You asked...Third world nations are what they are in large part to lack of birth control, lack of abortion rights and generalized ignorance about sex.
It's not hard to comprehend; what I said is not mutually exclusive with what you claim, it's just the other side of the same coin. For someone like me who has not been indoctrinated, no god is required do good deeds. If I do them I do them because I genuinely care about other people, not because I want to glorify some fantastic creature in the sky, nor because I fear a fire breathing daemon below. To me, both seem equally insane.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
Oh comon, lots of Christians become Christians because they are raised young to fear hell. I remember when I grew up I was terrified of going to hell and would go to church every Sunday, pray extra hard, blah blah blah.
Then I reached the age of reason.
As children grow up indoctrinated to this belief, they believe everything that is told to them in sunday school, without ever having had a choice of whether they wanted to be a christian in the first place, kind of like the children in 1984.
There is no reason why Christianity is key to helping others, hell, technically atheists have a better motive to give as they give with only the knowledge that they are helping others from their good deeds, as opposed to religion, where some motive is at the very least to do good things in the name of their "god"
Most religious aid is done by going, giving food, and bible study. Yes. They hand out bibles with the food and indoctrinate people into believing in a marklar. This to me is unacceptable. Doing good deeds doesn't mean trying to spread your ideology as a trojan horse.
The Vatican has issued a statement that they strongly oppose the move, and condemn anyone supporting the killing of innocents, unless the ones killed are Jews.
The US Supreme Court ruled that tax dollars could not be used to pay for abortions within the US. So why is it acceptable to use tax dollars to pay for abortions outside the US?
They ruled that the law (Hyde Amendment) denying medicaid funds for abortions was constitutional. No such statute exists wrt comprehensive birth control funding outside the US...
If congress and the executive were to supercede that law, such action would also be constitutional...
Tell that to all of the 'fire and brimstone' christians who gloat about being 'saved' while condemning non-believers to an eternity in hell.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Aside from tenshodo13's comment, I personally think you're being sentimental. There is no person or personality. There may be if there is no interference, but the same argument could me made against birth control -- you're preventing a person with a unique personality from coming into existence.
At any rate, it's a subjective judgment, asserting that a unique macromolecule or "a person that could be" has moral rights, so it doesn't make sense to force everyone to agree with you. (Though of course all moral judgments are necessarily subjective, so you got me there...)
No matter what one thinks about abortion, it does not seem taht it is wise to put US money toward this given the state of the economy at this point. Strange move.
Then you should argue against foreign aid, not this policy. This is not about putting extra money out to fund abortions, this is about removing restrictions on the money we already send out.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
They're not paying for the medical procedure. The ban that got lifted banned any money from going to an organization that performed or even discussed the option of abortion. The money that can go to those organizations is normally used for education to actually prevent abortions from even being necessary. But they're allowed to mention the option. Abortion doctors and councilors don't push abortion as the miracle solution. Most people would prefer that abortions don't need to occur, but without proper funding and education the number of abortions increase. JPeyton proved with his link to the CDC data that indeed abstinence only education FAILED! Anyone who isn't clouded by their narrow-minded view on sex education can see that this reversal was the right move.
Okay, fine. I disagree, but that's your business. My point was that people seem to be misunderstanding the point of this rule change.
Misunderstanding or ignoring. Either way, it's been repeated 10x in this thread so I'm not going to bother repeating it.
A small child has the following costs:
1. Diapers
2. Formula, baby food, snacks
3. Day care, preschool
All three are expensive enough for a married couple, let alone a single mother who doesn't have an education and other support. I'm fortunate enough that my wife stays home with our 2 and was able to breastfeed, but the costs are creeping up now that the oldest is in preschool.
You are seriously underestimating the cost situation for a small child.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter