Friday, January 23, 2009
|
|
Obama Rescinds Mexico City Policy
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
6:16 PM
|
It didn't take long for President Obama to deliver the abortion lobby its first major victory.
Obama overturned a longstanding policy that prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortion in foreign countries on his third day as president and a day after thousands of pro-life activists left Washington.
The "Mexico City policy" was originally instituted by Republican President Ronald Reagan.until Democratic President Bill Clinton repealed and Republican President George W. Bush reinstated it in 2001.
Obama nixed it by way of an executive order on Friday, hours after pro-life activists ended their annual March for Life protest on Capitol grounds.
Liberals referred this the "Global Gag rule." Immediately after the executive order was announced, feminists groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Feminist Majority mailed out statements to their supporters, urging them to thank Obama.
Christian leader and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins is deeply disappointed with Obama's action.
"At a debate last year at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, then-candidate Barack Obama vowed to find 'common ground' on the issue of abortion and that he, as President, would work to 'reduce the number of abortions,'" Perkins reminded. "His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever leaving the question, how many more broken promises to families lie ahead?"
|
|
The US government doesn't have the money to fund a trip to the bathroom. It sure as heck doesn't have any money to give Mexico to squander.
Besides, aren't the millions of bucks sent back by Mexico's scab labor force enough? |
|
|
I guess we just aren't meeting our quota of baby killing in the US (or "Zygotes" as some of the Pro-Eugenic false "choicers" refer to them)..this just illustrates just how important this Abortion Issue is for the Radical Left..of ALL the things President Obama could be teeing up for the betterment of his Nation's position in the world, Rescinding the Mexico city policy took front burner..that is a bit alarming..and sinister..this from the same people concerned so much about inadvertant collatoral damge by US forces, that they call them "Nazis (Dick Durbin), or indiscriminate bombing of villages (Barak Obama).."..please! |
|
|
You misspelled billion :-). 25-30 billion yearly. |
|
... not only do I fund their eduction, medical (health care), prisions, and other various hand-outs I get to fund their baby-killing in Mexico.
California's $42B in debt. US is trillions. This was a priority or even needed!?
I bet most eastcoast liberals can't point to a map and find Mexico. Spare us your self-serving righteous "concern".
(Obama lied - at Saddleback Forum - babies died!) |
|
This shows that obama is going to fight you social conservatives on the abortion issue and whoever winds up being more persuasive is going to win the cuture war on this one.
Obama could have signed the order during the march but claerly decided that would be tasteless-signing right after the march shows that he wil not be intimidated by the country's pro-life forces. As it stands he will have the edge because most people are tired of how hateful the far right gets when discussing abortion. If Obama is able to even just present his position from a position of civility and proper tone he will have already one upped many of the far' right's shrillest pro-lifers.
Certainly the pro-;ifers had a good issue with their abortion attacks during te campaign but like always they messed up the presentation. Nobody wants religious zealots condeming them and calling them babay killers because they have a difference of opine.
The far right better watch out on this issue because Obama has the clear and cut advantage on two key leve1s.
1. He will be appointing supreme-court judges-at this point he has no motivation to be bi-partisan.
2. Social conservatives lost on Roe v. Wade over thirty years ago and so long as they can be placated while keeping that law in place Obama can still claim a win. |
|
|
|
[As it stands he will have the edge because most people are tired of how hateful the far right gets when discussing abortion.]
I've seen plenty of feminists that are worse.
I'm for contraception and education, would tolerate abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity, and I'm still a 'hateful fundamentalist', 'woman hater', etc.
Doesn't exactly make me more inclined to support them either. |
|
Thanks for taking on the holy rollers...the evil people who think women who get pregnant should be punished. They believe that life begins at conception, and then forget about the children. So many minority kids need to be adopted, but these folks sure don't do that.
No one is mandating that anyone have an abortion. But you fundys sure want to make abortion illegal.
