Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


still doesn't give you or anyone the right to demand that a women sacrifice it all by giving birth to a baby that she might never see...
ya, I'll admit, many abortions, probably most, are done mainly for convenience. I also know that while I was carrying my third son, it was very, very difficult to walk....and I had two sons that you might as well say was my sole responsibility to care for! for others, well, the effects can be even more extreme, they might find it rather hard to LIVE!!
For those women who just might die if they are to attempt to bring this child into the world, for those women, who might permanantly lose their sight, or suffer some other kind of handicap, this ban actually takes the option off the table for the only health advisor that they may have, to suggest, hey, ya know, you might want to consider an abortion here...since if you try to carry this baby full term, there's a 99.999% chance that you might die!!

tell ya what, these women might be few and far between, but if this country ever enacts laws that prohibits or interfers with them from getting the medical care that they need, that we have available to them now, well.....then, I'll be going back to that extreme measure of doing all that I can to see to it that our government doesn't get much of my money, and well, very little of my money will be going into the medicaid, medicare fund to help others have thier killer tumors removed from their bodies!

no one wants to admit that one simple fact of life!!! some women would die if you forced them to carry that baby full term.....by doing so, what you are saying is that all women should be willing to sacrifice their life, to bring new life into the world....
she should have "faith" that God will deliver her.....

just like this whole country should have had "faith" that God would protect us from those horrible terrorists and turned the other cheek when a few of their fruitcakes decided to fly planes into a couple of our buildings instead of bombing the hades out of two countries!
don't expect the lowly women to act any more righteous as this whole nation does! most of the nation wasn't willing to accept any risk to their lifestyle, and was all gun hoe for invading Iraq, Afghanistan....and yet, so many expect women to risk so much more to appease your personal veiws.....
life begins when god breathes the first breath into a child! and sacrifices aren't sacrifices if they are forced onto a person. you prohibit a women from having an abortion and she dies as a result, then it isn't a sacrifice, it is a murder!




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
The Greatest gift God even gave man was FREE WILL.

And not you or anyone else has the right to take that away.


What about the baby's free will? They're imprisoned inside a woman and are unable to speak...so I guess they don't get a say? The mother then 'has the right to take it away'?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born.

It doesn't have free will.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Probably for third world countries where the chrisitan right won't allow birth control, the government doesn't protect women. So women are getting raped by militia, ruined for life and not allowed to marry, and some how gotta figure out how to live with an unwanted baby in a government that doesn't even allow them to mention being raped. To give birth in a hut with no medical care. Then they have to watch the same thing happen to their own daughters. If their daughter isn't married off to a guy who insists on genital mutilation.

It is easy to say in a prosperous country that is it killing a life. Some lives are not worth living and can even be considered an act of mercy.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born.

It doesn't have free will.


It is truly a shame that a baby is considered an unwanted wart. Why does a mother need two hearts anyway? Apparently she can survive just fine with one though I'd question it's warmth when deciding to remove the other.



The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception

www.drspock.com...

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

in some, the girls are married off very early in life, they are given no choice, even at adulthood, they will have a lower standing in society as their 5 year old sons do. they will not be allowed to say no to their husband's sexual advances.
if that is the only option that you say that they have, to just say no to the sex, well, you are giving them no option but to have child after child till thier husbands decide enough is enough....


[edit on 23-1-2009 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
...they will have a lower standing in society...


Oh no how horrible! This is almost as bad as killing babies! And here I thought life was the most precious treasure in the world but all along it was social status.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


So, you have no sympathy for women who are being treated in those ways? Figures as much seeing as how you can't see why women should be allowed to be in control over what goes on in their own uterus.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
So, you have no sympathy for women who are being treated in those ways?


Of course I have sympathy for any mistreatment of any person, babies included. But push comes to shove, I'd prefer a fiscal/social disadvantage over death.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Change............change...........hope............change..............yes....we....can....lift... our..........nation...........love........hope.............change...........yes....we....can...lift...our...nation........................

For those of you quoting articles that say "currently it does not allow for funding groups that blah blah blah" What that means is under the current rules BEFORE the ban was lifted. So yeah......I know you have to un-learn that psycho-babble you bombarded your brain with over the last two years, but it doesn't give you the ability to skew fact and alter reality any way you can. Don't feel bad, it's a common thing for a group of people, especially socialists, to do this. Socialists try to infect anything they can, while they change history to their liking. This is why you are starting to see people claim the are "Socialist Libertarians" ROFL, Thats rich, an anti state, statist? There is no such thing, no matter how much you want it to exist, it doesn't. I don't care what Bill Maher says. Anyway...

Lets give money we do not have, to people overseas, so they can have an abortion......LOL, What the hell are you apologists defending here? Are you serious?

"Oh the money is already appropriated!!!" HAHAHAHAHA!!!! He's the President, he can wipe out the entire appropriation with a stroke of his pen.

"OH! But people need these services! We have to help!!!" Pay your own money if you care that much, don't spend mine on this stupid fracas.

I guess after. Two years of hearing nothing but ....
Change............change...........hope............change..............yes....we....can....lift... our..........nation...........love........hope.............change...........yes....we....can...lift...our...nation........................
Change............change...........hope............change..............yes....we....can....lift... our..........nation...........love........hope.............change...........yes....we....can...lift...our...nation........................

