Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be preventing a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

Fixed

I agree but it should cost a fortune, figure an abortion should run individuals about $550,000 and it shouldn't be covered by insurance unless in the case of rape or incest....now that would make alot of people think twice.

Or people would get back alley ones, like they did when it was outlawed. Not a difficult concept to understand here.

Originally posted by: bamacre
I'd like to see everyone cut off, every single country.

Ever thought why no one elects lolbertarians? This is why.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: budafied
I think people are missing the point that pregnancy is 100% avoidable. It's no secret as to how women become pregnant. Even without abstinence (which I support, but whatever), women have a myriad of contraceptive methods available to them (given freely in many places). Thus, the need for abortion is non-existent, given the existence of choice and contraception. If women would either 1) keep their legs closed, or 2) have safe sex, then we would not have the need for abortion.

But women are not the only ones to blame. Men should be more responsible. If men would keep it in their pants, then they would not have to deal with these problems.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to cover the ass of those who make poor choices?

Obviously, my argument does not apply to rape victims, I do indeed have a soul after all...

Since when is it the governments repsonsibility to make choices for others based on a groups moral beliefs?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Since when is it the governments repsonsibility to make choices for others based on a groups moral beliefs?

Lol. Do you really think that your beliefs do not stem from your own moral code? EVERYONE makes decisions based of what they think is right or wrong. You're moral code is that abortion /= murder, so by saying the government should fund abortion overseas you are in fact asking the government to take responsibility for YOUR moral code. That is no different from those who believe that life is sacred and people should try being accountable for their choices rather then let the kid take the fall.

Both groups are asking the government to make decisions based on their own belief system. It works both ways.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

Haha you're joking right? Because after educating them about sex teenage pregnancies dropped. Syke! They exploded 80% in the next 2 years. Same happened in Great Brittain with their sex ed.

Sex ed was a failure and it's time the liberals admit the parents were right all along. Like usual.

sauce?

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: budafied
I think people are missing the point that pregnancy is 100% avoidable. It's no secret as to how women become pregnant. Even without abstinence (which I support, but whatever), women have a myriad of contraceptive methods available to them (given freely in many places). Thus, the need for abortion is non-existent, given the existence of choice and contraception. If women would either 1) keep their legs closed, or 2) have safe sex, then we would not have the need for abortion.

But women are not the only ones to blame. Men should be more responsible. If men would keep it in their pants, then they would not have to deal with these problems.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to cover the ass of those who make poor choices?

Obviously, my argument does not apply to rape victims, I do indeed have a soul after all...

Since when is it the governments repsonsibility to make choices for others based on a groups moral beliefs?

When dealing with issues as sensitive as abortion, I think the government needs to err on the side of caution. I think at the very least, people can admit that the embryo existing at conception could be human. To say that it is 100% fact that it is NOT human is to be dishonest, given scientific evidence that a unique human DNA exists at the very moment of conception.

Why should the government regulate laws that assume a non-human embryo when there is evidence to the contrary? At the very least, the fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt, and have its right to life secured.

Although this is not a direct parallel, I can't help but see a connection between abortion and slavery. In both cases, the Supreme Court (and the govenrment/people in general) deemed one segment of humanity undeserving of human rights.

In a day when 90% of pre-natally diagnosed down syndrome babies are aborted, how long until we deem various other human beings unworthy of life?


And please stop saying this is a religious right thing, it clearly has bases in science and is about basic human rights. Viewing the fetus as a human is no more a religious belief than a scientific one. Look it up...

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe he could do something useful like cutting off funding for pissing into a cup, putting a cross in it, and calling it art - All funded with public money. Then I'll look the other way on this one.

Pres. Obama will issue executive orders to restore funding to family planning organizations that provide information about or assist in abortions, restoring funding that was banned by Pres. Bush, depriving NGOs across the developing world of millions of dollars in needed aid? Obama will also act to enable government funding of research that relates to the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from human embryos, another area of funding banned by Pres. Bush.


