Obama reverses Bush's abortion-funds policy
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 2 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
83 Comments
Login to comment
0
neverknow2
Good work. Keep it up. Have that abortion - You can do it!!!!
0
adaydream
Now cut out the abstinence only training in schools and get some controceptives and real world sexual training in schools. It's been too long since kids were taught real world sexual education. < :-)
0
YangYong
The Revolution, in favor of intelligence, forward thinking and compassion, continues. The shackles of ignorance, revisionist ape shrub stripped at last from our weary minds.
0
SezWho2
Well, not exactly, Douglas.
First, abortion is not a measure of "population control" so much as it is a measure of "family planning". "Population control" tends to suggest that a government is making decisions on how many citizens are desirable. "Family planning" tends to suggest that families are making decisions on how many mouths they are willing to support. While a government determined to control its population could pressure the international groups to bias their counseling, the international groups fundamentally counsel to families.
Second, this does not renege on a promise to promote policies that help reduce the number of abortions. I grant that the likely effect of lifting the ban will be to increase that number. However, he never promised to promote all policies that help reduce the number of abortions. In the extreme case, for example, he never promised to support a total ban on abortions and in fact, were he to do so, he would be reversing himself on the point that he thought abortions should be legal but limited.
If Right-to-Life groups are serious about limiting abortions, they need to first recognize that abortions are necessary and permissible. If not, then such groups are not interested in limiting the abortions. They are interested in eliminating them.
0
skipthesong
It's been too long since kids were taught real world sexual education." Man, you can learn more on the street than you can learn in school. Sex ed is a waste of money.
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
I think you have a good point about being able to learn more on the street than you can in school. The problem I have with that is that you can learn more on the Internet than you can in school--but you have to be wise enough to help you separate the false from the true. That is the function of the teacher.
In particular, on the streets you can learn that you're not a man until you've sown your seed. And so we get a lot of 15-year-old "men" and a lot of children having babies. I'm not sure that education is going to counter all that, but good lesson plans on the cost of raising a child and the opportunities foreclosed upon might help.
0
skipthesong
n particular, on the streets you can learn that you're not a man until you've sown your seed." I have to admit, in my community, that is true.
And so we get a lot of 15-year-old "men" and a lot of children having babies." Believe me, there was a bit of sarcasism behind my statement. Its a sad fact. But what is also sad is you have people praising young single mothers and no criticism for boys who leave them behind.
That is the function of the teacher." Well, I hope I am man enough to tell my kids before some teacher does. And no, if I have a boy, I won't convince him to be a "latin lover".
I'm not sure that education is going to counter all that, but good lesson plans on the cost of raising a child and the opportunities foreclosed upon might help." I would prefer we work on families bonding together. When my sister got pregnant, everyone came together and helped through it and that was the same time my dad was killed. We just had to do something. Of course my brothers and I search in vain for the boy, but he left to some where far.
0
foreign_devil
Paying for other people's abortions is sick. Keep your hand out of my pocket Obama.
0
Betzee
This is what changed:
President Obama lifted the global gag rule, officially known as the Mexico City Policy. Since the rule was first instituted in 1984, during the Reagan administration, it has traditionally been in effect during Republican administrations and lifted during Democratic administrations. (Admittedly, before now, there's been only one Democratic administration since 1984.) The policy prohibited the federal government from funding any organizations that provide abortion and abortion counseling abroad.
In other words, US money could not go to any health services provider that even offered to discuss pregnancy termination. In developing countries where women have few opportunities to become financially self-sufficient, abstinence counseling in not an effective means of pregnancy prevention, let alone stopping the spread of diseases like AIDs.
0
bebert
Good! The Third World has a terrible population growth problem and that problem tends to spill over into our world. Not only should we be providing free abortions, we should also be funding sterilization and implanted birth control - especially for women who aren't allowed any say in reproduction matters in Catholic and patriarchal societies.
Most foreign aid just aggravates problems in the Third World -like poverty, overpopulation and corruption - this aid actually solves a problem for once.
0
Betzee
In some African cultures a widow is remarried to one of her late husband's male relatives. This is to ensure her welfare and the financial well-being of her children. Otherwise, they are likely to end up destitute. But what if her husband died of AIDs? Well, that makes no difference. Tradition obligates the man to consummate this marriage or insult his dead kin and risk the wrath of the spirit world.
Yet it represents a potential death sentence for him and, in the case of Muslims, his other wives and any future children they might bear. In such a situation, isn't it more humane to provide these people with all available health options?
0
Loki520
Here's some family planning for ya... If you can't afford the kid, DON'T GET PG, or have sex if otherwise unable to live with the consequences.
Why must we CONTINUALLY fund to correct the continual mistakes of others? Don't want a kid? Great... don't have sex without protection. Can't afford protection, or the protection doesn't work? Shouldn't of rolled the dice.
But... if you want to kill your fetus? Fine, go right ahead. Most of us aren't against you doing that (although lots are!). We are against you doing it ON OUR DIME.
1.00 will by you the best protection there is. A length of rope to tie your knees together. I'll give you the $1.00 if they promise to stay out of my wallet forevermore.
And of course, before the feminists get all up in arms... rape puts a different spin on this, so don't even try and bring it up - it's a different conversation that does NOT pertain to this topic. There is a world of difference between termination of pregnancy as the result of willingly having sex, and ending up that way due to rape.
0
smithinjapan
skipthesong: "Man, you can learn more on the street than you can learn in school. Sex ed is a waste of money."
That only talks about how poor the state of education is, and that it needs to catch up with the times and levels of education in (some) other countries. Abstinence being the only subject of conversation in sex. ed is outdated and ridiculous. I want to make it clear, though, that I mean ONLY abstinence; supplementing the facts about sex, making contraception, etc. available WITH talks about how abstinence is the only sure-fire way of avoiding pregnancy and most sexual diseases is best.
About 'sowing your seed is the only way to learn about being a man', I wouldn't say that's "learning" at all, unless you learn that you are only buying into odd (but prevalent) societal concepts.
0
smithinjapan
Anyway, good on Obama for stepping out of the Stone Age and being practical and compassionate.
0
smithinjapan
Loki520: "But... if you want to kill your fetus? Fine, go right ahead. Most of us aren't against you doing that (although lots are!). We are against you doing it ON OUR DIME."
I agree with most of your post, but you also forget the cost of your tax dollars for the welfare money it takes unemployed (or undermployed) teens/young adults who have kids simply because they are against abortion. I reckon' it's a hell of a lot more to pay for all the dole people are on then it does for a few abortions.
I want to emphasize that I am NOT condoning abortion as a means of 'contraception', and people do need to take responsibility for their actions, but there are also a number of issues we're not even touching on; for example a woman who is raped and impregnated, or a child who will be born with various diseases and/or a major risk to mother/baby, etc. FInally, there's the fact that without the proper education, people don't know about the protection you mention (believe it or not), let alone how to use it properly, and some are going to seek illegal abortions at 'Third World' facilities and endanger their health, etc., or simply throw the baby in the trash once it's born.
0
Sarge
"Keep your hand out of my pocket Obama"
Tooo late. He's been elected.
0
Naruki_Oni
Loki, society would pay a lot more to raise that fetus to adulthood than it will to abort.
But it's clear you are against society doing anything for others, but that would also do away with everything you enjoy.
Hope you like walking to work while avoiding all those roads. Oh, and don't forget to install your own well.
0
Betzee
Bebert,
Nice post. Most of the Republicans I know indeed take the position "a dead baby is cheaper than a live one," though they would never put it that way outside their comfort zone.
Bottom line: If you oppose American development assistance for family planning clinics that include abortion, even if US money is not used for that purpose, don't complain about being overrun by illegal aliens in search of work.
0
proxy
It would be unconstitutional to impose that gag order in the US so it is only logical to remove it.
0
skipthesong
smith, damn good points. I like your stance too.
0
kinniku
smith,
I agree 100% (that's been happening a lot lately!). It is nice to see a US president really thinking outside the box and reacting logically. I think President Obama is going to make things very interesting and positive changes will continue to be on the horizon.
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
I have no problem with your preference for working on family bonding, but why can't we do both?
0
SezWho2
foreign_devil,
Why is it any more sick to pay for their abortions than to pay for their deliveries and for the upkeep on their children?
0
Potsu
This is good thing,no 2 ways about it.
0
benhur
**whatever obama is doing, i am sure he is doing the best for america.. **
0
wuzzademcrat
In signing into law an order providing international groups with US taxpayer-funded means to perform abortions beyond US borders did Obama stop to wonder what message this sends to an African continent that is justly enthralled with the ascension of an Africa-American to president of the most powerful nation on earth?
Did he pause for perhaps one second, remembering the number of children his own father begot?
If such funding had been available in the 60's and 70's would the different mothers of Obama senior's offspring have decided differently?
