
Are these patronizing cracks really adding to the discussion? Also, is there actually such a thing as "basic" philosophy? I believe the study of philosophy encompasses many schools of thought.
January 23, 2009
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
rapelje writes:
slim_jim800 you don't read very well do you? I said within the first 4 days, and this is true, Obama has now issued 6 Executive Orders, and Bush had 1 in his first four days, even Clinton only had like 1. Most Liberals like you read only what they want a piece to say instead of reading really what the person wrote. By the rate of the Executive Orders that Obama has signed in the first four days, he will quadruple or more the total number that Bush had! Obama is showing a real arrogance by failing to working with the American people through their legislators. He is signing these Executive Orders like they are checks out of his own personal checkbook, but they aren't his checks they are the American peoples!
January 23, 2009
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
benn writes:
Yankee and Flyingcouch,
Actually - I am simply defining a difference between a person and a human. You are absolutely and positively wrong to equate human and person.
---------------------------------------------
I understand perfectly. I also understand there is only one reason for your philosophizing about who among us humans are not persons - so you can justify the killing.
Your philosphy has always found some good reason to dispose of inconvenient, unwanted humans. We can't kill a person so the human we want to kill cannot be a person. Tautologies don't require any moral or scientific basis.
January 23, 2009
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
aRe writes:
Cav,
I believe it is I who must have hit a nerve with you. How much of a simpleton existence you must lead to deem anyone who disagrees with you as 'evil'? Talking to conservatives like you is like speaking to a child who still sees the world only in terms of black and white, right or wrong. When will you learn we all live in a palate of grays?
I for the record don't deem you as 'evil' even though you would force a 12 year old girl to carry a pregnancy to term which was the result of a rape. I don't deem you evil even though you would willfully deny people in 3rd world countries access to sex and AIDS education because it would in some way violates your tiny myopic worldview. I for one don't see you as 'evil' even though you would raise your fist in the opposition to a woman's right to choose, but wouldn't raise a finger in assiting those 'helpless fetuses' when they actually do reach a level of personhood by supporting things such as universal healthcare for children or support for our public schools.
That all said, it really is a waste of time to argue these points to you isn't it? Someone of your ideologies have no uses for attempting to read between the lines or even the empathy to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.
Have a nice weekend.
January 23, 2009
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
rapelje writes:
Denver-Tea, you miss the whole point. The type of Executive Orders that Obama have been signing are NOT things that needed to be corrected, they are things that are of personal opinion and he with a stroke of his pen today told over 50 million American's today your wishes mean nothing! Also think about this, when you allow a President to stomp on the Constitution and the people of the country through their legislators as Obama is doing RIGHT NOW, what will be your opinion when someone you might not agree with does the exact same thing later on? Are you all of sudden going to expect the President to follow the Constitution when you allowed a different President to stomp on it earlier? Think about it??? Once you give up your authority to the government how difficult will be to get it back later? Impossible?
January 23, 2009
4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
aRe: I for one don't see you as compassionate, just because you expect the government to solve every incidence of human misery on the planet. All you aRe doing is absolving yourself of any personal responsibility to improve the human condition yourself, by rationalizing that you 'support' government policies to address problems that you yourself don't pay for. Have a nice clear conscience.
January 23, 2009
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
rapelje
Did you object to these type of orders when issued by Bush and when he, who won election by a razor thin margin, ignored those who opposed him? Because if not, you are just a hypocrite.
Gitmo was established with no public discussion or debate. The authorization of torture was done by Bush in secret and only came to light when they were caught. Cheney went to the Supreme Court to avoid having to show who he met with to formulate the administration energy policy. Obama was very clear in the campaign that he would make these changes, which is vastly different than the secret actions taken by his predecessor.
Yes they are matters of opinion and the majority of the voters expressed an opinion that they were WRONG. You disagree, as is your right, but for a Bush supporter to get on here and lecture about working with the constitution and the public is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
The "at this rate" argument is a classic logical fallacy called hasty generalization. There is no reason to believe that this "rate" will continue. The orders that were reversed were put into place over years. Obama promised he would change them. If he did not, you would be on here claiming he was not following through on promises.
