Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas

reply to post by Notroh est


"The rape cases, the disadvantaged cases, the mothers that could possibly die… so out of the billion and half (and more) abortion cases what is the approximate percentage of those cases do you think? 5% 10% 20% on grounds of compassion
I find it very difficult to see how more than 50 million woman are raped or cannot give birth every year "
...............................

I don't care if it's one in a million cases....
any health provider, weather they get government funding or not, should have the freedom to discuss the option of abortion to a women who's gonna suffer severe health problems if she tries to carry the baby full term!
it's this total lack of any concern for that small group of women that is evident in most of the laws regarding abortion in the past 8 or so years that has gotten them shot down by the supreme court! It becomes quite obvious that those who wrote those laws have the same attitude as those one this board who go blah, blah when this issue is brought up. If my taxmoney is being used to removed someone's tumor to save their life, develope better cures for their treatment, ect......then, in all fairness, it can also go to advising women about abortion at least when it would save her life!
It's a clear indication that some among us hold the rights and values of the unborn child far above that of the women who is carrying it...
I'm sorry, but the constitution kind of dictates that the government treat us all equally.....we shouldn't be holding the rights of one group above the other, and well, technically, the unborn child isn't even a citizen yet, and you want to give it the right to kill it's carrier by taking away the women's ability to seek the medical care that she needs.

by the way.....I don't exactly agree with this idea that the churches should be the sole providers of charity here, or abroad! which is what laws like this one was trying to achieve. only those who hold to our supreme religous beliefs can get the state funding to continue functioning, so, well, let all the world's women hear how God created them as subordinates, to be obedient to their men, teach them that their bodies are thier husband's to enjoy, whenever they wish, and then tell them that if they didn't want the child, they shouldn't have had the sex!
ya...that should work out just fine and dandy!!!

don't come around teaching my kids that women are secondary citizens in God's kingdom, please....and, don't use my tax money teaching women around the world this!

Because I am so totally disgusted with humanity and the way humans behave in general, I frequently donate to abortion funds - ha, it's the LEGAL way to hire a hit man to get rid of a boat load of ya'll! I wish I could hire .. err, I mean give .. I wish I could give more.

Originally posted by paxnatus
But you think you have the right to force your morals and your values on everyone who is against your beliefs? Please, for arguments sake, explain the difference. I think it is. assinine to expect me to personally pay for something that I abhor.

I believe and disbelieve many things however this is America, Its not anyone's right to force others to live by their personal beliefs on others, Abortion doesn't prevent you from living your life, it doesn't effect you individually what so ever, Its not your business what another person choses to do with their life no matter how much you think it is.

Are those countries willing to give me money to help raise my autistic son, here in the States? My new president isn't going to do a thing to help improve the availability
Of services for the special needs children.

He is asking me to help end life, all I'm trying to do is provide quality of life. Yet while we are so financially strapped in the U.S., this is one of Obama's highest priorities.

What character?

Your only argument here is funding, because it does effect you, your tax dollars are being used for it and I will agree that you completely have the right to be try and influence this aspect of the issue.


1. Law is passed making abortion legal. (This is noones business but those who chose to have an abortion)

2. A law is passed making abortion legal and the Government will be funding the abortion facilities. (This is everyones business)

Now both of these scenarios are about abortion however in neither of them do you have the right to complain about the abortion aspect of it, Its not your business, However it is completely your business how the government spends your tax dollars.




[edit on 24-1-2009 by C0le]

reply to post by sos37


First...abortion is legal in this country because the Supreme Court has supported rights of personal freedom and refuses to allow certain religious groups to determine our reproductive lives.

Secondly, why should we deny anyone the right to make her own reproductive choices? Millions of women around the world have been denied access to family planning, since the Bushies wanted to impose their own "morals" by denying reproductive health care.

And finally, what gives anyone the right to impose their religious beliefs on any woman, regardless of where she lives on the planet? You'd undoubtedly resist having moral beliefs of many parts of the world crammed down your throat....why should we do it to them?

Edited to add this (in response to " However it is completely your business how the government spends your tax dollars.")

Oh, come on! We don't get to choose how our tax monies are spent....if that were true, there would be no fighting in Iraq right now! I disagree very heatedly with pouring tax monies into "faith based" support groups...and there's nothing I can do about it...other than take steps to fight the war.

