Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

[taltamir]

I am all FOR abortion (for other people, there is no soul so if they want to murder their children they can go ahead, no way I am murdering my children!)...

but taking tax money from the 49% of the population that is AGAINST it using THEIR MONEY to fund abortions IN OTHER COUNTRIES is a bit absurd...
And even people who are for abortion might not all be for taking their money and shipping it off seas to pay for abortions in other countries.

also the original article is more than a bit biased...

will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The terms are pro life and pro choice... Not "abortion rights foes".

Anyways this has NOTHING To do with abstinence training, its for counseling for women who are ALREADY PREGNANT about their options... Abortion is not birth control...
Yes, abstinence training is the most retarded thing ever, maybe if you gave people more fucking condoms they wouldn't have to have so many fucking abortions. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I am all FOR abortion (for other people, there is no soul so if they want to murder their children they can go ahead, no way I am murdering my children!)...

but taking tax money from the 49% of the population that is AGAINST it using THEIR MONEY to fund abortions IN OTHER COUNTRIES is a bit absurd...
And even people who are for abortion might not all be for taking their money and shipping it off seas to pay for abortions in other countries.

also the original article is more than a bit biased...

will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The terms are pro life and pro choice... Not "abortion rights foes".

Anyways this has NOTHING To do with abstinence training, its for counseling for women who are ALREADY PREGNANT about their options... Abortion is not birth control...
Yes, abstinence training is the most retarded thing ever, maybe if you gave people more fucking condoms they wouldn't have to have so many fucking abortions. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Why are the terms pro life and pro choice? Those are just terms made up by the various factions to make themselves look better. It's no better or worse than abortion rights opponents. (which is also an accurate term, in many ways more accurate than 'pro-life')

It's also not absurd to use tax money for purposes that people who paid into it oppose, in fact it happens on a massive scale on a daily basis. I oppose the war in Iraq, and far more of 'my money' has been spent in 'another country' in Iraq than will EVER be spent on abortion related foreign aid. Doesn't make it absurd, just makes it how taxation works. I'm against the war on drugs, same deal.

 

[taltamir]

Why are the terms pro life and pro choice? Those are just terms made up by the various factions to make themselves look better. It's no better or worse than abortion rights opponents. (which is also an accurate term, in many ways more accurate than 'pro-life')

A pro lifer would say that "baby murderer" is a more accurate term that pro choice or "proponent of abortion rights"... Those terms are neutral in that they don't take sides. This article clearly takes sides, not even trying to hide its bias.

I despise political correctness, but that is going too far the other direction.

It's also not absurd to use tax money for purposes that people who paid into it oppose, in fact it happens on a massive scale on a daily basis. I oppose the war in Iraq, and far more of 'my money' has been spent in 'another country' in Iraq than will EVER be spent on abortion related foreign aid. Doesn't make it absurd, just makes it how taxation works. I'm against the war on drugs, same deal.

The war on drugs is a pathetic joke, a travesty, and should be stopped. Oh, and it IS a colossal waste of money.

While the war in iraq is mishandled... it is: 1. not wrong on principle, it just should be handled better. 2. It is completely different issue than the war on drugs or abortions abroad... Actual war is a matter of national existence and security. Military matters are different than civil ones. But for civil ones you shouldn't be taxed to fund such pet projects... It was just as wrong as when republicans used tax money to fund abstinence training programs...

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The claim that lifting the gag rule will result in more abortions is not supported by the facts - when the gag rule was in force, abortions went up (as did the deaths of women from unsafe abortions) When Clinton rescinded it, abortions went down and went back up when Bush reinstated it. Talking about abortion DOES NOT cause more abortions! Lack of access to contraceptive services does cause more abortions. The concept is a simple one - contraception prevents abortion and anything that limits access to contraception actually causes more abortions to occur - particularly unsafe ones.

One other point: it is unbelievably hypocritical to say you promote democracy and then censor medical speech as a condition for funding.

