Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas

Originally posted by paxnatus
My ideals!!! What? you liberals can scream about anything regarding George Bush from blaming him for the economy, Gaza, gas prices, wars even 9/11.
But my Lord let the more conservative base say we are upset that Obama
uses our money to support abortion overseas and now I am forcing my own ideals on you? Excuse me? I am simply quoting word for word from an article that was posted by someone else. I did not write the article. Stop projecting!

You said you feel those in need shouldn't even be given the option to have abortion. That would be purely because of your beliefs, correct? But not everyone shares your beliefs nor wants to. By not wanting to let people make their own decision on a subject, you are in a way, saying it's ok to force your ideals onto others. I know it can be argued both ways -- but one is letting them decide, the other is not giving them an option to decide.

[edit on 21/1/09 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by lynn112

I'm not twelve, I am fully aware of what the president is supposed to do.

When he took his time to reinstate this, he could of been working on a way to get jobs back onto US soil, sure up our education system, figure out a way to get these corporations to answer for years of greed. See, there are plenty of other things he should of used that time for, but instead, he pulled out the fluff.

Ok, maybe you don't get the defintion of multi-task. Because from what you just typed you obviously don't. It took probably a mere 30 seconds for Obama to sign this executive order, and no they weren't just looking at this executive order, they were looking at all of Bush 43's executive orders and repealing the ones that didn't make since.

And by the way, if you HAVE been paying attention you would realize Obama is doing just about everything you listed, unless you can find a source that says he is not. He's doing things that he has in his power to do quickly, I'm sure the president can find 30 seconds to spare to sign an executive order.

still does change the fact that this funding, ALL of this funding, should be utilized first here IMO. Last I checked, I was still entiltled to my opinion.

If you haven't picked up on the theme of my posts yet, I don't think any of our $$$ should be leaving right now, not a dime until we fix our own mess.

Oh, and BTW, I'm a working mother of 3, so yes, I know exactly what multi-tasking is.

reply to post by lynn112


Ok let me ask you this, then why was it perfectly acceptable and not even mentioned here or anywhere when bushes first act , the first thing he did day one upon his election was to end this aid? I was fighting it for all it was worth, (online activist stuff) but it was a blinding defeat, one that greatly affected millions of lives since that decission was made.

It was a very sad day for the American aid workers, who worked with these women, the education process was second only to the passing out of contraceptives.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


What gives a blog credibility, and who decides if it is credible?

The Huffington Post ran an obvious parody yesterday about Bush pardoning Obama....errr...I mean Osama, and even though the ATS Motto is Deny Ignorance there were members that fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Does this mean that the HuffPo is no longer credible? (was it ever?)

Heck even the NY Times might even be considered uncredible considering its recent history.

I don't know where I am going with this......so I'll stop!

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

You dont understand. The funding is not the issue, the reason bush stopped it was not for the moral reasons it was because it was more money in the profits for his agenda of the buddy bailout system.

Also as we grow into a world of true human potential, we will no longer see the vulnerabilities of others as separate from our responsibility.

We would no longer allow our own children to suffer, and one day all children will be respected in that same way and we will no longer turn our heads and harden our hearts against the horror that millions of compromised children are forced to endure.

Picture a world of smiling faces all over the planet, healthy, laughing, learning, working side by side to build communities based in the true fundamentals of our highest order.

No more throw away, unwanted or needed children, beautiful children, sad children. It is our responsibility to stop the maddness because what happens to 'those' children, happen to our children.

Reply to antar

I don't think I have ever read a more hypocritical post!! " We would no longer allow our children to suffer" No Antar, we would just murder them before they ever had a chance.

"No more throw away, unwanted children" Nope abortion is not throwing away a life. Not at all.

"Our responsibility to stop the madness" Yes let's just kill our baby when it is convenient for us.

What is wrong with you people that you praise Obama for justifying the heinous act of Abortion as a means to an end.