About time... Damn bush I hope he gets some sort of illness that could of been cured with stem cell research and he dies a really SLOW painful death just before they discover a cure.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Farang

A virus does not need to become airborne to cause a pandemic and spread across imaginary lines on a map. That really is irrelevant. Obviously we have plenty of AIDS in this country so it is capable of making its way across oceans. Anyway your railing against foreign aid in general which is fine but let's not pretend it isn't supported by both parties and has been for decades.

My point is this pandemic is not a national security risk because would require a large % of our population to suddenly engage in unprotected sex or share infected needles. Our AIDS rates are very low in this country. Even if Africa swelled to 100% infected our rates wont change without a major change in practices of people within this country. Either way Africa or any other geographical location with regards to this pandemic has zero bearing on our AIDS rates.

I'll take the CIA's view on the matter (AID's is a political threat to the stability of African nations according to the CIA) over yours any day. They provide a clear and honest view on the direct issues that stem from allowing a massive AID's pandemic in Africa to go unchecked. Where as your view is based mostly on your knee jerk reactions to the word "Abortion" or "Sexual Education".


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F932A35753C1A9649C8B63

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2...jun2000/aids-j21.shtml

 

[WHAMPOM]

This would not be a question if human females could reabsorb the fetus like certain animals with a more highly evolved reproductive system do.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Both valid arguments.

I personally have the belief that, no matter what the case is, I shouldn't have the ability to control what someone I've never met does with her body. It isn't my business. So no matter what my personal beliefs are, if Jane Doe on the other side of the country wants to get an abortion, who am I to stop her? What right do I have?

But I don't like three things:

One, I don't like how this issue has become such a debate, that people no longer treat abortion as something serious. Some people treat it like its no big deal. To me, I like Clinton's words: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It should be used and treated like a last resort. People (not saying everyone, but many) take advantage of the fact that the option exists.

Two, I don't know how I feel about using federal funds to fund the procedures. I do like the recent "Juno Bill", which will give tax credits to those individuals who decide to keep a baby and put it up for adoption. After all, abortions are tax deductible, so why not provide the same benefit to those who choose to keep a pregnancy and put it up for adoption?

Three, I don't like how faithful men in a solid relationship get no real influence in the decision of their child. If a girl wants to keep the baby, but the guy doesn't, he has no choice: he pays child support. He has no way out. However, if the guy wants to keep the baby, and the girl doesn't, he has no say. Granted, the girl has to carry the baby for 9 months, but in this sort of situation (if he isn't a jerk), the guy is right there next to her supporting her, working to provide, etc. I'm not quite sure how to explain it, but some people have mentioned the possibility of "paper abortions" for guys. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I do think it sucks when guys want to keep the child and the girl doesn't.

I'm pro-choice, don't get me wrong. Mostly because of my fundamental beliefs that I can't tell other people what to do with their bodies. I don't like the idea of abortion - I think they should be (like Clinton says) safe, legal, and rare. I'd much rather focus on reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies and going back in time a bit when sex with someone was a bit bigger of a deal and people took better precautions.

My .02

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

This is not a ban on abortion, we just don't pay for it.

For Christ's sake-- our money is ALREADY GOING to faith-based abstinence-only shit thanks to George W Bush. YOU ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE FOR THIS MOVE BY OBAMA.

Should the government pay for a personal procedure, that most Americans don't support and a good chunk find morally the equivalent of murder?

AS opposed to having the unwanted baby, growing up either in a state funded orphanage, or foster homes (also state funded), or even raised badly by the natural parents that didnt want it, possible welfare, and prison housing when the unwanted child grows up without a chance to be normal. ??? Throw on top of that the lives this screwed up unwanted child might ruin in its screwed up life. I'll take abortion any day.

But we arent going to solve this here... Liberals are for the most part pro choice, and conservatives are mostly pro life. There are more liberals than consevatives in this country, and there are more pro choicers than pro lifers. Deal with it.