Indeed, would 17 year-old Anne Durham have chosen differently if mainland "liberals" had decided Hawaii's 1961 laws on abortion were not "practical" or "compassionate" enough?
0
smithinjapan
Betzee: "Bottom line: If you oppose American development assistance for family planning clinics that include abortion, even if US money is not used for that purpose, don't complain about being overrun by illegal aliens in search of work."
There are a couple of serious flaws to your argument.
1: Who's to say all the illegal immigrants aren't products of a system with even worse sex-ed. and lack of birth control than in the US? and with poor or no access to abortion. They have a much higher murder/crime rate, and likely a higher rate of rape cases, so they would probably have a higher number of unwanted pregnancies and births... all for them to come knocking on your door later.
2: You're not going to be 'overrun' by illegal immigrants if the population of your country is lower due to abortion, which I believe is the 'population control' argument is stating would be the result (ie. lower population). There would be more of a need for immigration, less of a hassle for it, and in turn less of a burden on society -- they are only a burden when taking away jobs from those who need them in the country, etc. There's also a higher likelihood they would be given citizenship, and therefore technically not illegals, no?
If your argument is against such people becoming American, and I'm sure it's not in your case, then that's a different matter, of course.
Finally: "Most of the Republicans I know indeed take the position "a dead baby is cheaper than a live one,""
While a baby born is indeed a baby, most people would not consider an embryo or fetus a 'baby', even if they considered it a human life, so you're point there is moot, as well.
0
smithinjapan
wuzzademcrat: "Did he pause for perhaps one second, remembering the number of children his own father begot?"
I'm willing to bet he did, and it shows that not only is he objective in his decisions and not SUBJECTIVE as you would probably be in the case, he showed that he is putting the thoughts of the nation as a whole before his own (in the event that he would be against it because of his own number of siblings).
Next question.
0
Betzee
Wuzzademocrat,
Conservatives often have to filter everything through the prism of personal experience with regards to controversial policy policy issues. My father has Alzheimers, gee now I appreciate the value of stem cell research in finding a cure. My cousin gave birth to a disabled child, oh yeah there's this thing called the "Americans with Disabilities Act," and I can argue it needs to be fully funded by the taxpayers cuz societies are judged by how well they care for their weakest members.
I'm sure Obama is guided by more than just his own personal experience in reaching decisions. After all, imagine how long it would take if each of us had to be personally affected before we could be bothered to take a stance.
0
smithinjapan
It seems to me that most of the people against what's being signed here are simply trying to find an excuse to be angry at Obama (no surprise), and base their argument on the 'Obama is taking my tax dollars' crap; in other words, their arguments against Obama's policy here is simply economic. That's not EVERYONE, I might add, I can respect the people who are against this based on their moral opposition (I don't agree with it, but I can respect it) to abortion.
For those who ARE arguing economics though, I'm sorry but it's still a fact that you're paying far more to support young couples who are jobless and with kids, for child support, and welfare, etc., than the small amount of tax for giving people access to choose what they wish to do.
And again, all of you are also ignoring the cases where rape is involved in the conception.
0
Betzee
SmithinJapan,
It's not really an argument but rather stating the obvious: illegal immigration is driven by the dearth of jobs relative to the population in the home country. From the point of view of the host country, integrating outsiders is costly, there's no question on that. Many natives complain about those costs. Yet some are unwilling to acknowledge providing comprehensive family planning would help reduce unwanted births. I'm not advocating involuntary sterilization (though some may favor it).
My point was simply to point out these linkages rather than allowing those who hold contradictory opinions to treat each issue as discrete.
0
Betzee
Your tax dollars are going to be taken regardless. GWB didn't do more for Africa than any previous president by not spending money. Rather it's an issue of how it will be spent. Exclusively on abstinence programs or more comprehensive family planning services.
0
wuzzademcrat
smithinjapan's post
"I'm willing to bet he did, and it shows that not only is he objective in his decisions and not SUBJECTIVE as you would probably be in the case..."
Smith, do you even understand the meaning of the words you use? How, exactly, is Obama being "objective" here? Hiding from the media (3rd paragraph) as he signs this into law hardly speaks of being "objective". No, it speaks more of dutifully sucking up to the extremist elements in his party.
"...he showed that he is putting the thoughts of the nation as a whole before his own (in the event that he would be against it because of his own number of siblings)."
Huh?
Few issues divide America like abortion. How then can Obama be putting the thoughts of the nation as a whole before his own?