If you have the support, then pass a Constitutional Amendment making abortion illegal. Since you cannot even pass parental notification laws in states when they passed hateful anti gay marriage laws, you don't have the support. Your 'followers' tsk tsk about abortion and pro choice, but when they are asked to do something that might mean their 14 year old daughter who didn't figure out abstinence, or their 40 year old sister who gets raped, might not be able to have an abortion, well, they just kind of vote so that abortion remains legal.
|
|
equating being called a "hater" with being a "murderer"? Funny I can't remember the last time I saw a feminist standing outside an abortion clinic screaming about who would be going to heck or not?
please go cry me that ann coulter i'm a victim of nasty liberals crap someplace else.
I'm pretty sick of people who justify their own bad behavior by pointing to others.
I guess there really was a rash of extremely bad parenting in the 20th century. |
|
"the holy rollers...the evil people who think women who get pregnant should be punished."
What was it the glorious leader said about not wanting his daughters "punished" with a baby again? Lucky he wasn't one of them "holy rollers" who went to the same church every week for 20 years...oh, wait...
|
|
|
I'm not here to "control" a woman's body..my mother is a woman..:)..I am not some religious zealot. Murder IS already illegal, and for millions and millions of people in the US and around the world, it is seen as such. That is something you need to come to grips with, and stop hiding behind this "all controlling" myth..its feminist drivel, and it has no basis in reality. The "punished with a Bayba"" statement was so foriegn to Christians and non-christians alike..the position, and that of millions of American's is DONT ALLOW FOR THAT SITUATION TO HAPPEN IRRESPONSIBLY. Because now you do have a life to deal with, and it is a decision about life and death, not one's comfort, wrapped in the secular illusion of "choice". |
|
"...most people are tired of how hateful the far right gets when discussing abortion."
How more hateful can one get than to murder an unborn child?
"...but claerly decided that would be tasteless-signing right after the march..."
Signing an edict to authorize the murder of unborn children is never in good taste. It is a murderous act. |
|
Oh, I've seen feminists pull the murder card on anti-abortionists.
As to the rest of your post, it's exactly what I was talking about regarding this topic. With a lot of people, there is no compromise. No understanding. No reasoning.
You're either with them or against them and that applies just as much to the Left as it does to the Right.
While the rest of us sit in the middle wondering why the blazes we can't set aside our emotions and try to find a solution that would make most people happy. |
|
|
|
According to the Physician's Desk Reference and the statements by their manufactures oral contraceptives have 3 modalities:
1)Inhibition of ovulation.
2)Inhibition of the mobility of sperm in the case of ovulation.
3)Changes in the uterine wall inhibiting the ability of egg implantion or nourishment in case the prior modalities fail.
Modality number 3 is deliberately abortive in function. Knowing this, would you advocate as strongly for the abolition of this medication that 14 million women take on a daily basis? |
|
|
It is at the heart of the philosophical conundrum..when does life begin?..and as Obama retorted, though its his pay grade now, I am probably, as many, as qualified to detail and measure when exactly does water become ice..and as many secularist do (though this is not an indictment, nor am I claiming you are such) shave the ice so thin, they may not know when it becomes water. So, they place every thing in nice packaged segments (1,2,3 tri mester, etc..) so, to be clear, I don't know when "life" begins, but if I have to place a stake in the discussion, I would side on conception. The "inability" for egg implantation says to me, in hasn't fertilized yet, and can not become a zygote, or have the potential for child prodection. The "nourishment" piece is a bit more ominous, which implies there is something alive to nourish..yes?..that may not, based on my stake that life starts at conception, would be problematic. Clear as mud?..:) |
|
why don't you read "homer's" post and ask the same question; why can't we all just get along.
I don't see any feminsts here scraming murder.
nice try though. How about you stop acting the gop attack machine and actually deal with the issue without attempting to demonize other? Is that possible? You can try to make this about nasty feminists all you want but I think its a pretty foolish strategy that simply falls into the category of silly invective that my first post called out.