You are changing the subject. This isn't an issue about supporting a woman's right to choose, but wither our government should finance such procedure.

Lets clarify: most people in the United States and on this board don't like abortion or think its bad, BUT still feel its a woman's choice and should not illegal.

If the majority in this country think abortion is wrong (but is left as a personal choice) why should we pay for it?

Pre-judging people before they had a chance, is a pretty sick practice. I know several people, some in my family, who are adopted. They were not wanted, and given your type of attitude would not be alive.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be preventing a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

Fixed

But that is not what the topic it is. Should the government pay for such a procedure?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be paying for a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

IIRC, the "global gag order" wasn't about restricting funds to pay for medical procedures, it was much broader. The gag order was on INFORMATION being disseminated as well. Information about birth control (which overall helps w/ poverty as well as overpopulation), condoms, sexual health/hygiene, etc. as well as abortion. There should be no restriction placed on information, imho. Funding for procedures and/or devices can be up for debate though.

That is fine I'm not opposed to making information available, but i am opposed to our government sending to money to groups who will use that money to pay for abortions.

 

[DukeN]

Did you actually read the article? The ban also applied on agencies that provided information only about abortions.
Women in danger (or victims of sexual abuse) should have a right to information and education, and the agencies that provide information should get some funding.

Does every American rightwinger just complain about everything a non-neocon does, or do any of them actually read and think on their own?

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._wh/obama_abortion_ban

"WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

Also known as the "Mexico City policy," it has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

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.

Obama was expected to sign the executive order at a low-key event, one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

The move was not a surprise as both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the gag rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton is to visit the U.S. Agency for International Development, through which much U.S. foreign aid is disbursed, later on Friday.

Obama has spent his first days in office systematically signing executive orders reversing Bush administration policies on issues ranging from foreign policy to government operations. But, save for ending the ban, Obama has largely refrained from wading into ideological issues, perhaps to avoid being tagged a traditional partisan from the outset after his campaign promises to change "business as usual" in the often partisan-gridlocked capital.

Rather, Obama has chosen to focus initially on issues in which there is consensus across the political spectrum and support from the public, such as closing the prison camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to making government documents more accessible.

Organizations that had pressed Obama to make the abortion-ban change were jubilant.

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions 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," said Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International, an advocacy group. "

More tax money going out the door. :thumbsdown:

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be paying for a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

IIRC, the "global gag order" wasn't about restricting funds to pay for medical procedures, it was much broader. The gag order was on INFORMATION being disseminated as well. Information about birth control (which overall helps w/ poverty as well as overpopulation), condoms, sexual health/hygiene, etc. as well as abortion. There should be no restriction placed on information, imho. Funding for procedures and/or devices can be up for debate though.

That is fine I'm not opposed to making information available, but i am opposed to our government sending to money to groups who will use that money to pay for abortions.

It's not like there are many organizations that only perform abortions (I don't know of any), so it's not really possible to fund certain aspects of their organization (like abortion information) and not others.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Mainly because the idea that there is something wrong with killing a mass of cells that modern science believes is not sentient doesn't make a lot of sense unless you believe in a soul or something of that sort. EDIT: And obviously there are some later term abortions, but the vast majority are early. I'm all for restrictions on abortions, but not on banning it outright.

 

[theflyingpig]

I fully support the slaughter of unborn children. All I ask is that it be made into a reality TV show.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Mainly because the idea that there is something wrong with killing a mass of cells that modern science believes is not sentient doesn't make a lot of sense unless you believe in a soul or something of that sort. EDIT: And obviously there are some later term abortions, but the vast majority are early. I'm all for restrictions on abortions, but not on banning it outright.

I don't consider myself very religious at all, but I believe that a life begins at conception. The DNA is unique. The personality is decided. it's a living thing.

I'm not against abortion, but I definitely believe that life begins at conception, and I'm not that religious...

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I don't consider myself very religious at all, but I believe that a life begins at conception. The DNA is unique. The personality is decided. it's a living thing.