Women of the world deserve better than these arbitrary and capricious funding swings every time there's a change in power in the U.S. We'll see these kinds of swings stop when Republicans stop using abortion as a wedge issue. Over the last 8 years they cut budgets for important projects (i.e. infrastructure) to pay for their pork projects, but all that gets ignored when it's election time because they start shouting about how their opponent wants government subsidized abortions for inner city crackheads, intern "the base" will fall over each other in order to be the first in line to vote Republican.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Why are the terms pro life and pro choice? Those are just terms made up by the various factions to make themselves look better. It's no better or worse than abortion rights opponents. (which is also an accurate term, in many ways more accurate than 'pro-life')

A pro lifer would say that "baby murderer" is a more accurate term that pro choice or "proponent of abortion rights"... Those terms are neutral in that they don't take sides. This article clearly takes sides, not even trying to hide its bias.

I despise political correctness, but that is going too far the other direction.

You missed the point. Pro-Choice and pro-abortion rights != pro-abortion. You can easily be for abortion rights but be personally against abortion.

As a side note, it's always nice to see people only give a shit about others dispositions in life only before they are born or after they have become some sort of vegetable. Anything in between, eh, who cares?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Why are the terms pro life and pro choice? Those are just terms made up by the various factions to make themselves look better. It's no better or worse than abortion rights opponents. (which is also an accurate term, in many ways more accurate than 'pro-life')

A pro lifer would say that "baby murderer" is a more accurate term that pro choice or "proponent of abortion rights"... Those terms are neutral in that they don't take sides. This article clearly takes sides, not even trying to hide its bias.

I despise political correctness, but that is going too far the other direction.

It's also not absurd to use tax money for purposes that people who paid into it oppose, in fact it happens on a massive scale on a daily basis. I oppose the war in Iraq, and far more of 'my money' has been spent in 'another country' in Iraq than will EVER be spent on abortion related foreign aid. Doesn't make it absurd, just makes it how taxation works. I'm against the war on drugs, same deal.

The war on drugs is a pathetic joke, a travesty, and should be stopped. Oh, and it IS a colossal waste of money.

While the war in iraq is mishandled... it is: 1. not wrong on principle, it just should be handled better. 2. It is completely different issue than the war on drugs or abortions abroad... Actual war is a matter of national existence and security. Military matters are different than civil ones. But for civil ones you shouldn't be taxed to fund such pet projects... It was just as wrong as when republicans used tax money to fund abstinence training programs...

I bet if you asked pro-choice groups if they thought the term 'pro-life' was neutral they would STRONGLY disagree with you. The term abortion rights opponents is frequently used, and it's used in respectable publications the world over.

Anyways about Iraq.

The war in Iraq being 'not wrong on principle' is very much your opinion, and huge... huge numbers of your fellow taxpayers would strongly disagree with you. I find it hard to reconcile your desire to stand up for the rights of the poor taxpayers who are having pennies of their money spent against their political desires in other countries for family planning, but ignoring hundreds, thousands of their dollars being spent on unnecessary invasions that they strenuously oppose.

 

[taltamir]

I already explained that.. war is different issue.
This is wrong going BOTH ways, taking the money of liberals and using it to fund programs that hush people about abortion is equally wrong.
Set up private donations from both camps for different support groups and let them both offer aid their own way, voluntarily... "forced donation" is bull.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Kill more babies...change we can believe in...sweet!:disgust:

A few cells are not a baby.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I already explained that.. war is different issue.
This is wrong going BOTH ways, taking the money of liberals and using it to fund programs that hush people about abortion is equally wrong.
Set up private donations from both camps for different support groups and let them both offer aid their own way, voluntarily... "forced donation" is bull.

Well I simply don't accept your premise that some governmental expenditures such as war are immune from having to be justified. End of story. Then again, I think your entire premise that it's wrong to spend tax money on programs that minorities of the electorate disagree with and cannot/choose not to correct with the legislative process is so flawed that it's not really worth debating anyway. Implementing it would cause our country to cease functioning.

I'm not going to get into an Iraq debate with you, but saying that the national existence and security of the United States required the elective invasion of Iraq is laughable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Kill more babies...change we can believe in...sweet!:disgust:

A few cells are not a baby.

