Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[bronco militia]

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama will sign the executive order one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

The policy was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and continued by President George H.W. Bush. The policy was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

On Thursday, Obama signed three executive orders to rein in secretive U.S. counterterror policies and end harsh interrogations.

[bronco militia]

change?

not really

[epicSocialism4tw]

Its not any of our business to subsidize non-American citizens with taxpayer monies. Especially in this economy.

It is immoral to subsidize the killing of children.

Let's get the speck out of our own eye.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree. This is a bad business that should not go on. On both counts.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Its not any of our business to subsidize non-American citizens with taxpayer monies. Especially in this economy.

It is immoral to subsidize the killing of children.

Let's get the speck out of our own eye.

a zygote is not a child.

I do agree that we shouldn't be footing the bill for another country to preform such procedures...™

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Dudeskey

a zygote is not a child.

That's your opinion, and a scientifically ignorant one at that.

I do agree that we shouldn't be footing the bill for another country to preform such procedures...™

We shouldn't spend money on such nonsense overseas or at home.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

That's your opinion, and a scientifically ignorant one at that.

Show me the science that refers to a zygote as a "child."

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

That's your opinion, and a scientifically ignorant one at that.

Damn straight it is. Ignorant? How so?...®

[baja]

I think we should do paper rock scissors for every one on the planet with the loser being required to take a poison pill. We would get rid of half the problems in one fell swoop.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Dudeskey

Damn straight it is. Ignorant? How so?...®

Do you understand diploidy?

[Breaker]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Its not any of our business to subsidize non-American citizens with taxpayer monies. Especially in this economy.

It is immoral to subsidize the killing of children.

Let's get the speck out of our own eye.

I agree that using tax payer money for foreign groups on this issue is stupid.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

haha this thread will end how all WRP threads end. With no one agreeing

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by baja

I think we should do paper rock scissors for every one on the planet with the loser being required to take a poison pill. We would get rid of half the problems in one fell swoop.

do what ever you want, just as long as I don't have to pay for it

[~Crash~]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Show me the science that refers to a zygote as a "child."

If it were in my wifes belly and one of you ****ers said it was anything but my child god be with you .

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Do you understand diploidy?

To a certain extent, but in what way does this support your argument? You're talking about cells w/ chromosomes, I don't see how that makes it a child....™

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by 56crash

If it were in my wifes belly and one of you ****ers said it was anything but my child god be with you .

The would not make your rage based on any kind of fact.

[~Crash~]

I got a question for all you smart Democrats . I and my wife tried to have child 20 years . we are not rich so at 39 years old we borrowed $15,000 desperate to have a kid if we could of had some help earlier like 24 or 25 year old we would of easily had kids .why so much love in killing instead of helping people ? all that money spent on people that are worthy of sweat off your balls and you want to pay for them not to care you guys cannot see threw the forest that is fine but the people you should help is the people that want children not the ass crack of people that don't want children .

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Its not any of our business to subsidize non-American citizens with taxpayer monies. Especially in this economy.

It is immoral to subsidize the killing of children.

Let's get the speck out of our own eye.

Starvation is better than contraception. Got ya.

[~Crash~]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Starvation is better than contraception. Got ya.

let me get this straight you think killing will change Starvation? wow that is a stretch don't you think ? Our farmers could easily feed the world ...try again .

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Dudeskey

To a certain extent, but in what way does this support your argument? You're talking about cells w/ chromosomes, I don't see how that makes it a child....™

Everything is there for that child to be considered a living, growing, discrete organism. According to modern definitions of life, the organism is considered alive and unique. See Harvard's recent publication on the definition of life.

If you want to ignore that to say that the growing person is not a child is to ignore what science defines as an individual organism. Developmental biologists do not parse the lifespan of a single species to define its developmental states as beings that are not characteristic of the species...as something other than human. Even in the dramatically extreme example of metamorphosis are the developmental states of the species defined as two different organisms.

The zygote is a human. Plainly and simply. It is not something else.

It is also something different than the sperm or the egg.

When you look at this issue, it is an issue over what has been spun as a "womens rights" issue. It is the advocation of animal behavior. The mothers "right" to kill her child. The issue has been warped and spun to present it as some sort of higher moral, when it is in fact a deevolution of ethical, moral behavior characteristic of we would like to call "human" into behavior typical of instincually confused wolves.

[~Crash~]

the problem over seas is simple politics

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by 56crash

let me get this straight you think killing will change Starvation? wow that is a stretch don't you think ? Our farmers could easily feed the world ...try again .

You need to work on the reading comprehension there, Vladimir. This funding was cut off to clinics who are willing to even discuss abortion. The majority of these places were simply offering contraception, but because they were willing to talk about abortion, they were cut off. Of course, the hidden agenda of the Religious Right is not to simply attack abortion, but all forms of contraception.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Everything is there for that child to be considered a living, growing, discrete organism. According to modern definitions of life, the organism is considered alive and unique. See Harvard's recent publication on the definition of life.

If you want to ignore that to say that the growing person is not a child is to ignore what science defines as an individual organism. Developmental biologists do not parse the lifespan of a single species to define its developmental states as beings that are not characteristic of the species...as something other than human. Even in the dramatically extreme example of metamorphosis are the developmental states of the species defined as two different organisms.

The zygote is a human. Plainly and simply. It is not something else.

It is also something different than the sperm or the egg.

When you look at this issue, it is an issue over what has been spun as a "womens rights" issue. It is the advocation of animal behavior. The mothers "right" to kill her child. The issue has been warped and spun to present it as some sort of higher moral, when it is in fact a deevolution of ethical, moral behavior characteristic of we would like to call "human" into behavior typical of instincually confused wolves.

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong. I am opposed to the act of abortion, but the issue has not been spun as "some sort of higher moral." That's ridiculous. It has been "sold" as what it is; An issue between a woman and her doctor that is being invaded by others with an ideological axe to grind . What do you propose? Prosecuting women for murder?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by 56crash

If it were in my wifes belly and one of you ****ers said it was anything but my child god be with you .

you would try me once ........ you wouldnt make the same mistake twice

[Spider]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Everything is there for that child to be considered a living, growing, discrete organism. According to modern definitions of life, the organism is considered alive and unique. See Harvard's recent publication on the definition of life.

If you want to ignore that to say that the growing person is not a child is to ignore what science defines as an individual organism. Developmental biologists do not parse the lifespan of a single species to define its developmental states as beings that are not characteristic of the species...as something other than human. Even in the dramatically extreme example of metamorphosis are the developmental states of the species defined as two different organisms.

The zygote is a human. Plainly and simply. It is not something else.

It is also something different than the sperm or the egg.

When you look at this issue, it is an issue over what has been spun as a "womens rights" issue. It is the advocation of animal behavior. The mothers "right" to kill her child. The issue has been warped and spun to present it as some sort of higher moral, when it is in fact a deevolution of ethical, moral behavior characteristic of we would like to call "human" into behavior typical of instincually confused wolves.

I got 6 kids , obviously me or the wife dont practice abortion ( or safe sex for that matter) But dude you are so full of **** ...........you make it hard for your side of the argument ..... what you should say is this ...... it is a personal choice , and a choice that could haunt you for the rest of your life .... just something ot think about ......