It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump reinstates ban on US funds promoting abortion overseas

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
Good. Seems like a waste of cash to me. What a strange thing for America to have funded.


Heaven forbid we have a healthy world, healthy moms, healthy living children, but fewer of them.




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka



What a strange thing for America to have funded.


What aspect of previous US funding do you find strange, exactly.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

They're having an even bigger problem now as many young Chinese women are choosing career over marriage. And in China if you split up, the man's family gets the kids. And they do not have to let the mom see them.



As screwed up as they are I can see a point where they decide to cull the male population from the heard by 500 million in a war of some kind for a win win...

Least we forget the greatest mass death event in human history was the Chinese when they entered their industrial age with around 150 million or more dying in the process for the good of the whole....



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's not America's responsibility to ensure a "healthy" world. The government should look out for it's own people.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
I dont think we should pay for abortions for non-citizens. We arent the parent or god parents to the world, or even the world police. This can be easily paid for privately with organizations via bleeding heart donaters.



Exactly. If every woman that marched and protested against Trump threw a $20 in a pot each month, they could have around $480,000,000 a year for whatever they want to use it for. The majority of that amount can be found in the combined bank accounts of two of the disgusting, nasty bitches that spoke at the march. If they care as much as they claim to do, they wouldn't have a problem doing this.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seasonal

Your tax dollars will still, as usual, provide abortion provisions in the cases of rape, incest and a woman's health. Your tax dollar never did pay for abortions on demand. The only difference with this bill is now the US won't fund any services at all to clinics that provide full scale women's reproductive counsel or services. No birth control, pap smears, breast exams, pre-natal exams. Clinics will close and women and their families will pay the price. Some, with their lives.


ETA: You can expect a lot more women crying "rape" and "incest".



The funding will only be cut off if they're offering or promoting abortions.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seasonal

Your tax dollars will still, as usual, provide abortion provisions in the cases of rape, incest and a woman's health. Your tax dollar never did pay for abortions on demand. The only difference with this bill is now the US won't fund any services at all to clinics that provide full scale women's reproductive counsel or services. No birth control, pap smears, breast exams, pre-natal exams. Clinics will close and women and their families will pay the price. Some, with their lives.


ETA: You can expect a lot more women crying "rape" and "incest".



Why do we do this in Mexico for example?

I thought they had wonderful health care that should be light years better than ours. After all, they have socialized health care, so it all should be free, including all that women's care.

Nope, not our place to pay for other country's health care, and why specifically just women's? If you are worried about cancer, shouldn't we pay for prostae exams too? Why are you so discriminatory? Why do you hate men?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Tardacus

If their own countries could provide for their people, we wouldn't be there.





Whose fault is that?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328


So I take you are for forced extermination of the poor and oppressed


NO, I am for keeping even more people from being subjected to suffering and death, which is what you have in much of the third world today due to overpopulation.

And also keeping our country from completely becoming a third-world hellhole.

If Trump really wants to help the third world he can stop bombing and invading them.


Lemme know when you catch the irony of that one.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword either way, we have our own kids and poor people to help, what about them. We have starving broke people in THIS country, in debt and some idiots think its ok to send money to other countries for abortion..............



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts

First of all, it's abhorrent for a bunch of self righteous male politicians, pandering to the religious right,



I couldn't read any further after the level of partisan detected before your first sentence even ended. WOWZERS! Then you'll turn right around and call Trump supporting women names because they support Trump.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: CB328
Great, now we will have even more poor people in the world, which probably cause more starvation, war and terrorism, not to mention wiping out even more animal species and exacerbating climate change.


So I take you are for forced extermination of the poor and oppressed. Simply, because abortion often is not a choice that they want, but are forced due to current circumstance. Wouldn't be better to assist them in finding a more successful path in life rather than tell them the only way they can be empowered his to kill their children?


Would you be comfortable telling that to a 10 weeks pregnant Syrian refugee women with 4 kids and no husband in sight?

Yes, I would. I also would connect them up with a variety of charities that can assist and counsel her on how to rise above this current challenge.


Better than me... I'd turn her around and send her back home.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Ohanka
Good. Seems like a waste of cash to me. What a strange thing for America to have funded.


Heaven forbid we have a healthy world, healthy moms, healthy living children, but fewer of them.


America first, Annee... Then maybe we can start babysitting everyone else again.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Paying for abortions world wide.
edit on 24-1-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Ohanka
Good. Seems like a waste of cash to me. What a strange thing for America to have funded.


Heaven forbid we have a healthy world, healthy moms, healthy living children, but fewer of them.


America first, Annee... Then maybe we can start babysitting everyone else again.


There are something like 50,000 homeless veterans in the US (bigger than the entire army of many countries by the way).
It's a real indictment of any President who lets tax payer funds be diverted to paying for abortions (especially abroad) whilst veterans continue to suffer.
edit on 24/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Left overs from war. Obama gave lip service that he was going to fix the VA. As with many things, if it's hard he will kick the can down the road.

THe kiddies are out of the WH, and the adults are there now. Let's see if Trump can cash the check his mouth wrote for the last year.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seasonal

Your tax dollars will still, as usual, provide abortion provisions in the cases of rape, incest and a woman's health. Your tax dollar never did pay for abortions on demand. The only difference with this bill is now the US won't fund any services at all to clinics that provide full scale women's reproductive counsel or services. No birth control, pap smears, breast exams, pre-natal exams. Clinics will close and women and their families will pay the price. Some, with their lives.


ETA: You can expect a lot more women crying "rape" and "incest".



Why do we do this in Mexico for example?

I thought they had wonderful health care that should be light years better than ours. After all, they have socialized health care, so it all should be free, including all that women's care.

Nope, not our place to pay for other country's health care, and why specifically just women's? If you are worried about cancer, shouldn't we pay for prostae exams too? Why are you so discriminatory? Why do you hate men?


Sigh, the deflection dance again! Trump hasn't stopped or restricted US medical funding to men. The World Health Organization address men's issues, including prostrate cancer. This rule only affects women.

edit on 24-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408



The funding will only be cut off if they're offering or promoting abortions.


Thanks, Capt. Obvious!



Whose fault is that?


I didn't know charity is based on blame and fault.



. WOWZERS! Then you'll turn right around and call Trump supporting women names because they support Trump.


I don't think I did that, and I certainly didn't do it the post you answered.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: windword

Paying for abortions world wide.


When did the US ever pay for abortions world wide? This new "Gag Rule" doesn't stop the US from paying for abortions (on demand) world wide, because the US never did.

So, I'll ask the question again, even though it wasn't directed at you;
What aspect of previous US funding do you find strange, exactly.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join