What you fail to remember, there are no stipulations here. You may be thinking of abortion in the terms of poverty, uneducated, rape etc. What about for the ones that decide to end a life simply because it is not convenient for them?

reply to post by RRconservative

What gives a blog credibility, and who decides if it is credible?

When it uses sources for what it states, and when the sources it uses are quoted or described correctly without any use of twisting or adding that creates propaganda. WND is notorious for this, conservatives even admit this, unless they’re the type that prowl sites trying to pass it off as something credible because they agree with the outrage or putdowns expressed. Not sure if this is the case with this particular article, but I believe it entitles a “reader beware”. It’s quite embarrassing when people read something and immediately assume it to be true because the site seems legit, when WND is not and admits that their pieces are partially truths and partial “commentary” (hence why the article is labeled the way it is on the actual site).

[edit on 21-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by lynn112

 

Ok let me ask you this, then why was it perfectly acceptable and not even mentioned here or anywhere when bushes first act , the first thing he did day one upon his election was to end this aid? I was fighting it for all it was worth, (online activist stuff) but it was a blinding defeat, one that greatly affected millions of lives since that decission was made.

It was a very sad day for the American aid workers, who worked with these women, the education process was second only to the passing out of contraceptives.

Who said anything about Bush? This topic is about Obama, not what Bush did 8 yrs ago. And yes, I would of complained no matter who the POTUS was, rep, dem or any other party, he used this time and our money for this when our own citizens are suffering.

I'm sorry, but we need to bring our money back home.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is no surprise. Remember Obama supported killing babies that were born ALIVE after a botched abortions.

www.wnd.com...

WND commentary has as little credibility as a blog. Don’t have a problem with the issues the article raises, just want anyone who is reading this thread to know to search for and back the information up with credible sources before believing anything the article may claim.

Reply to rapinbatisalltherage: That may be regarding the source, but it is exactly what Obama said during the presidential debate that Rick Warren moderated. You can see for yourself on youtube.

I think the second act (bushes) if I am not mistaken was to create that first false flag bail out to the upper 10%, the tax cut to the upper crust, so if Obama is actually reversing some of the bushisms which threw us into an economic 911, then we will hear tax cuts and incentives to aid the lower 80% next!

Remember when bush was all sentimental and said "And to the single Mom whos a waitress in..." well I dont know what state or country he was referring to, but I called my tax man that night and asked if it would affect me, benifit my family... Nope on a rope...

Yep, this is a good sign, I hope he continues to reverse all the mistakes bush made that he can.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by lynn112

 

Ok let me ask you this, then why was it perfectly acceptable and not even mentioned here or anywhere when bushes first act , the first thing he did day one upon his election was to end this aid? I was fighting it for all it was worth, (online activist stuff) but it was a blinding defeat, one that greatly affected millions of lives since that decission was made.

It was a very sad day for the American aid workers, who worked with these women, the education process was second only to the passing out of contraceptives.

Reply to antar

"one that greatly affected millions of lives since that decission was made."

Yes, millions got a chance at life.

reply to post by paxnatus


I understand that, but the article may leave out important information. Like if the issue was part of a bigger bill and compromise, which appears to be the case with this particular issue (the one WND discusses, not the issue this thread was started on).

[edit on 21-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by lynn112
It is legal in the United States, but is it legal in these other countries?

Yes, it is. Read up on it.

US Mexico City Policy

reply to post by lynn112


I figured you were a bushie, hahah, well my poverty strikened ex father in law is one too. He wasnt untill he voted for bush two times. Now he is selling everything just to get by.

First act bush made when he walked into the Presidency= Stop aid.
First act Oama made when he walked into the Presidency= reinstate aid.

See where I am going with this?

reply to post by antar


Before I go offline for the evening, let me put into terms you may understand. In times like this, we should feed our own hungry children before we worry about what the neighbors are eating.