January 23, 2009
5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
The one point that many people have argued is that "nobody has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body". However, this seems to be a moot point because we're telling her what she can or can't do to someone else's body. I'm not opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Just as I'm not opposed to murder in all circumstances. For example, I think someone should have the right to use potentially lethal force to protect themselves in a home invasion. But this "nobody has the right to tell a woman..." business is garbage.
January 23, 2009
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hedz writes:
God help us.
January 23, 2009
5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
Here's one for those on both sides of the abortion debate to think on: With advances in neo-natal care, the viability of a fetus is now a lot earlier than it used to be. Time was, if delivered prior to the accepted viability time (28 weeks I think it was--that's what they shoot for now I believe), it wasn't likely to survive. Now, if the child is wanted, everything under the sun is done to keep it alive. And by doing so, they push the gestation time back further and futher every year.
So in the near future, the difference between a preemie and an abortion may all come down to whether the child is wanted or not. Viability may become a moot point.
A fetus is in some sense a parasite since it's needs a host to survive. However, except in rare circumstances (such as rH imcompatibility-which can be treated-and others that cannot), it is not considered a foreign body and the host does nothing to combat it's existence. The gestation ends when the correct hormone is exctreted by the fetus that signals the host to go into labor. Which happens in EVERY mammal on the planet. But humans are the only ones who intentionally terminate pregnancies.
I knew someone who had several abortions, using them as a means of birth control, that when she finally wanted to have kids couldn't have them because the abortions had caused damage to her uterus. I'm all for preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than killing the result. I just don't think we can be justified in paying for any organisation to go to another country and tell them what laws they can and cannot pass. What they can & cannot allow to happen in their countries. It's not our right!
January 23, 2009
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
Nietzsche is dead.
January 23, 2009
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
non sequitur
January 23, 2009
5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonjonmon writes:
I guess this was one of the programs Obama was talking about. Not only our Gov. funding our abortions, but now we'll fund and give information on abortions performed in other countries. I wonder what "common ground" he'll be looking for when he starts "fresh conversations".
January 23, 2009
6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm not religious.
January 23, 2009
6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Reality__Check writes:
If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.
------------------------------------------------------
At last, the default platitude. I was wondering about the delay.
If you don't agree that human beings should be enslaved then don't buy one.
January 23, 2009
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
Just out of curiosity Reality_Check, at what point to you consider the "non-person...parasite" to have become a person?
January 23, 2009
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
"Humans are "the only ones" who intentionally execute other humans as "punishment"." Not really. Other apes carry out punishments for those within the group who transgress or just plain piss off the alpha. Even to the point of killing the offender. Most mammals that live in groups have the same sort of hierarchical set up. Punishments, including banishment which amounts to a death sentence, are carried out. But humans are also the only ones who go through estrus every month. And in most cases, we have a choice of preventing pregnancy. Even in the case of rape we have legal drugs to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, effectively preventing a viable pregnancy. At least in THIS country. Legislation cannot be written to tell a womb to accept a fertilized egg. There are plenty (and I'm sure I could find statics somewhere if I have to) of naturally fertilized eggs that do not implant. Pregnancies that spontaniously terminate before a woman will even know she's pregnant. Abortion takes a tremendous toll on a woman's body and emotions. Anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. BUT, despite how I personally feel about abortion, I do not believe that the right to it should be legislated away. Abortion has been available all throughout history, as soon as someone figured out that certain plants will kill a fetus. And sometimes also the mother. And those who knew of such things were eventually persecuted and burned as witches by those (popes & priests) who decided that it was a sin to do such a thing. But legalized as it is now it's relatively safe. Not 100%, because any sort of invasive proceedure isn't. I would much rather prevent a pregnancy (thus preventing an abortion), but if I had to have one I'd rather it be done safely.