As to your assumptions abortion is not an issue that I care about. In my mind the argument is legality and that argument was ended a long time ago.
I really think chloe has a very good point-pro-life forces need to decide to either try to get roe v. wade overturned or really just shut up. Liberals framed argument about when life began argument thirty years ago and the religious right has been played for a sucker ever since.
the dems are using this same strategy with the fairness doctrine-either get a big picture approach that deals with the actual issue or really just let it go. |
|
So, my greatest concern in the whole sale manufacturing of abortion as birth control...2nd-3rd trimester, that is clearly disturbing..So, from a philosophical stand point, the early "conception life" verses "meaningless mass of pre human" (as one pseudo intellectual noted)takes people then from the scientific to the metaphysical..that is belief, and philosophy, that is open for intense debate and fervent disagreement..just Like Kant, or Nietzsche, or Desartre..not all "philosophers" agree..why should those studying the philosophical nature of "conception" be any different.
It is the false "choice" argument that is pumped by the secular feminists that abortion in 6 weeks, 2nd-3rd trimesters is NOT killing a baby..That one I do not get!
|
|
|
Uh, these people went ahead and had a baby (down or not..irrelevant, unless eugenics is your prevailing philosphy)..so, they adhered and took on the responsibility of their actions..that is the quintesential difference with Conservative philosophy and a Liberal one..liberals just see the baby as a correctable "mistake", where as conservatives see it as an indespensible lfe, and now the challenge will be to adhere to the consequences of those actions.. |
|
With all due respect the central flaw in your reasoning is that you reserve for yourself the right to decide at what point beyond conception abortion is murder, while denying that right to the woman involved.
Again, oral contraceptives are deliberately designed with an abortive function. |
|
I haven't denied anything to anyone..I want to persaude people to recognize that
1. Don’t' engage in sex if you can't support or want a child
2. If you engage in sex, then adhere to practices that don't manifest a pregnancy
3. If you become pregnant, don't default to abortion as the only and definitive option
4. If you are confused and bewildered as to all the hyperbole and propaganda, seek the advice of people you know, and trust...not some social pressure to vacuum your problems away
Bryce, that is the choice that is made, I am not forcing anyone to do as I say..I would hope they would consider all options, not the "killing" on first. As for as the Abortive contraceptives are concerned, like I said, it is a philosophical discussion as to when life begins. It seems you want to box those who struggle with that into "well, you’re aborting even with the present forms of protection, so, why not later"..please tell me that isn’t your argument, that because we don't know when life begins, we can abort the child when and how ever?..tha doesn’t make any logical or moral sense at all. You asked my opinion, and I presented as best as possible a philosophical debate..you seem to want to score points..a deadly game with something neither of us has the answer to.
|
|
First off, what a welcome relief to have a civil reasoned exchange of ideas on this decidely complex and often combative issue.
Beyond that, my argument is with those who want to rescind Roe as rule of law.
I in fact agree with what you say above personally. |
|
Really compelling argument. You can tell when a liberal can't win on the merits of the debate when they want to tell you to shut up and cut off all debate.
There was a time in our country's history that the majority felt Slavery was a right of the white man. (Or women should not be allowed to vote) That slavery was OK and perfectly acceptable. Through the years however, other more clear and fair minded folks reminded the pro slave crowd that it goes against our constitution and our founding father's assertion (and yes many religious folks beleifs) that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. One group of people were able to appeal to the heart and better judgement of another group of people and opinion changed to the point that the practice was outlawed and made illegal with the republican President Lincoln's emanicpation proclaimation.