Originally posted by lynn112
Our national debt is climbing to unseen levels, our people are having a hard time meeting very basic needs & yet one of his first moves as POTUS is to send our money overseas to fund ending life.....

And this is different from any other adminstration how?????

What a lovely way of forcing tax payers into supporting abortion whether they want to or not.

I am just curious. Where do you stand on war?

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by paxnatus
My ideals!!! What? you liberals can scream about anything regarding George Bush from blaming him for the economy, Gaza, gas prices, wars even 9/11.
But my Lord let the more conservative base say we are upset that Obama
uses our money to support abortion overseas and now I am forcing my own ideals on you? Excuse me? I am simply quoting word for word from an article that was posted by someone else. I did not write the article. Stop projecting!

You said you feel those in need shouldn't even be given the option to have abortion. That would be purely because of your beliefs, correct? But not everyone shares your beliefs nor wants to. By not wanting to let people make their own decision on a subject, you are in a way, saying it's ok to force your ideals onto others. I know it can be argued both ways -- but one is letting them decide, the other is not giving them an option to decide.

[edit on 21/1/09 by Navieko]

No, you are taking what I said out of context.

"You said you feel those in need shouldn't even be given the option to have abortion."

the rest of the sentence stated AS AN OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING.

Definition of family planning:

family planning
 
–noun
1. the concept or a program of limiting the size of families through the spacing or prevention of pregnancies, esp. for economic reasons.

2. (loosely) birth control.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by lynn112

 

I figured you were a bushie, hahah, well my poverty strikened ex father in law is one too. He wasnt untill he voted for bush two times. Now he is selling everything just to get by.

First act bush made when he walked into the Presidency= Stop aid.
First act Oama made when he walked into the Presidency= reinstate aid.

See where I am going with this?

Please don't act like you know who I am. I happen to be doing just fine in this economy because I'm not a standard "keep up with the Jones" suburbanite. I don't follow any leader blindly, I follow my beliefs.

Back on topic, I don't agree that this should of been a must do for either of these men. We have more pressing matters & foriegn aid is a big part of that problem. IMO, all of this fundging should of been cut until we could figure out how to fix the problems facing Americans.

Originally posted by paxnatus
family planning
 
–noun
1. the concept or a program of limiting the size of families through the spacing or prevention of pregnancies, esp. for economic reasons.

2. (loosely) birth control.

You know. I was going to ask what your definition of family planning was but after I typed it out, it sounded stupid. But does the above meaning include someone who gets pregnant but doesn't want to have a child? Is that situation included in "family planning"?

Because I'm wondering ... under what circumstances would abortion NOT be considered "family planning" (or birth control)?

Originally posted by paxnatus
the rest of the sentence stated AS AN OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING.

Definition of family planning:

family planning
 
–noun
1. the concept or a program of limiting the size of families through the spacing or prevention of pregnancies, esp. for economic reasons.

2. (loosely) birth control.

Okay. So let's say we don't have abortion as an option in family planning programs. Let's say we only have it as an option for those who were unwillingly impregnated. In the most extreme of circumstances. Those who are most certainly not in any situation to bring up a child. Would you be okay with simply having the option of abortion then?

If not -- my point still stands.

[edit on 21/1/09 by Navieko]

and in response to the person who stated that trash about "no animal in nature does such a horrible thing"...come on. Really?!
In nature, when there is not enough food to go around, the mothers will often leave their children to die, or perhaps even eat them. In our societies we are taking away the mothers right to determine how many children she can realistically support when we take away their options of birth control, and yes, even abortion. Just as it is a persons right to not jump in a river to save a drowning man, it is a womans right to decide that her body will not nourish another being for 9 months, and perhaps a child for 18 years. If someone was coming around my house, eating my food, and taking from the sustainance i hold for the rest of my family, i reserve the right to kill that person if i feel it endangers the existance of the rest of my family. I dont believe in torture or torment, but definitely ending the existence of another, and in nature animals exercise this right with prudence and practicality.