I doubt it even occurs to most Americans that they should provide for abortions beyond their borders. Do people in your country routinely and casually offer the opinion that their taxes should fund abortions overseas? Does anybody in Japan?
It's great entertainment watching you try to go to bat for a president you couldn't vote for, on issues you don't even understand, and that have zero impact on your life.
All I really got from your muddled post is that you are apparently comfortable with the idea of Obama and his fellow eugenicists on the Left using US taxpayer money to fund the termination of lives somewhere in Africa, and among them one that could be that of the next Barack Obama.
0
smithinjapan
betzee: My apologies; I was mistaking your argument in favour of family planning for one strictly against abortion. In the case of countries like many in Africa, I believe family planning programs are crucial first and foremost ALONG WITH education about and availability to contraceptives, etc. I don't ever argue the case for abortion as a means of getting rid of an unwanted burden for people who simply are too lazy to go out and buy a few condoms then don't want to face the inevitable result; but I believe there are cases when people should have the right to choose, and have access to the means of getting it done the same as most other medical procedures, etc.
I say again, for the sake of those that argue that this is going to 'take their tax dollars', that the same money if not more is going to be spent on the folly of 'abstinence' programs that never work and deny what young adults or others are up to.
"Rather it's an issue of how it will be spent."
Agreed. It needs to be spent on far more than just the denial that money on abstinence buys many an adult, and family planning is a good start. But again, that is a supplement to having other options, and I don't believe that providing abortions in some cases is money spent on something bad (again, citing women who are raped and conceive in particular).
0
paisley
People are losing their houses, jobs, health care, higher educational hope for their children, etc. at humongous rates in America and one of the first things Obama does is stick Americans with a bill to fund other countries abortions and family planning some of which is questionable like "is coersion involved?". Also with 50% of Americans morally opposed to abortion it is not right to force them to pay for something they feel is morally wrong. Another thing he did was spend $150,000,000 tax dollars that had to be borrowed since it exceeded inauguration party funds. That money could have saved a lot of houses, or helped a lot of people who are out of jobs, fed a lot of hungry people, paid uninsured medical bills, sent a lot of kids to college, etc. I just wonder where his real priorities are after seeing how he`s spending money from day one.
0
YangYong
Paisley: You'd be stuck with a bill to provide food aid, medicines, schooling and more, so reason before you splurt. It's about women's health, limited resources and quality of life. look a little deeper, read up and stop the emotional knee JERK.
0
sailwind
It's about allowing taxpayer dollars to go to aid groups in foreign lands that promote and provide abortion.
I support a woman's right to choose. I do not believe I have the right to force a woman to have a child if she does not want one. However it does not mean just because I support it I like it because I don't. Abortion is a horrible thing and in a perfect world would never even be considered as an option. But the world isn't perfect it has its ugly side too and abortion for me falls squarely on the ugly side.
So having said that I do not support his decision on this. I don't think promoting abortion is something that I want my tax dollars to fund. There are plenty of organizations that promote womans health and contraception issues that do not promote and provide abortions as an option.
It boils down to this with me on this issue.
I support a womans right to choose but I certainly don't like the option much less promote it. My conscious bothers to much to go that far with it.
0
medievaltimes
These are great arguments...in a fantasy world.
This is a good move by Obama.
0
sensei258
Shouldn't "Family planning" start before having sex? Doesn't "planning" imply before?
0
sensei258
But, I guess for many, "Family planning" means "what do I do now that I have started one?
0
Alphaape
A few comments: It seems to me that based on my religious upbrining, God knew me before I was born. So, bottom line, if he knows me before I was born, would it not be the same for the souls that are aborted? Would not their suffering be healed by him? So the anti-abortion argument based on religion does not seem to compute to me.
Now having said that, I don't think that abortion should be used as a birth control method, but a personal decision by the woman.
The one thing about this that really appalls me, is that why am I a US taxpayer providing funding for some other nations birth control program. In that regards, I was with "W" on that, though not on the religious side. People are all ways saying that the US is sticking our noses in others business, I agree with that argument on this issue. If countries have issues with family planning and unwanted pregnancies, then they need to take care of it themselves. We have enough problems in America than being concerned with some other nations medical problems.
0
proxy
If you are an American taxpayer and upset about this because "your taxes" pay for something you are morally opposed to then why did "liberals" get stuck for paying for a war in Iraq that they were morally opposed to. Woman have been inducing abortions long before the time of Christ and I don't think he had any comment on it. There are numerous natural remedies that induce abortions that are well known. My great grandmother's generation that were getting pregnant during the roaring 20's knew all about ergot tea.