Just because the supreme court created a new right not espoused by our constitution in order to legislate law from the bench, doesn't mean those folks that believe that abortion is wrong cant civily try and state their case as to why they feel it is wrong. Roe V Wade may never be overturned, but that still doesn't mean pro life folks dont have the right or the freedom of speech to share their opinions on the matter. |
|
When I read the rants of Frank and Chloe, I have an evil desire to vent my thoughts. Maybe they are right. Abortion rights are sacred. Let's be honest, if a woman is using abortion for birth control (and we need to be honest--those are the abortions that are in question) maybe she should not be having children. She is obviously too ignorant to prevent conception, so she should not be passing on her weak genes to her progeny. I know that sounds cruel, but maybe it needs to be said. Would she be a decent mother anyway? I would say no if her thoughts toward her unborn child are those of murder.
I am sure Frank and Chloe will have their rationalizations. Keep in mind, that is all they are. |
|
nobody is telling you to shut up-I'm saying don't waste my time with an argument that's a half measure.
and see how far comparing abortion to slavery will get you. that's a real good one there.
far right GOP=no idea how to talk to blacks or even respect them. What made me think they could discuss abortion is a rational manner? |
|
|
Obama, the reality is MOST americans are against abortion, you like polls, just not ones that disagree with your position, those you just ignore.BUT YOU, AND THAT CRAP you adore will lose when you believe you will force all of us to support you murders not only in america, but in other countries as well. WATCH, lets see who far he really get with his plans we will be heard from and listened to or he will be gone way before the next election.He serves at our pleasure and that can and will end if he continues on the path he has taken so far. |
|
"You can tell when a liberal can't win on the merits of the debate when they want to tell you to shut up and cut off all debate."
This was demonstrated today in Washington at a meeting of lawmakers assembled by Obama in the Roosevelt Room:
"I won," [Obama] said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
"The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes."
~ Fox News
As Obama said during the campaign, "As a people, we will get there." He just didn't tell us until now "where the where is" and now we know.
He also warned the Republicans not to listen to Rush Limbaugh. A sneak preview of the Fairness Doctrine? We are about to see our liberty trashed.
|
|
|
you left wing nuts are against killing fish to eat, deer, cows birds and you are against killing murderers, and your against killing terrorist your against killing anything EXCEPT babies, that you revel in defending, and those who do so are your heros, and you want everyone to help pay, even if we find it wrong , and we are supposed to accept that, to listen to your reality and believe and you are not delusional 'RIGHT' your out of your mind. |
|
"...nobody is telling you to shut up..."
You might want to get the word out to your paid seminar alley dweller VI O 'Hara. After all, you two are joined at the lip.
"So I would suggest that you lose the uppity bushit, and really, just shut the ---- up."
~Jan 22, 4:03 PM
Dear sweet VI O 'Hara was on the losing end of an argument (as always) and ended her diatribe with the closing argument quoted above.
Does your George Soros/Huffy Puffy/DU/DK paid seminar program have retraining sessions? You could use a little tuning up. |
|
Frank, yeah, you didnt tell pro-lifers to shut up in your post above...
"I really think chloe has a very good point-pro-life forces need to decide to either try to get roe v. wade overturned or really just shut up."
You guys can't remember what you said five minutes ago... |
|
The english word abort comes from the latin ab, meaning "off or away" and or-ri, meaning "arise, appear, come into being"; so to abort literally means to "cut off the existence of someone".
Abortion can generally be defined as the natural or deliberate termination of the life of a prenatal, or partially born child by forcible removal from the womb.
The woman's choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another.
These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality.
Hope this helps. |
|
We have laws about speeding. People still speed. We have laws about not drinking and driving. Pepople still drink and drive. We have laws about just about everything, and people still do it. Unless, you've been busted for drinking and driving, or speeding once to often. Or, you are TAUGHT what happens when you use your free agency to dis obey the law.
I'm siding with Dr. Laura on abortion. If you truly want it stopped, no law will do that. Teaching morality, and teaching correct principles and not limiting freedom of choice will be the only way to curb abortions. |
|
how many abortions per year were there?
How many after?
Don't tell me the way to reduce abortions is not legislating. It became legal, it became commonplace.