Unfortunately it would appear that one area where change has not taken root is that Doc Savage is still saying dumb things, regardless of the administration.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

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.

You're full of shit, as usual. Prove those figures you just spewed and I might change my mind. Betcha you can't though...

No, you don't deserve to see them. You'd ignore them even if I showed them to your type, just like usual.

This is as much of a religion to your type as you claim it is to us (as if there were no grander consequences, which we see and are concerned about shielding this country from, to a society in which human life has no value).

LOL! That is the most retarded reply I have ever seen on AT . Seriously.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Yes, abstinence training is the most retarded thing ever, maybe if you gave people more fucking condoms they wouldn't have to have so many fucking abortions. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes it is. The people who promote abstinence are the same people who say it's a sin to use contraception, especially condoms, so not only do they encourage many thousands of unwanted pregnencies, but they are also responsible for many of the millions of AIDS deaths in Africa every year.

 

[taltamir]

Well I simply don't accept your premise that some governmental expenditures such as war are immune from having to be justified. End of story.

They are not immune from justification; the government HAS To answer for that...
But it is perfectly acceptable for the government to spend the money taken from both supporters and propoenents of a war on said war.
It is not acceptable for the government to spend people's money on "charity" that they do not support.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Kill more babies...change we can believe in...sweet!:disgust:

A few cells are not a baby.

that is one of the most obscure things about this issue...
As a biologist and an atheist I have to say that a few cells are the same organism as the full grown adult. Just not sentient yet, but neither is a NEWBORN BABY!

From a religious standpoint, how could a loving god who is omniscient POSSIBLE choose to put a soul into a fetus that will be still born or aborted? it is a travesty and one of the things I don't understand about religion. (remember, I am an atheist)...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: taltamir
Yes, abstinence training is the most retarded thing ever, maybe if you gave people more fucking condoms they wouldn't have to have so many fucking abortions. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes it is. The people who promote abstinence are the same people who say it's a sin to use contraception, especially condoms, so not only do they encourage many thousands of unwanted pregnencies, but they are also responsible for many of the millions of AIDS deaths in Africa every year.

did I not respond to this? well if i am double posting sorry but it isn't showing up... anyways...

This is a logical fallacy.
Does Hitler taking a stance against animal abuse make it Nazism?
just because an idiot believes something for the wrong reason doesn't make that thing wrong. (doesn't make it right either, weather it is right or wrong is a debate unto itself that should focus on the thing in question, not on who is saying it)

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: taltamir
But it is perfectly acceptable for the government to spend the money taken from both supporters and propoenents of a war on said war.
It is not acceptable for the government to spend people's money on "charity" that they do not support.

WTF why? It's OK to spend other people's money on killing people but not helping them? That doesn't make any sense at all...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: taltamir
Yes, abstinence training is the most retarded thing ever, maybe if you gave people more fucking condoms they wouldn't have to have so many fucking abortions. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes it is. The people who promote abstinence are the same people who say it's a sin to use contraception, especially condoms, so not only do they encourage many thousands of unwanted pregnencies, but they are also responsible for many of the millions of AIDS deaths in Africa every year.

did I not respond to this? well if i am double posting sorry but it isn't showing up... anyways...

This is a logical fallacy.
Does Hitler taking a stance against animal abuse make it Nazism?

I don't think that's an analagous arguement - there's clearly no connection between Nazi philiosophy and animal abuse. There is a clear connection between Christianity, abstinence, and anti-contraceptive preaching.

just because an idiot believes something for the wrong reason doesn't make that thing wrong. (doesn't make it right either, weather it is right or wrong is a debate unto itself that should focus on the thing in question, not on who is saying it)

No of course not - it's wrong becasue it's wrong - but those people still need to be stopped.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: taltamir
But it is perfectly acceptable for the government to spend the money taken from both supporters and propoenents of a war on said war.
It is not acceptable for the government to spend people's money on "charity" that they do not support.

