obama is taking my $

[wolfeskins]

Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas _ something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.


it didn't take him long. i am against abortion, now i will be forced to directly fund it.

thanks obama.......you suck.

[firstdown]

I really don't have a strong opinion on abortion but I do have strong feelings about having to pay for them. This is nothing new. If its a Rep pres then they stop the spending on this and if its a Dem they suport the program with our tax money.

[The Goat]

Simple fact of an imperfect world is population explosion in very poor, unstable and often war-torn areas of the world that have links to terrorism i.e. parts of Africa and the Middle-East. For decades we ought to have been doing much more to help these societies drastically reduce their birth rates but ideological radicals we elected (and some unelected) kept us from doing anything. Now the circumstances are dire. Bottom line we need to be as proactive as possible to quell population explosion in the dark corners of the world.

... people will remember how a surprising number of social scientists, experts on terrorism and military brass have talked about how Bush policies have/will encourage terrorism more than those of any previous president. It's not just about preemptively attacking countries that may or may not have any involvement in 9/11 and terrorism. It's not just about setting up massive military installations in their backyards (anyone here be too happy about the Chinese government setting up a military base in NY, no i didn't think so). Bush's policy (shared by all the radical right) of allowing/encouraging population explosion in the dark corners of the world basically guarantees terrorism increases over time - it's an incontrovertible fact but tragically too many people aren't big enough to acknowledge it.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas _ something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.


it didn't take him long. i am against abortion, now i will be forced to directly fund it.

thanks obama.......you suck.

So spending millions of dollars (and hundreds of lives) on a war we didn't have to fight doesn't bother you at all. Especially an expense that we probably didn't need and may have aided to the economic nightmare we're in?

I'm a Dem, and I oppose this subsidy (and I believe it has been overturned), but I try to be smart and look at the big picture. The money spent on this is nowhere near as much as Iraq has cost this country.

Let me ask you this, are you also against torture? Because if you are, guess what, you funded it directly also.

[wolfeskins]

i was and still am for the war and i do think torture is necessary in some cases. lets not forget those guys in masks who cut off the head of that boy and broadcast it on tv and the web. if torture helps rid the world of people like that then i'm all for it.

[drew54]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I do not believe that anymore money is given to them, the clause is that the money we were giving them could not be spent on this, now we take away that clause. Honestly when you give someone money and tell hem not to spend it on this, but if they were going to buy it anyway, have you really not supported their decision already?

[TheSmurfs22]

Here is your hope and change folks! Get ready to open your wallets!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Simple fact of an imperfect world is population explosion in very poor, unstable and often war-torn areas of the world that have links to terrorism i.e. parts of Africa and the Middle-East. For decades we ought to have been doing much more to help these societies drastically reduce their birth rates but ideological radicals we elected (and some unelected) kept us from doing anything. Now the circumstances are dire. Bottom line we need to be as proactive as possible to quell population explosion in the dark corners of the world.

... people will remember how a surprising number of social scientists, experts on terrorism and military brass have talked about how Bush policies have/will encourage terrorism more than those of any previous president. It's not just about preemptively attacking countries that may or may not have any involvement in 9/11 and terrorism. It's not just about setting up massive military installations in their backyards (anyone here be too happy about the Chinese government setting up a military base in NY, no i didn't think so). Bush's policy (shared by all the radical right) of allowing/encouraging population explosion in the dark corners of the world basically guarantees terrorism increases over time - it's an incontrovertible fact but tragically too many people aren't big enough to acknowledge it.

The argument against you is "Abortion is killing". So essentially as a measure of the 'War on Terror' you support killing their children before they get to grow and be terrorists. I am not making that argument but it is he argument that pro-lifers will make to the day they die.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The argument against you is "Abortion is killing". So essentially as a measure of the 'War on Terror' you support killing their children before they get to grow and be terrorists. I am not making that argument but it is he argument that pro-lifers will make to the day they die.

Yeah, I'd say The Goat's argument there is horrifically alarming on a moral level. Basically, do what we can to prevent life from developing in these areas because we should operate under the assumption that the children born there will grow up to become terrorists. WTF?