0
sharky1
Although I do not support abortion, I am forced to ask myself if it is more humanitarian to provide funding so the abortions (that would probably be done anyway) can be done in an environment that will protect the mother from possible medical complications. The psychological complications that follow are a whole different issue. This is really a tough one for me.
0
SezWho2
paisley,
I think it's actually the case that a majority of Americans favor abortion in some form.
However, I think you do have a certain point. The tyranny of the majority is every bit as much a tyranny as any other. Nonetheless, in the case of abortions, no one is forcing any person to act contrary to their moral beliefs.
0
yabits
Abortion can be said to be a type of sin. However, it is far greater evil to direct the power of state to enforce a narrow view of morality on others.
There are reasonable measures that can be taken to greatly decrease the number of abortions, such as contraception and interventions like the morning-after pill. Many of the hardcore, narrow-minded "moralists" are opposed to these, however.
Those who assert the line that "God knew me before I was born" should also consider how this comes to dangerous, romantic nonsense when taken in light of the fact that the VAST majority of fertilized eggs are either flushed from a woman's body without attaching to the uterine wall, or flushed after what the body considers an inadequate attachment. If life is sacred from the moment of conception, then these millions upon millions of rejections could well be argued as the moral equivalent of abortion, and what man does afterwards is a minor adjunct to very normal and natural process.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the hard core moralist might argue that each fertilized egg is constitutionally entitled to an attachment to a woman's uterus, and that science should be duty-bound to make that happen. That we hear no such argument reveals this issue for what it is: one group seeking to impose its control over another in the name of a phony morality.
0
realist
What a sad day for the United States of America. President Obama, who claims to be a born-again Christian, has given the green light for the murder of the unborn, so the 36 year old legalization of infanticide continues unabated. This is the greatest shame of American society. 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. Interesting that he signed this Order in secret - so much for "Change" and so much for "Openness" he is far worse than President Bush, who was a man of morals and character. Now Obama turns around and spits in the face of the God he professes to serve. No wonder America is in the state of moral and financial decay it is in today. I can only see things getting worse from now on.
0
Betzee
One in five children in Nigeria and Afghanistan, along with a host of other countries, die before their fifth birthday. Is that part of God's healing plan to which your refer Alphaape, implying that we should just accept it, or are mere mortals allowed to address the reasons this happens? Comprehensive family planning is only part of the remedy.
0
Betzee
Sex selective abortion is presumed common in both India and China. By one UNICEF estimate, 7,000 fewer girls are born in India each day than mother nature intended. Abortion for this reason is illegal in both countries and certainly not underwritten by outside parties. The solution, however, is not to ban abortion altogether in the two most populous countries in the world but to make female children more valued.
0
Badsey
I am True-Choice, but I would like to see the age increased to at least 21. = If your kid is a loser you can choose to have him/her aborted at any time.
This obviously solves many social issues and gives the parents more respect.
True Choice 21 --> Part of Obama change 2009 and HilliaryCare.
0
cleo
And the conservative refusal to fund international family planning groups greatly reduced access to contraception, and thus directly increased the number of abortions.
Betzee makes some very good points. 'God's healing plan' seems to allow for an unconscionable number of spontaneous miscarriages. When a woman seeks medical help to prevent an impeding miscarriage, is she going against 'God's healing plan'? Maybe we should just shut down all the gynaecological clinics and hospital departments, and let women give birth (or not, as God intends) in the fields, as God decreed before Man came up with all this arrogant, 'We know better' anti-Bible claptrap about mother-and-baby health? If Mary could produce a healthy baby on her own in a barn with no medical help, why can't the faithful do the same today? Do they think they're better than Her?
Any supporter of GWB who complains that Obama is going against God is gobsmackingly hypocritical. Or maybe just brain-witheringly unable to see the contradiction in what they are saying. Either way they're pretty scary.
0
sailwind
Ms. Cleo
If you want to an abortion it is your right. GWB has nothing to with your decision. Why did you bring politics into this?
It cheapens human life and it is petty, my opinion.
0
likeitis
Gee, after 8 years of the moralizers in office, one would think America would be riding high.
Some people you can slap with facts and reality and everything that is plain to see over and over again, yet they still refuse to see. If people want to be like that, I am good with it, so long as they sit down and shut up and let the people facing reality do their work. Now that the guard has changed, its a good chance to do just that.