WTF why? It's OK to spend other people's money on killing people but not helping them? That doesn't make any sense at all...

ah, the appeal to emotion. Sounds ludicrous when phrased just right... But the reason it is wrong is because people should CHOSE what form their aid to others take.

And because war is not about killing other people (that you would have helped), its about killing people in the name of preserving your country.

No of course not - it's wrong becasue it's wrong - but those people still need to be stopped

Than give me actual reasons why this issue is wrong... don't tell me its the "evil Christians" as if that is reason enough. Those "evil Christians" do a lot of charity work and good deeds too.

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: 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.

To my bold, underlined statement:

Though birth control (besides barrier methods) often causes what could rightly be called abortion, these other methods (pulling out, etc) DO NOT. A sperm is not human, an egg is not human, only the union of the two is human. Thus, anything done before the egg is fertilized can't be termed the same as abortion, nor be discussed properly in the same dicussion...

 

[taltamir]

correct... well a sperm is part of a human.. YOU. you kill your own cells when scratching your skin though just as well... and smoking? kills a bunch of your cells... so does drinking and eating unhealthy... lets not forget getting exposed to pathogens, and so on.
killing some of your own cells is not murder, so pulling out is not murder. its also not a real contraceptive, pulling out does not prevent pregnancy.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: taltamir
But it is perfectly acceptable for the government to spend the money taken from both supporters and propoenents of a war on said war.
It is not acceptable for the government to spend people's money on "charity" that they do not support.

WTF why? It's OK to spend other people's money on killing people but not helping them? That doesn't make any sense at all...

ah, the appeal to emotion. Sounds ludicrous when phrased just right... But the reason it is wrong is because people should CHOSE what form their aid to others take.

But they shouldn't CHOOSE who their money is used to kill? Sorry I still don't get the difference.

And because war is not about killing other people (that you would have helped), its about killing people in the name of preserving your country.

LOL.

No of course not - it's wrong becasue it's wrong - but those people still need to be stopped

Than give me actual reasons why this issue is wrong... don't tell me its the "evil Christians" as if that is reason enough. Those "evil Christians" do a lot of charity work and good deeds too.

1 - There is no way you can stop people having sex.
2 - Christians are taught to fear Hell above all else.
3 - The Christian church (especially in Africa) gives people a choice of three things - not having sex, having sex without a condom, or going to Hell for eternity.
4 - Having sex without a condom spreads STDs inclusing AIDS and (obviously) causes pregnencies.

Therefore the Christian church gives only one real option to it's followers - to have have sex without a condom. (from #1, #2, #3)

This is wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Well I simply don't accept your premise that some governmental expenditures such as war are immune from having to be justified. End of story.

They are not immune from justification; the government HAS To answer for that...
But it is perfectly acceptable for the government to spend the money taken from both supporters and propoenents of a war on said war.
It is not acceptable for the government to spend people's money on "charity" that they do not support.

First, I would imagine you meant 'supporters and opponents' instead of 'proponents'. Why is it suddenly acceptable for government to take money from people to start wars with, but not to take money to do other things with? This is simply baffling.

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: Atheus
2 - Christians are taught to fear Hell above all else.

I find it so hilarious when people say this. True Christians live thier lives in love and fulfillment of what they deem to be god's plan for creation. This is not done out of fear, but rather love. I don't do good deeds because I fear eternity in hell, I do good deeds because I want to glorify God and show my love for him and others around me...

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

 

[taltamir]

1 - There is no way you can stop people having sex.
2 - Christians are taught to fear Hell above all else.
3 - The Christian church (especially in Africa) gives people a choice of three things - not having sex, having sex without a condom, or going to Hell for eternity.
4 - Having sex without a condom spreads STDs inclusing AIDS and (obviously) causes pregnencies.

Therefore the Christian church gives only one real option to it's followers - to have have sex without a condom. (from #1, #2, #3)

This is wrong.

Yes it is, and it is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

 

[moparacer]

"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. "

Agency for International Development.....But giving money to other contries to abort babies???

developement?=abortions?


Cha Cha Cha Change people..........

Let Billary oversee how the funds are used oversea's....Yep thats change alright.......

SHEEPLE.....