Life begins at conception. Period. It is not even a debate. Ask your frindly evolutinary biologist.
The question then is, when does a baby acquire human rights? Frank and Chloe, answer away. Or is it above your pay grade too? |
|
no the question is one of legality for the overall process-you right wingers are the ones hung up on when life begins. Pro-abortion forces shaped the argument of when does life begin and the trimester argument to keep you people distracted from the main point-legality of abortion.
You guys can whine all you want about polls and opine-funny how that's so important you all now. As I recall many of you appluaded Bush's disdain for polls and now suddenly Obama's supposed to? Yeah right.
You types painted Obama as the single most extreme candidate who ever existed on the abortion issue-if I were him I'd let that image stand as it didn't keep him from getting elected.
And now like gitmo, like torture, and off shore drilling you social conservatives will just have to suck it up.
Nobody expect you to stop complaining; people just wish you A. could try to be civil when you complain-which most of you can't. And B. Try to complain about issues that matter instead of being led around by the nose by democrats on no issues like card check and the fairness doctrine.
And to correct "homer" Obama said not only that he won that "He would trump cantor on the spending problem."
He also added for effect that people couldn't listen to Rush limbaugh if they want to get things done.
Rush spends three nights on fox trying to get his insipid message out and Obamajust metaphoricaly caved Limbaugh's head in by calling him out in a congressional meeting! I hope Obama does more of that-Obama has strategically positioned Rush as the voice of conservatism which is briliant cause now lawmakers have to make a choice about who runs the GOP.
Seems that Obama is running the country. |
|
The pill can cause abortions. Life does begin at conception.
The pill has so many other, significant health risks for women, I can't imagine why so many take it. I guess it's the easy choice?
I agree with 2cents. I think we've lost the battle on a large scale. People who want to abort, will do so.
And, as Dottie above said, the weak who chose abortion are only flushing the gene pool of their issue. Who am I to argue with that?
I always do find it interesting when men(like the ones above) so strongly support women aborting their young. But I guess that makes sense, too. They want the 'fun' of sex with no stake in it's seriousness. The Pill was a dream come true for a certain breed of men who generally hold women and certainly children, of little account(mere playthings/ burdens).
Why women go along with such a scheme makes me think that they ARE 'the weaker(morally, intellectually) sex, in many instances! Look how many have been bamboozled into thinking they are great sexual adventurers, when really they are simply weak-willed, silly creatures who think Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives are the pinnacle of what it is to be a woman. Yes..it might be a round about good that these women abort their children. |
|
Amazingly enough our Dear Leader found the money to have a 170 million dollar "I'm the man" event and now has found millions to kill children in other countrys. ( guess we don't murder enough here for him) Yet every day we are told if we don't give him the money right now our whole economy ... life as we know it will end.
God help us all...oh can I even mention that name anymore? |
|
|
amazing ,I actually agree with your take on abortion . |
|
"Life does begin at conception."
No it doesn't. Both the sperm and the egg are living human cells.
"the weak who chose abortion are only flushing the gene pool of their issue."
It would take at least a thousand generations -- 25,000 years -- to have an effect.
"They want the 'fun' of sex with no stake in it's seriousness."
You're doing it wrong. |
|
The infopeeps are glucking and slobbering over
the B.o.s murder weapon.. a sharp pen!
Stab .. stab .. all of the white embryos !
Those not plopped in a dish.. we will pay to scoop them out. Not above his pay grade ?
This pagan is a sick puppy ! Cold as a banker"s smile. |
|
Or, as Easy Ed has been heard to say about clever people down at the Velvet Plume Tavern: The guy is as slippery as snot on a doorknob.
"Abortion is neither torture nor murder; a fetus is not a human being."
~ Munck, Saturday, January, 24, 2009 10:31 AM
A generally accepted medical definition:
Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.
The embryo is a human embryo.
The developing offspring is a human.
