You know I was just reading this morning that Obama, I know he's not Catholic but on his 4th day in office he lifted the ban to open up tens of millions of our tax dollars going to international pro-abortion groups. I never got this and still don't, by what right are they entitled to get government dough but if Obama was consistent he'd give the same amount to pro-life groups. I mean FAIR is FAIR.
& on the 4th day no less but people keep saying he's not some doctrinaire liberal just a nice moderate trying to get along. Mark Shields who should know better doesn't even talk about it. So we have to wait at least another four years before maybe another president can reinstate the ban? Is this some sort of joke?
Beth is correct about the so-called 'gag rule'. It has been a political football ever since. Since these NGOs operate in foreign countries, local culture (and views on abortion, condoms and the rest)bear on their approach. In some places, infant/youth mortality is horrendous and in others, most are born with aids/hiv..so from one standpoint, these NGOs do offer information about all forms of population control. When Reagan cut their funding, it was quickly replaced by funds from Europe. It is an old US practice..we give you money, we attach strings...and depending on who is running things, these 'strings' reflect the POV of the current power structure. To me, a funny thing about the 'gag rule', eg not even mentioning abortion, must have a confusing affect on folk like the !Kung in central Africa, who for millenium give birth, inspect the infant and either discard it..or return to the tribe with it. They consider 'birth' as being presented to the tribe. One ponders the cultural gap where abortion or no abortion would have any meaning to these primitive people.
You're a walking Brittanica BB. I never understood though how pro-choicers don't get how people may not want their tax dollars funding the practice, 'twould seem like a mild compromise, a few crumbs the Victors could throw us every now and again. I also read somewhere that tucked neatly away in the stimulus bill is millions for Planned Parenthood. Hard to see how this jumpstarts the economy but in the interest of consistency why not dole out the funds to those crisis-pregnancy centers too?
You know, that is just what I was thinking. My opinion is that the president has too much power in relation to things like this. This ban or lifting of a ban relating to such a controversial issue should not be up to the president.
If the issue is controversial in our own country, than what right does a president have to extend it to other countries and than to ban and than remove a ban based on which of the two parties has the office. That's so silly.
BB, If these funds were "quickly replaced by funds from Europe", wouldn't it make sense to allow it to remain that way when we are in a financial crisis. When only half of the country supports the "Pro-Choice" position, how can it possibly be treated as a first priority?
I was all set to blog off but noticed you're online again. Perhaps in the liberal mind abortion helps the global economy, reduces crime and other social ills and what have you and so Obama can rationalize it. You can't tell me Obama is not pro-abortion if he did all this on only his fourth day in office.
I agree that the funds should be given to Crisis-Pregnancy Centers as well. Liberals just don't think that way. Quite often, they are less into compromise than we are.
One of the things that I was having a hard time believing is how so many people failed to realize exactly how Liberal Obama really is.
Yes, I'm still on line, but I do have to get off soon.
Well I say that abstinence is free and is 100% effective, so why should we have to pay for abortions for anyone who cannot control themselves (in this country or anywhere else)?
Lista: "Liberals just don't think that way. Quite often they are less into compromise than we are."
That's because we're forced to, liberalism is pretty much public policy these days. It's kind of a safe bet that the party in power doesn't feel the need to compromise so why should they?
Beth re abstinence I just left a long comment on Moral Instruction about the relation between abortion and our views on sex. To recap sex is a kind of nonessential pleasure, you won't die if you don't have it but we're all human so we want it so basically I feel in most or many cases abortion is simply a backup for sloppy sex or sex that was regretted later. Does a dead fetus warrant it? Was it that worth it in the first place? Different worldviews at work.
Hi, I'm sitting here wondering which of the conversations that I am currently involved in I should write a response to and than I was realizing that there is something that has been sort of stuck in my head.
When BB mentioned about the "Kung in Central Africa", I was thinking that perhaps the fact that 50% of the US population is against Abortion does send a subtle Pro-Life message to certain groups of people who are not used to thinking that way. When I realized this, I felt encouraged, even on an international level.
Z-man, Pro-Choice people are concerned about the poor who can't afford to pay for their own Abortions, yet if Christians are expected to raise their own funds for causes they believe in, than why shouldn't the Pro-Choice community be expected to raise their own funds for causes they believe in. Why should the government be paying for anything that half of the country doesn't agree with.
Another thing, The "Crisis-Pregnancy Centers" that are Pro-Life are considered Moral and thus Religious. It is a shame that the "Separation of Church and State" clause is so often used to deprive anything that is even remotely Moral of Government Funds.
Soapie too said he is against using taxes to pay for abortion. You know I was thinking about this the other night, over the years how many abortions were paid for by my tax dollars?
Now there is some moral instruction that will never work.
ReplyDeleteYou know I was just reading this morning that Obama, I know he's not Catholic but on his 4th day in office he lifted the ban to open up tens of millions of our tax dollars going to international pro-abortion groups. I never got this and still don't, by what right are they entitled to get government dough but if Obama was consistent he'd give the same amount to pro-life groups. I mean FAIR is FAIR.