I'm not against abortion, but I definitely believe that life begins at conception, and I'm not that religious...

Twins, triplets, etc.?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Mainly because the idea that there is something wrong with killing a mass of cells that modern science believes is not sentient doesn't make a lot of sense unless you believe in a soul or something of that sort. EDIT: And obviously there are some later term abortions, but the vast majority are early. I'm all for restrictions on abortions, but not on banning it outright.

I don't consider myself very religious at all, but I believe that a life begins at conception. The DNA is unique. The personality is decided. it's a living thing.

I'm not against abortion, but I definitely believe that life begins at conception, and I'm not that religious...

You do realize like WELL over 50% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of a woman's body naturally right? Are all women who have periods serial killers?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

You do realize like WELL over 50% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of a woman's body naturally right? Are all women who have periods serial killers?

Well I don't want to go into too many details here in case there are younger readers, but conception generally can't happen with just the egg.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: budafied


When dealing with issues as sensitive as abortion, I think the government needs to err on the side of caution.

How about they err on the side of the majority of people that don't have a problem per se with abortion, but are opposed to using federal funds to support and promote it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Since when is it the governments repsonsibility to make choices for others based on a groups moral beliefs?

Lol. Do you really think that your beliefs do not stem from your own moral code? EVERYONE makes decisions based of what they think is right or wrong. You're moral code is that abortion /= murder, so by saying the government should fund abortion overseas you are in fact asking the government to take responsibility for YOUR moral code. That is no different from those who believe that life is sacred and people should try being accountable for their choices rather then let the kid take the fall.

Both groups are asking the government to make decisions based on their own belief system. It works both ways.

Absolutely, you have recieved my point that a choice either way should not be made by the government.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: budafied

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: budafied
I think people are missing the point that pregnancy is 100% avoidable. It's no secret as to how women become pregnant. Even without abstinence (which I support, but whatever), women have a myriad of contraceptive methods available to them (given freely in many places). Thus, the need for abortion is non-existent, given the existence of choice and contraception. If women would either 1) keep their legs closed, or 2) have safe sex, then we would not have the need for abortion.

But women are not the only ones to blame. Men should be more responsible. If men would keep it in their pants, then they would not have to deal with these problems.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to cover the ass of those who make poor choices?

Obviously, my argument does not apply to rape victims, I do indeed have a soul after all...

Since when is it the governments repsonsibility to make choices for others based on a groups moral beliefs?

When dealing with issues as sensitive as abortion, I think the government needs to err on the side of caution. I think at the very least, people can admit that the embryo existing at conception could be human. To say that it is 100% fact that it is NOT human is to be dishonest, given scientific evidence that a unique human DNA exists at the very moment of conception.

Why should the government regulate laws that assume a non-human embryo when there is evidence to the contrary? At the very least, the fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt, and have its right to life secured.

Although this is not a direct parallel, I can't help but see a connection between abortion and slavery. In both cases, the Supreme Court (and the govenrment/people in general) deemed one segment of humanity undeserving of human rights.

In a day when 90% of pre-natally diagnosed down syndrome babies are aborted, how long until we deem various other human beings unworthy of life?


And please stop saying this is a religious right thing, it clearly has bases in science and is about basic human rights. Viewing the fetus as a human is no more a religious belief than a scientific one. Look it up...

I view fetuses as humans. It's a chicken before the egg argument. You could argue that birth control is murder. Pulling out is murder. Thinking about having sex because you have feelings for someone and abstaining because you dont want a child is murder...

It's a "thinking with your heart" or "thinking with your head" decision.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

You do realize like WELL over 50% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of a woman's body naturally right? Are all women who have periods serial killers?

Well I don't want to go into too many details here in case there are younger readers, but conception generally can't happen with just the egg.

Hence the word fertilized in his post.

He is referring to miscarriages.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:thumbsup:

So war is bad, but killing unborn babies is good??

So killing "unborn" babies is bad, but killing living childrens is good?