An unborn offspring is a human.
In partial birth abortion, the abortionist, guided by ultrasound, inserts a forceps into the womb and grasps the leg of the baby.
The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal and the entire body of the baby, except for the head, is delivered.
The abortionist jams a scissors into the base of the baby's skull. The scissors are opened, enlarging the hole.
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted and the brain is sucked out causing the skull to collapse.
The baby is dead and removed. Murdered.
There is at least one documented case when the baby was not yet dead but removed and placed in a nearby room to die. That is both torture and murder.
|
|
|
you are lying and full of crapola, you went where you nuts always go, SAVE LIVES,and yet when BUSH went to IRAQ not only to protect lives from weapons of mass destruction, but to free girls and women from rape at saddams sons hands, you yell NO, which is it you lying garbage do you really care about lives of people or just use that arguement at your convience to preserve your RIGHT to kill.Your so wrong and yet you never seem to "SHUT THE F--- up." you need to go away. |
|
fall in line with both of you - if a woman chooses abortion, then she undoubtedly does NOT want to be a mother. Were the child to survive, it would probably end up being a neglected, unloved, abused human being angry at the world. Our country certainly doesn't need more of those around!
It is too bad - remember when unwanted babies of years gone by were fortunate to be loved by their mothers enough to allow them to be adopted by those who couldn't have children.
I guess I realize that overturning RvW is about as likely as Humpty Dumpty being put back together again. Don't think it's gonna happen! |
|
|
immigration? Are the Mexicans offended by Obama's SWIFT action toward preventing births. Covert genocide is what I call it. |
|
abortion restrictions.
Let the infanticide begin!!!!!
(or should I say "accelerate"???) |
|
...Neither the sperm nor the egg contain the full spectrum of DNA to produce a human life. Nature disposes of these cyclically whether humans engage in sex or not. As soon as they come together in conception, however, the zygote or embryo created contains the unique DNA of a recognizable, individual human BEING. Like any other living BEING, this embryo undergoes a predictable pattern of growth and evolvement that further identifies him/her as a living HUMAN BEING.
Engaging in euphemistic obfuscations about "when life begins" is just a Big Lie to assuage guilt feelings about the enormity of the act of tearing apart the most vulnerable and purest form of humanity and disposing of it as bio waste - euphemistically put: flushing it down a toilet. Religion has nothing to do with it, but simple human observation and rationale does.
|
|
|
The bottom line for abortion is this: GOD will be our ultimate judge on the matter, not some liberal law that assuages people's guilt about CHOICE, or some conservative mindset that opposes it. GOD says, "Before you were created, I KNEW you!!!!" Life begins when 2 human cells connect. End of discussion from God's point of view. |
|
where rape is used a genocidal tool along with good old fashioned straightforward murder it's business as usual.
You told us you would take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur. Is this what you meant? Money for the woman systematically raped to abort their babies?
Got your priorities in order Mr Obama? I don't think so.
|
|
See my earlier post. Based on your argument the oral contracepts 14 million American women take on a daily basis is an act of murder based on your definitions.
Will you now argue as forcefully for criminalizing manufacturers, prescribers, and users of the pill?
If not, why? |
|
"Nature disposes of these cyclically whether humans engage in sex or not. As soon as they come together in conception, however, the zygote or embryo created contains the unique DNA of a recognizable, individual human BEING."
And nature disposes of most of those also, flushing them down the toilet as you put it.
In what sense is a single, newly fertilized egg "recognizable?" Do you think it'll bear a family resemblance to the father or mother? It's a single cell, tiny and mostly spherical; no nose, no ears, no brain, nothing. |
|
...I wasn't "arguing" anything. I was stating the objective reality of the phenomenon of human life as we understand it. To the extent that any drug destroys an embryo that has already formed, it constitutes an abortion, i.e., destruction of human life. To the extent that any drug simply inhibits or stops conception, it is not an abortion. Nature cyclically disposes of sperm and egg cells on a constant basis.