January 23, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
soleil writes:
As a member of a social services delivery team, I absolutely agree with the comments made about supporting children AFTER birth. It strikes me as funny, or very sad, that the very same people that scream PRO-LIFE are against a more expansive safety net that would actually help these children and their mothers after they are born. Pro-life in one sense, but anti-life in another. The posts on this page are missing an important part of this article. This bill is not about funding international abortions. It is about funding organizations that may provide abortion counseling and services. These same organizations provide many other valuable services. While many people do not want their tax dollars supporting reproductive care for women overseas, or domestically for that matter, I do not want my tax dollars supporting tyrannical wars or subsidizing the greed and material excess of auto industry executives.
January 23, 2009
8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradoan writes:
I suspect that most under represented minorities do not realize the vast majority of babies killed by abortion, are children of dark skin. I find it revealing, that democrats are fighting to kill children of color, while the republicans are working to preserve the lives of these ethnic minority babies.
January 23, 2009
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
When a woman gets pregnant after having sex, (not forced) we the people should not have to pay for her to abort the baby. Giving money to other countries to support their abortion problems is something I do not feel I should have to pay for either! If you want the right to be in control of what happens to your body, than act like a mature adult and use protection. That goes for the men as well, use protection! It is so much less than having to pay for the abortion or raising a child. Well, at least if you pay for it. Our government is paying to support so many children of unwed mothers its sad. The Welfare system is meant to be a temporary form of help, but many never get off. My question is this, Will Obama feel the same way when His own daughters have an abortion?
January 23, 2009
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
InEssence writes:
Remember, Obama said that he was signing this as a "family planning" initiative (read birth control). This $400 million will be used to eliminate unwanted races in undesirable places. It didn't take Obama very long to forget where he came from.
January 23, 2009
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
rapelje writes:
buffsbig, Obama promised transparency in his Presidency and already he has refused to provide his birth certificate to at least prove that he was born in the U.S., why hide a birth certificate? Secondly, Obama has still failed to divulge all of his and his campaigns contacts with the Illinois governor? Why? Another case of a lack of transparency that Liberals like yourself are ignoring. (P.S. - A brief oral statement by the Obama people about their campaign's contacts with the Illinois Gov. without releasing ANY documents to back it up is hardly an objective report and is another slap in the face of transparency). Obama flipflopped on the Campaign Financing issue saying that he would take public funds and then saying he wouldn't so he wouldn't have to abide by election rules and disclose his donors, why hide your list of donors? Another lack of transparency which is interesting considering it has come to light that there was an unprecendented amount of "foreign" money given to Obama for this campaign. Doesn't that bother you just alittle about the influence of foreign money in an American election? I guess not when it is your candidate? The height of hyprocisy are the Liberals like yourself that screamed for years about Bush but have became silent when Obama does even more than Bush about stepping on the Constitution! As a matter of fact I did not support Bush in everything by a long shot, as I don't believe ANY President should use Executive Orders as a cavalier device to get around the people. I feel that the protections put into the Constitution are there for a reason and circumventing them BY ANYONE is harmful to this country and both parties play fast and lose with items in the Constitution. The biggest hypocrites are Liberals that have been for years screaming about Bush, but as soon as Obama gets in and starts stomping on the Constitution they become silent little hypocrites. Guantanamo has been around for a very long time BTW, long before Bush. The Clintons did the same thing that Cheney did as far as refusing to devulge information as to who has advised them, remember the Health Insurance fiasco of the Clinton Administration??? Got selective memory issues buffsbig? Evidently so, talk about a hyprocrit, you won't allow Cheney the same protection that you allowed Clinton? I hear a warm wet wash cloth is good for wiping egg off your face buffsbig, have fun wiping!
January 23, 2009
11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Pro-life: Someone who believes in post-partum abortion. -- from a US Senator whose name escapes me, quoted in a 1987 Newsweek article on abortion and birth control.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
One more time to all the pro-life screaming maniacs here: Lifting the "gag rule" does not fund abortion. Period. It simp[ly allows family-planning clinics to mention the "a" word.
People, especially men, who oppose family planning, counseling, contraceptives, and abortion are hypocrites to the core.
January 24, 2009
1 a.m.