ReplyDeleteI think the ban started with Reagan, Clinton overturned it, then GWB brought back the ban, and now Obama overturned it.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so we're in a financial crisis and this was something Obama HAD to do?
I truly think my head will explode.
& on the 4th day no less but people keep saying he's not some doctrinaire liberal just a nice moderate trying to get along. Mark Shields who should know better doesn't even talk about it. So we have to wait at least another four years before maybe another president can reinstate the ban? Is this some sort of joke?
ReplyDeleteBeth is correct about the so-called 'gag rule'. It has been a
ReplyDeletepolitical football ever since. Since these NGOs operate in foreign countries, local culture (and views on abortion, condoms and the rest)bear on their approach. In some places, infant/youth mortality is horrendous and in others, most are born with aids/hiv..so from one standpoint,
these NGOs do offer information about all forms of population control. When Reagan cut their funding, it was quickly replaced by funds from Europe. It is an old US practice..we give you money, we attach strings...and depending on who is running things, these 'strings' reflect the POV of the current power structure. To me, a funny thing about the 'gag rule', eg not even mentioning abortion, must have a confusing
affect on folk like the !Kung in
central Africa, who for millenium
give birth, inspect the infant and either discard it..or return to the tribe with it. They consider
'birth' as being presented to the tribe. One ponders the cultural gap where abortion or no abortion would have any meaning to these primitive people.
You're a walking Brittanica BB. I never understood though how pro-choicers don't get how people may not want their tax dollars funding the practice, 'twould seem like a mild compromise, a few crumbs the Victors could throw us every now and again. I also read somewhere that tucked neatly away in the stimulus bill is millions for Planned Parenthood. Hard to see how this jumpstarts the economy but in the interest of consistency why not dole out the funds to those crisis-pregnancy centers too?
ReplyDeleteZ,
ReplyDelete"Is this some sort of joke?"
You know, that is just what I was thinking. My opinion is that the president has too much power in relation to things like this. This ban or lifting of a ban relating to such a controversial issue should not be up to the president.
If the issue is controversial in our own country, than what right does a president have to extend it to other countries and than to ban and than remove a ban based on which of the two parties has the office. That's so silly.
BB,
If these funds were "quickly replaced by funds from Europe", wouldn't it make sense to allow it to remain that way when we are in a financial crisis. When only half of the country supports the "Pro-Choice" position, how can it possibly be treated as a first priority?
I was all set to blog off but noticed you're online again. Perhaps in the liberal mind abortion helps the global economy, reduces crime and other social ills and what have you and so Obama can rationalize it. You can't tell me Obama is not pro-abortion if he did all this on only his fourth day in office.
ReplyDeleteYes, Z,
ReplyDeleteBB is quite informative. Isn't he?
I agree that the funds should be given to Crisis-Pregnancy Centers as well. Liberals just don't think that way. Quite often, they are less into compromise than we are.
One of the things that I was having a hard time believing is how so many people failed to realize exactly how Liberal Obama really is.
Yes, I'm still on line, but I do have to get off soon.
Well I say that abstinence is free and is 100% effective, so why should we have to pay for abortions for anyone who cannot control themselves (in this country or anywhere else)?
ReplyDeleteLista: "Liberals just don't think that way. Quite often they are less into compromise than we are."
ReplyDeleteThat's because we're forced to, liberalism is pretty much public policy these days. It's kind of a safe bet that the party in power doesn't feel the need to compromise so why should they?
Beth re abstinence I just left a long comment on Moral Instruction about the relation between abortion and our views on sex. To recap sex is a kind of nonessential pleasure, you won't die if you don't have it but we're all human so we want it so basically I feel in most or many cases abortion is simply a backup for sloppy sex or sex that was regretted later. Does a dead fetus warrant it? Was it that worth it in the first place? Different worldviews at work.
I will have to catch up on the Moral Instruction blogging later, but I agree with your recap message.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI'm sitting here wondering which of the conversations that I am currently involved in I should write a response to and than I was realizing that there is something that has been sort of stuck in my head.
When BB mentioned about the "Kung in Central Africa", I was thinking that perhaps the fact that 50% of the US population is against Abortion does send a subtle Pro-Life message to certain groups of people who are not used to thinking that way. When I realized this, I felt encouraged, even on an international level.
Z-man,
Pro-Choice people are concerned about the poor who can't afford to pay for their own Abortions, yet if Christians are expected to raise their own funds for causes they believe in, than why shouldn't the Pro-Choice community be expected to raise their own funds for causes they believe in. Why should the government be paying for anything that half of the country doesn't agree with.
Another thing,
ReplyDeleteThe "Crisis-Pregnancy Centers" that are Pro-Life are considered Moral and thus Religious. It is a shame that the "Separation of Church and State" clause is so often used to deprive anything that is even remotely Moral of Government Funds.
Soapie too said he is against using taxes to pay for abortion. You know I was thinking about this the other night, over the years how many abortions were paid for by my tax dollars?
ReplyDelete