Of course, you can always refuse to pay your taxes! THERE! Try that.






[edit on 24-1-2009 by zoolady]

Okay...first off...semantics.

I think about how the Brits called the Irish rebels "Terrorists" and the Irish rebels called themselves the IRA or Irish Republican ARMY.

"Palestinian Liberation Organization"...vs "Terrorists".

semantics mean alot and labels are chosen for public relations purposes thus obscuring the detialed truth of a given situation.

Pro-Life......aren't we all Pro-life? In favor of life?

I am Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, I am not "Pro-Abortion"...really who is? I am however in favor of a woman's righ to make that difficult choice within certain parameters.

SO when does life begin?

Let's take a look at misscariages and assume that God is in favor of life.

1 in 5 pregnancies end with misscairage. Some estimates are as high as 50% since very early misscarriages can appear as heavy periods and go unnoticed by women.
www.allaboutlifechallenges.org...

So God (nature) does terminate pregnancies if the fetus is not developing well or the woman's health is not well suited for the pregnancy? Nature/God will often (possibly 50% of the time) spontaneously abort very early on in the pregnancy...is it possible that this is a clue as to when life begins?

Okay..so we say that is God making that decision when there is a misscarriage and it is not our place to interfere. Ok well what about Premature births...should we let nature/God run it's course there or help the baby survive?

If God wanted the baby to survive it wouldn't have been born prematurely?...Oh....God gave us the science and the skills to make a judgement that supercedes nature and intervene and save that life?

But not to make a judgement and intercede with medical science otherwise? even when it is early enough where God himself often aborts via misscarriage or as it is sometimes called "spontaneous abortion"?

It is my opinion that yes, somewhere during development it stops being a fetus and starts being a life....and until then ...abortion is an incredibly difficult choice that women should be free to make.

When? When does that fetus stop being a fetus and become a life? Well about 90% of Misscariages/Spontaneous abortions/abortions terminated by nature or God if you like ..occur in the first 12 weeks.

So I'll look to nature/God, trust he isn't murdering unborn children and make my best guess based on his actions assuming he is terminating pregnancies rather than taking lives. 12 weeks. The first trimester.

I am Pro Life (who doesn't love life?), Anti Abortion (who likes abortions?) and Pro Choice (I want women to be able to choose something of this magnitude) and I think they should be able to make that choice within the same time period that God does. 12 weeks.

Just my 2 cents...have at it.






[edit on 25-1-2009 by maybereal11]

If I lived in another country, I'd be suspicious as to why a U.S. funded organization would be 'letting me know I have the option' to destroy my child. Talk about pre-emptive strike. I'm also concerned about the retaliation of such an individual afterwards when they found out it wasn't a good idea.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by saint4God]

Seriously the world is over populated and is getting worse if we dont do something about it the next generations arent going to have to worry about more people being born there wont be enough food to feed the ones that are here.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Seriously the world is over populated and is getting worse if we dont do something about it the next generations arent going to have to worry about more people being born there wont be enough food to feed the ones that are here.

Who is we? The United States?
Are we now the 'Godplayers'?
We the USA now have the responsibility of deciding who lives and who dies by funding abortions in other countries?

Now, please understand I am in favor of birth control and I'm
not talking about condoms! I am speaking of some serious methods such as the Depoprovera injection, or norplant. I know the Depo shot has been widely used in 3rd world countries and been highly effective. I also know from personal experience after receiving one injection, it then took 10 months to get pregnant with my first child.

I am also for educating anyone anytime, no matter how many times it takes.

I do not support abortion as a FAMilY PLANNING OPTION! Which I have stated over and over.

Since I do not support abortion in my own country, then why would I support it in another?

I believe 'Blaines' post was right on when he/she (sorry) said" Let those who support it pay for it." I couldn't agree more!!

Why did Obama make this his first order of business, with all of the economic turmoil we are facing here? What is his point? Perhaps we are beginning to see the real 'face behind the curtain'.

Then just a couple of days ago he approves embryonic stem cell research. Do you honestly think he values human life? Take a good look at the pattern that has emerged, then answer honestly, if you can; that is, with a straight face.

Well I didnt vote for obama, all the babies obama kills is all you obama freaks fault. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and now obamas wanting to play god. Sounds like the anti-christ to me, I hope all you homos and baby killers are happy, your savior is here. Looks like you all got what you wished for.

reply to post by Michaeljp86




Let me guess, you voted for Bush two times didn't you?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Michaeljp86

 

Let me guess, you voted for Bush two times didn't you?