Suggest removal
rapelje writes:
Well SideshowBob, do you want me to type slower for you as well? Too bad they won't allow larger type and pretty pictures to help you, as it is obvious that complicated arguments and discussions are well beyond your limited abilities.
January 24, 2009
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
Seems rather arbitrary as developmentally there is very little that distinguishes a "full-term" fetus from a newborn. You are okay with killing a full-term fetus that could of easily been born a day earlier?
January 24, 2009
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
I don't know if I'm comfortable allowing the government or "modern society" to form my opinions for me. I'm pretty sure they've both been wrong before.
January 24, 2009
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
You form your own opinions, society and government make laws.
Birth and fertilization are not "arbitrary", they are bright lines. The problem is neither works well for the time frame for legal abortion. The voters overwhelmingly rejected fertilization at the ballot box. No-one I know on the pro-choice side advocates for abortions at full term, despite the anti-choice propaganda otherwise.
The reason viability is an important factor is not strictly related to the fetus' ability to survive, for clearly neither a newborn nor a 3-year-old will last long on its own. However their needs can be met by any other person who chooses to and is able to meet their needs. A pre-viable fetus MUST have its needs met by the woman in whose uterus it resides.
Roe represents a compromise between the rights of the fetus, which increase with gestation, and the woman who may revoke the consent to use her uterus.
Contrary to the misinformation from some posters above, viability is 24 weeks, and has not budged in over 20 years. Because peri-viability babies have such poor prognoses (~80% birth defects, ~50% brain damage) medical ethics currently allows parents to withhold heroic measures and medical interventions.
January 24, 2009
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
You make some good points Queen_Gorgo; however, I'm just not comfortable in anyone's ability to determine when the fetus has been infused with a unique and autonomous 'soul' (not particularly scientific I know). I'd rather err on the side of caution.
January 24, 2009
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
As a clarification, I never intended to debate the legal standing of a fetus at any stage. Obviously that is a much more black and white issue on which I would not have much ground (or knowledge) to stand on. I am more interested in the intellectual concepts surrounding abortion and how people have reached their respective conclusions.
January 24, 2009
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Obviously "soul" is a religious construct that has no place in our laws. You make a good argument why these decisons should be made by women, their doctors, their families, and whatever spiritual advisors they choose to involve without undue government interference.
Did you read this article I linked to?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/200...
The site is a good source for interesting articles on controversial legal topics. There are good links within it to other articles she has written, and perusing the writing of other legal scholars in the right hand column is fascinating. John Dean is a regular contributor.
I would hope that rational debate between people who disagree can proceed to the point where we reach the basic principals about which we disagree. Once we know those fundamentals we can debate inconsistencies in each others positions that expose flaws in their thinking. Learning facts we might not have previously considered is valuable too.
Too much of the chatter on this site is mere name-calling. Too much of the debate about this issue is from dogmatists who are sure they know what "God wants..." and want laws which conform to their religious beliefs to govern everyone.
January 24, 2009
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
I think that the concept of a 'soul' can be meaningful outside of a religious context. If nothing else it can serve as a reference to everthing about our temporal existence that we do not entirely or properly understand (of which I believe that there is plenty despite many people's claim to the contrary). I can't escape the notion that our understanding of our existence is extremely elementary at this point in time.
Regarding religion in our laws, I think we are kidding ourselves to suggest that religion and morality have not thoroughly permeated our legislative institutions. We can debate if that is good or bad, however, I think it is currently inevitable. As long as men and women of a religious persuasion are involved in politics then their notions of morality are going to be incorporated into law. This is evident in everything from liquor laws (no liquor sales on Sunday...recently overturned) to laws pertaining to appropriate social conduct. There is really no way to seperate church and state unless you can remove all religious influence on those running our governing institutions.
January 24, 2009
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrYeahBut writes:
I guess this is really an epistemological discussion. Both sides claim that their position is correct based on an "infaliable" religious/moral or scientific argument. Ultimately, both sides are necessarily reduced to speculation (philosophy) on this particular subject (an assertion to which you may strongly disagree). Unfortunately, neither religion nor science is currently able to provide all the answers.
I do appreciate your civil tone and respect your position.