How about we operate under the assumption that all human beings have the free will to choose their path. If they choose to take up arms against the United States, then fine, we'll kill them then. But for those that don't, why should they be robbed of the opportunity to have their children grow up as decent human beings. Not everyone aspires to become a terrorist.

It's one thing to say Bush's policies fan the flames of radical idealism, leading to a surge in terrorism. It's an entirely different thing to say we just should do what we can to limit their population growth to stop it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, I'd say The Goat's argument there is horrifically alarming on a moral level. Basically, do what we can to prevent life from developing in these areas because we should operate under the assumption that the children born there will grow up to become terrorists. WTF?

How about we operate under the assumption that all human beings have the free will to choose their path. If they choose to take up arms against the United States, then fine, we'll kill them then. But for those that don't, why should they be robbed of the opportunity to have their children grow up as decent human beings. Not everyone aspires to become a terrorist.

It's one thing to say Bush's policies fan the flames of radical idealism, leading to a surge in terrorism. It's an entirely different thing to say we just should do what we can to limit their population growth to stop it.

I agree.

I don't often get into abortion arguments but it is backwarss logic like we see in this thread that bugs me. It'd be ok for us to fund to the hilt abortions in the middle east somehow but it wouldn't be ok to simply drop 100 nukes and kill every single last one of them (ignoring obvious practical reasons against such a attack). Huh?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by drew54

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I do not believe that anymore money is given to them, the clause is that the money we were giving them could not be spent on this, now we take away that clause. Honestly when you give someone money and tell hem not to spend it on this, but if they were going to buy it anyway, have you really not supported their decision already?

You're pretty much correct. President Obama isn't starting some "new program" here. This clause was instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984. That is, NGO's already receiving federal money from the U.S. had to meet certain requirements and were prohibited from using said funding to promote healthcare rights for women. And nearly every Administration thereafter has either overturned the rule or re-instated it, depending on the party.

Furthermore, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as a mechanism to mitigate terrorism or somehow root it out before little terrorists sprout and grow up to inflict harm on Americans. On the contrary, this is --and has always been-- about women's reproductive rights, getting adequate healthcare to women who are pregant and, yes, contraception. Federal funding that has flowed to these countries would be the benefactors, not Bin Ladin's third cousin getting knocked up in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Bottom line, these agencies are simply getting a small piece of the pie that was being sent to their respective countries. There is no new money, no new rules here. And I suspect, when the next Republican administration takes office -- whenever that is -- they'll once again re-instate the clause as originally intended under Reagan.

[The Goat]

FRPLG and Schneed10, from you're comments I have to assume you both are under the mistaken impression US funding to help reduce population explosion somehow involves forced contraceptive, abortion, etc. From all my research, conversations w/ those who spend time working on these issues in the Peace Corp or other organizations, and a good deal of time spent in the published works of J. Sachs and other economists concentrating on these types of issues, I've never heard of forced contraceptive or abortion wrt US funded programs. To be sure, there are horrific atrocities occurring in these dark corners of the world and mostly related to extreme population explosion over the last several decades. The preponderance of research and indeed the historical record shows women prefer to have the option/availability of these services and do in fact choose to have fewer children in the long run. Again, they're choice, not something forced on them.

... sitting in a country that basically has no overcrowding issues, where resources are not strained to their limits and where we have all the freedoms in the world... and to put our plump hands over our ears and ignore what is going on in the utterly impoverished regions of Africa and the Middle-East... horrifically alarming on a moral level. Or rather it's just deeply, deeply ignorant.

[saden1]

Fear not yee tax-paying-anti-terrorist-pro-lifers, terrorist breeding nations have the most strict abortion laws known to man. Unfortunately this means the supply of future terrorists will not be limited without us at least provding conctranception meds.


God Bless America!

[dmek25]

nice touch, the God Bless America ending

[JoeRedskin]

Welcome to America where one side or the other will always bitch that the government is spending their money on things they don't want. You don't like the spending priorities? Hmmm, I think we have these things called elections where you can have an effect on those priorities are chosen. You don't like the democratic republican electoral system in effect in America? You need not stay. There are over 250 independent nations for you to choose from.