I think he was the best choice.

Same for McCain, I wouldnt want him as a president but given the options I think he was the best choice.

reply to post by Michaeljp86


Yes, voting for torture and domestic wiretaps was definitely the lesser of two evils.

In the meantime, it might help you to realize that you live in a country where abortion is legal. It was legal before Obama got here, and it will remain legal for quite some time I imagine.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Michaeljp86

 

Yes, voting for torture and domestic wiretaps was definitely the lesser of two evils.

In the meantime, it might help you to realize that you live in a country where abortion is legal. It was legal before Obama got here, and it will remain legal for quite some time I imagine.

I know abortion is legal here but its still not right.

If these animals were tortured to save american lives then I dont see a problem, thats war. If you like I can give you a link to a webiste of a american getting their head cut off with a dull knife, these people need to be tortured until every last one is found and eradicated. Im sure if you were laying on the floor infront of a webcam having your head sawn off you would wish bush would have done whatever it takes to stop these people.

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt be surprised if people were tortured for no reason and thats wrong.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Michaeljp86]

This man Obama has step over the line of immorality, this is why he is president of the U.S., to drag it down into the cesspool of dread and chaos. This is not a man of moral ethics he is the destroyer of what the United States of America once stood for. Not many realize where this is taking everyone, what will become of this country after he is done with it. He is not alone in what is happening and what he is doing to take down the U.S.
The murder of embryos given the okay by the man that leads this country will have severe consequences for the future of this nation.
www.raidersnewsupdate.com...

Obama Orders Humans Cloned And Killed For Expirements: Court Agrees, Lifts US Stem Cell Research Funding Ban A US appeals court has overturned an earlier order to suspend federal funding of stem cell research. The Washington court said opponents of the research, who say it is illegal because it involves the destruction of human embryos, were unlikely to succeed in their lawsuit to stop the funding. The ruling marks a significant victory for US President Barack Obama, correspondents say. President Obama lifted a ban on funding for stem cell research in March 2009. Soon after, US District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary injunction on the move while a legal challenge went ahead - although this suspension was itself overruled on appeal, pending a final decision. The US Court of Appeals in Washington ruled 2-1 on Friday that a 1996 US law against federal funding of embryo destruction was "ambiguous", and "did not prohibit funding a research project in which an ESC (embryonic stem cell) will be used".

US stem cell research funding ban lifted by court

A US appeals court has overturned an earlier order to suspend federal funding of stem cell research. The Washington court said opponents of the research, who say it is illegal because it involves the destruction of human embryos, were unlikely to succeed in their lawsuit to stop the funding. The ruling marks a significant victory for US President Barack Obama, correspondents say. President Obama lifted a ban on funding for stem cell research in March 2009. Soon after, US District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary injunction on the move while a legal challenge went ahead - although this suspension was itself overruled on appeal, pending a final decision.
www.bbc.co.uk...

And, so where will it end, allow stem cell research and where else from there will it go, the possibilities could be almost endless.

Scientists Also Back Cloning Of 3-Parent Gattaca Babies WA's top doctor wants politicians to consider allowing the creation of human embryos from the DNA of more than two people to create babies which are impervious to some genetic diseases. Chief medical officer Simon Towler has reopened the divisive debate about embryonic stemcell research, saying politicians should revisit the legislation which was shot down three years ago in a conscience vote in State Parliament. In a previously confidential submission to a committee reviewing the Commonwealth's reproduction technology laws, Dr Towler highlighted the benefits of lifting the nationwide ban on creating embryos which contain genetic material from more than two people.
www.raidersnewsupdate.com...

WA's top doctor backs human cloning April 30, 2011, 2:45 am WA's top doctor wants politicians to consider allowing the creation of human embryos from the DNA of more than two people to create babies which are impervious to some genetic diseases. Chief medical officer Simon Towler has reopened the divisive debate about embryonic stemcell research, saying politicians should revisit the legislation which was shot down three years ago in a conscience vote in State Parliament. In a previously confidential submission to a committee reviewing the Commonwealth's reproduction technology laws, Dr Towler highlighted the benefits of lifting the nationwide ban on creating embryos which contain genetic material from more than two people.
au.news.yahoo.com...