It's probably pretty hard to acknowledge the fact that you voted for hype, not hope, not change.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


There were people, including myself, who said that they supported abortions BUT would prefer the money stay here. We shouldn't be sending money to other countries for ANY reason. It's ridiculous, we don't have enough money for ourselves.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 
\





Lets give money we do not have, to people overseas, so they can have an abortion......LOL, What the hell are you apologists defending here? Are you serious?


Exactly what in the H E double hockey sticks are my tax dollars going to foreign countries for?

And why do my tax dollars have to go to something I find as an obscene and violent act?

In that respect I do not have a choice.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


Who cares about abortion? You wanna get one? Pay for it yourself, it's not my fault people are running around slummin in a bar at 2:30 in the morning, thats thier problem, they can pay for it.

Yeah yeah, "medical reasons to save the mother"....blah blah....not my problem either.

The point is, the issues isn't abortion, it's paying for it. For the person that said the "religious right" was keeping abortions out of 3rd world countries, I can only say, What........ the........ hell......are you talking about? America isn't the overlord of the world OK? Guess what those people are not our responsibility either. So just forget about it, shouldn't even be an issue. And yet, because of some crackhead in DC it is.

I have nothing against abortion, But I do have a problem with paying for someone I don't even know to get one. Don't get knocked up if you don't want a baby. And don't spew that crap about The cost of Birth Control, Planned parenthood gives that crap out for free.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


I agree with you...I wasn't making any points about abortion to you...I know that's not the point. America shouldn't be sending any money to ANY other country for ANY other reason. We shouldn't be involved in anyone else's issues. You're right!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


Well then if it is so hunky dory, go live in the Congo and come back and tell how how fun it is.

I am sure that the girls getting gang raped, and having babies in a dirt hole,and the boys getting sodomized and being hauled off to shoot their friends at 11 years old are just so happy and so glad that they are alive and well.

All being starved to death. All facing war every day. Having all their parents killed, friends and family hauled off to war, being made slaves. Is just a "fiscal" disadvantage.

I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you. But it is easy from your cozy seat to say, it is not that bad.

I have heard the stories over again, and trust me, I would rather a baby not exist then go through what these people go through.

Most of those in the First world countries have no idea how it is in the third world.





[edit on 23-1-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


And how is any of that my problem?

You sound very concerned, perhaps you can get out of your cozy chair and run to the rescue.

I'm glad to see that you are so enlightened that you get to decide who lives and who dies in any country on earth.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by aravoth]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


No, even though all those horrible things are happening to them, at least there ALIVE


You bring up a lot of horrible situations and I agree with your point. But I also agree with avaroth that America shouldn't be sending money to other countries. Aside from the fact that we don't have enough money going to help our own people, all the other countries are complaining about how we "intervene" anyway.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you. But it is easy from your cozy seat to say, it is not that bad.

I have heard the stories over again, and trust me, I would rather a baby not exist then go through what these people go through.

Most of those in the First world countries have no idea how it is in the third world.


If you're offering to kill someone because their life might suck, do you think it's appropriate to ask their permission first? I never said it was easy, and never felt good about merely sitting in my 'cozy seat'.



I am adopted from and grew up in the Congo where my parents were serving as missionaries; they had a feeding program for children.

Compassion sent containers full of milk to help with the program. It was such a blessing not only to my parents but to the children who were able to come and receive it.

I will never forget that.

I just wanted to thank you for the incredible work you guys are doing. May God continue to bless your work.
- www.compassion.com...

You CAN do something about their living conditions instead of creating a dying condition: www.compassion.com...

The child I'm sponsoring is in Thailand, but hopefully someday I can do more to help Congo.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by dawnstar
...they will have a lower standing in society...


Oh no how horrible! This is almost as bad as killing babies! And here I thought life was the most precious treasure in the world but all along it was social status.

they have no choice as to when they become sexually active, or to what extend, their society does not provide them with the opportunity to choose these details of thier life. this is the point I was trying to make. so us spending money to teach these women about abstinance is just a waste of time.....you might as well be teaching the men of the village instead!
as far as all this not being you problem, well...
paying for the "poors" cancer treatments isn't my problem either, is it? nor is the research and developement of new cancer cures for the rich!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


If you are moral and religious enough to support pro-life positions, I would assume you are moral and religious enough to support those less fortunate, and not in the US.

So you should not be worried about either the full grown people or the fetuses abroad, only what happens here in the US.

I understand not wanting to support something your against.

It is a no win sitaution, ethically.

On one hand, we have our own problems. On the other, we are one of the wealthest nations on earth. And being such we still give the least foreign aid.

While these people may not be on US soil, we do all share this planet together and one affects the other, either directly or indirectly.

For example, by supporting AIDS research in Africa, if they develope a cure or successful treatment for aids, that information can also be used to treat aids in the US.

Not only that, it supports their economy, creates more jobs, provides education, and those people can use their education and knowledge that also can benefit the US economy.

So I don't believe in an isolationist attitude.

Or only help people according to geographic location.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join