Obama reverses Bush's abortion-funds policy

Saturday 24th January, 07:33 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 81 Total Comments Show All

TheQuestion at 02:04 AM JST - 26th January

I see the Vatican is already in a tizz. Perhaps they should be silent after all the high-level protection they've given to those that did horrific things to children that actually were allowed to be born...

Yeah, nice job brining up something that is totally irrelevant to the topic.

In fact not. China's coercive family planning policies, in which government officials rather than the parents have the final word, make it ineligible to receive international funds for family planning.

Have you read the UNFPA? It has whole sections dedicated to china and large industrialized countries with large populations including China, India, and South Korea all of which have strong economies and should be able to take care of their own toddler troubles.
Betzee at 07:40 AM JST - 26th January

Have you read the UNFPA? It has whole sections dedicated to china and large industrialized countries with large populations including China, India,

Both of these countries remain largely agrarian. And they both suffer from gender imbalances, of concern to both Beijing and New Delhi since social instability is likely to be the result when men outnumber women. It's already led to abductions of nubile young women out looking for work who find themselves captive brides of men who struck out in marriage market.

THE UNFPA is aware the biggest predictor of family size is the mother's education level. Hence their activities are focused on empowering women through education. That can include information on contraception. It most certainly does not extend to forced abortions.
Betzee at 07:54 AM JST - 26th January

Though forced abortions were certainly carried out in the past in China, government officials were careful to conduct them out view of foreign nationals cause they knew it would bring bad publicity.

Today's China is a much more mobile society, making such a policy much more difficult to carry out. In fact the growth of the floating population is partly due to births away from the village. These kids are not registered at birth and don't exist officially. As they come of age they will have to be accommodated in some way.

Affluent urbanites grumble about the growth of an underclass and how it's gonna drag China down. They would probably prefer to go back to the more draconian era of strict enforcement of the one-child policy and, since political correctness doesn't really exist in China, would say so upfront.
IcingDeath at 08:13 AM JST - 26th January

I voted for Obama because I thought his policies to be more in tune with the times, but this is and has always been one thing that I wish Dems. would leave alone. I find myself actually praising George Bush on this issue. I can't stand abortion. The mere thought of it sickens me to my stomach. What if the father of the child wants the baby? What then? Does the woman kill it anyway? She may be carrying it, but Scientifically, the baby is as much his as it is hers. I saw an interview with Obama about this very issue. As much as this issue pains me, I will have to say that I give him the benefit of the doubt because he seems to understand that if a woman really wants an abortion, she will find ways to get it done.
Betzee at 08:30 AM JST - 26th January

I can't stand abortion. The mere thought of it sickens me to my stomach. What if the father of the child wants the baby? What then? Does the woman kill it anyway? She may be carrying it, but Scientifically, the baby is as much his as it is hers.

It's true, but that reflects the reality that the biological division of labor is not apportioned equally. (I recently had a young male colleague who was stressed out as the birth of his second child approached, confiding "so much more is expected of fathers in the delivery room these days." But the majority of work, or labor, still lands on the mother.) Hence, abortion, as carried out in most post-industrial countries, accords women the sole authority on whether to carry a child to term.
Betzee at 08:40 AM JST - 26th January

In the 2008 US election one thing which went unnoticed is that the state-level abortion restriction measures all failed. The bottom line is, however much abortion remains an uncomfortable issue for most, the majority of Americans do want the government declaring that termination is not allowed in such a private matter.
Betzee at 09:18 AM JST - 26th January

It would help the discussion if people opened the dictionary and learned the meaning of a few words, such as fetus, baby and child. Having done so, my understanding is that fetus comes first, and is rather miraculously transformed into a baby at birth. Calling a fetus a baby or a child and apportioning rights to it is rather ridiculous.

Good point. This is an issue when a pregnant woman is murdered, should a suspect be charged with a single or two counts of homicide? Generally speaking, the fetus is counted as a legal person if, at the time of death, it was developed enough to survive outside the mother (in the preemie ward).
Nessie at 10:05 AM JST - 26th January

It would help the discussion if people opened the dictionary and learned the meaning of a few words, such as fetus, baby and child. Having done so, my understanding is that fetus comes first, and is rather miraculously transformed into a baby at birth. Calling a fetus a baby or a child and apportioning rights to it is rather ridiculous.

"Yep, I'm eating for two: Foetus and me. And I'm not smoking because I want to keep little Foetus in fine fettle."

You will never hear a mother say either of these things. My point is that are various definitions, depending on context. Like everything about abortion, there's little that's cut and dry.
Madverts at 05:27 PM JST - 26th January

the question,

Not so. The Vatican has savagely attacked Obama's decision.
IcingDeath at 11:44 PM JST - 26th January

Those definitions are just a way for people to ease their mind about the issue. I have spent enough time studying the sciences to know whats what. I can name the different stages of pregnancy from the time the egg is fertilized to birth. This still doesn't change the fact that I find the whole process rather disturbing. Regardless of what stage it is in when it is aborted, it doesn't change the fact that it would have eventually become human.
IcingDeath at 01:13 PM JST - 27th January

I agree that there are numerous reasons for an abortion. I, reluctantly, would be in favor of a woman getting an abortion if her life was in jeopardy or she was raped and is now carrying the rapist's child(the latter is pretty rare given the fact that most women are given a rape kit and treated for VD and pregnancy when a rape occurs). However, an abortion simply for convenience is detestable. If one doesn't want a child, then take preventative measures to avoid having one. Don't lie on your back with your legs open, get pregnant, and decide to have an abortion because you didn't think that it could happen to you or it wasn't in the plan. That is just down right irresponsible and barbaric.
AlfGarnett at 01:18 PM JST - 27th January

LIve and let live as the old saying go. That'S my opinion like.
OhioDonna at 12:22 AM JST - 28th January

I do not believe that abortion is right and even if I did I would not want my taxes to fund abortions. I have not taken a back seat on this and have emailed Pres. Obama about this issue. I will continue to voice my opinion until I get a response from the White House. Abortion is not going to go away but I certainly do not want any of my hard earned money used to support it. It is wrong to do so.
Blue_Tiger at 07:10 PM JST - 30th January

President Obama is making a mistake by doing this. Planned Parenthood -- a Billion Dollar Industry -- certainly doesn't need this kind of "bail out". All President Obama will earn from this is a lot of ire.....
JoiceRojo at 10:32 PM JST - 30th January

This is the man who less than a week ago had the audacity to place his hand on the Bible, which forbids the taking of human life and treats all human life as sacred, to take the Oath and become President.

Bush Did the same 4 and 8 years ago... and yet he started a war that killed thousand and thousands... How can a conservative person with "high morals" declare himself as a "war president".

he is far worse than President Bush, who was a man of morals and character.

Please!!!

I have mixed feelings about this issue, I would support the "Right to choice" idea if the issue is very well informed, people with higher education and really think of this decision are less likely to have an abortion. Whereas in third world countries (such as mine) they stand for other morals, the religious sense about pregnancy is still strong, but also it is irresponsible for people to have unplanned sex and babies, they receive the idea of having an abortion as an easy way out of unwanted children, that is not the solution.

I do support the measure taken by Obama, as long it is not seen as an "easy-way-out", but in the sense that providing information about abortions will eventually lead to a balance in this issue, and in the future, to reduce significantly the number of abortions.