0
sailwind
likeitis
You get a girl pregnant, she wants to have it, you don't. Abortion is legal, you get a free pass because abortion is legal you are a smooth talker and got her to kill the fetus.
Besides who wants child support payments?
0
cleo
sail,
The whole argument is political.
I and women like me in the first world have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit. Neither GWB nor BHO have anything to do with our decisions. The article is about funding international family planning groups, many of them in third world countries where women do not have the health rights I enjoy.
Telling women they can't have contraceptive advice, they can't have an abortion when the contraceptive advice they didn't get doesn't work, and they must continue pushing out babies no matter how big and impoverished their family - that is what cheapens human life, and goes way beyond petty.
0
bishamonten
“The policy had banned U.S. government money, usually as U.S. Agency for International Development outlays, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counselling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the “global gag rule,” because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.”
So, the US government wasn’t happy about spending the American people’s tax money on even abortion advice in third world countries. But it was alright to control populations in the third world by selling weapon to them & getting them to kill each other. Sometimes with a helping hand (missile, bomb or whatever) from the good old US of A? Strange set of moral values the Americans have.
0
30061015
Is it easier to kill or give life? How come federal funding for adoptions is never a part of the hallowed final solution that the culture of death wants to impose on the world? There are so many couples that cant have kids, or who have suffered the tragic death of a child, that would love to adopt a baby. Sure, using tax money to tear more unborn children limb from limb out of the womb and into the trash... what a great idea! As a culture, we murder and trash our children, and expect those saved from the holocaust to be healthy mentally and spiritually? The damning message to our children is: You too could have been slaughtered in the womb like a chunk of unwanted meat. No wonder teen suicide is so high.
0
TheQuestion
I'm going to ignore the issue most of you are talking about and ask the following: Where in deaths name is all this money comming from? It cant be from taxes, because U.S taxes haven't been able to cover social policies since the mid 90's. The only logical conclusion is that the U.S is borrowing money from other countries so that it can participate in the U.N abortion tea party. To be perfectly honest it makes no sense.
Its like a guy thats up to his eyeballs in debt buying a tuxedo so that he can go to his neighbors (who are also in paralyzing debt) party. Only the guy is the U.S, the tuxedo is world abortion (mostly in china), and his neighbors are the other flat broke countries around the world.
However, if you would like to skip the entire artical and every other word up to this point I can summerize.
The U.S is borrowing money (most likely from china) to pay for abortions and condoms in other countries (probably china) so that it can look nice and make people in favor of abortion happy (especially the people in China). And the score is: Western World 3, China 17, Third World Countries -5, TheQuestion 6. Stay tuned for the third quarter after this commecial break brought to you by Hasbro™.
0
Betzee
Unfortunately in too many countries which allow international adoption there are problems with baby selling (which leads to kidnapping of cute tykes). I've heard more than one story of a couple being unable to get a visa for their baby owing to concerns, from the US side, over whether the birth mother has really consented to the adoption. Often nobody can even find her...
0
Betzee
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.
0
Betzee
Most of us can muster some sympathy for the poor subsistence farmer somewhere in the world who will be forever in debt up to his eyeballs if he has to assemble a dowry for more than one daughter.
Yet in America's high tech capital the ethnic group which has the highest income also has a gender imbalance. There are fewer female children than had things been left to Mother Nature. Abortion is probably not the culprit; rather parents have availed themselves of PGD — preimplantation genetic diagnosis — a technique used to harvest fertilized embryos and identify their sex after a few cellular divisions in order to implant the desired gender. Now how do those who adhere to the "God Knew Me Before I Was Born" view feel about this?
To me, it reflects how deeply attitudes which favor male over female children are maintained even when there ceases to be any economic logic undergirding it.
0
Madverts
Heh, the flat-earthers must be in a frenzy.
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...
0
TheQuestion
Yeah, nice job brining up something that is totally irrelevant to the topic.
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.
0
Betzee
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.
0
Betzee
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.
0
IcingDeath
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.
0
Betzee
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.
0
Betzee
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.
0
Betzee
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).
0
Nessie
"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.
0
Madverts
the question,
Not so. The Vatican has savagely attacked Obama's decision.
0
IcingDeath
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.
0
IcingDeath
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.
0
AlfGarnett
LIve and let live as the old saying go. That'S my opinion like.
0
OhioDonna
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.
0
Blue_Tiger
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.....
0
JoiceRojo
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".
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.
Back to top