Throughout history, societies have defined what they find as acceptable killings - executions, war, self defense, even infanticide, and so on. Since this is the case, I just don't see why abortion lovers and supporters need to hide behind such outrageous euphemisms, when what they really seek is another form of legalized killing. Why is it so hard to accept this for what it is? |
|
'GOD says, "Before you were created, I KNEW you!!!!"'
But god is omnipotent; he knows everything that is going to happen in the future. That's how he knows you, not because you had some kind of ghostly existence before you were born, but because he already knows about your entire life.
"GOD will be our ultimate judge on the matter"
I'm fine with that. A nonexistent judgement. |
|
...as I stated very clearly, the DNA Pattern is that of a unique HUMAN BEING. It is recognizable as such vs. that of any other life form. It is also recognizable as unique from any other human being. As it naturally evolves in the womb, the other unique qualities manifest over time, just like a baby evolves into a toddler...and so on.
Why is it so hard for you and your ilk to stand by your ideology, and just state, it is society's and individual's right to engage in this type of killing, or destruction of human life? The law can be what the people say it is. Why obfuscate such obvious, natural realities? |
|
"It is recognizable as such vs. that of any other life form."
You're saying you can look at a fertilized egg and tell what kind of animal it is? Not a chance.
"Why is it so hard for you and your ilk to stand by your ideology, and just state, it is society's and individual's right to engage in this type of killing, or destruction of human life?"
Because it's not killing. The only human being involved is the mother. In what way are we not "standing by our ideology?"
You love the work "ilk," don't you? |
|
|
"The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all it's parts have been torn from it's Mothers body can hardly doubt wether it ia a human baby"...........Ronald Reagan |
|
I do not believe it is premature. And it's not a "whine" it's a simply stated question.
He stated on his website:
"As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur"
Nowhere on his foreign policy page does it mention anything about providing money to overseas groups/nations to enable abortion.
On his "women" page he states:
"Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President."
Nowhere on that page does he mention anything other than support for a woman's right under RvW. By that one would assume he wishes to preserve the right of choice for women in the USA. Nowhere does he mention sending our tax dollars abroad to support abortion yet it's almost the first thing he does. I am simply questioning his priorities vis-a-vis his written statements of intent.
It just seems rather contradictory that he should make one a much higher priority than the other when his website seems to indicate an entirely different degree of importance.
It just seems unusual that his method for ending the genocide in Darfur would be to kill the babies that are being created as a method for that genocide. I am simply asking if Darfur is one of the countries to which he plans to send this money and if that is the purpose to which it is to be put. As most of the genocidal raping that is occuring in Darfur is being sanctioned by the government there how is sending that same government money for abortions going to help the issue?
I was hoping I might have got an answer but it seems you only have BDS to offer. Does anybody else have a rational answer to this question? It is obvious you don't. |
|
or is it our everlovin' Kimberly?
I am and have been a battlescarred prolifer from November 1972,mother of five and adoptive mother of one and grandmother of 15. Got that? And the adopted son has MORE black,negro, African blood in his veins than your demi-god could wish for,
he's also hispanic 25% each from his father, and 50% caucasion from his mother. I was 5 months pregnant with my fourth birth child, they are exactly a year apart. He marched in LIFE parades thanking his birth mother for NOT aborting him. Got THAT! I have heard that canard for 36 years by sanctimonious baby killers, it's getting a bit tired and old just like the feminazi harpies you represent. You can
carp about my faith, about God but that doesn't change a thing..you WILL stand before HIM one day and answer for your life! Deal with it. He LIVES! As will your demi-god, which incidentally
by encouraging the godlike worship of his mind number congregation, he's on pretty shaky ground.
Scripture is replete with examples of such
narcissists and they came to rather gruesome ends if they didn't repent. By signing this order, which he said was above his pay grade (he omitted the revenue enhancement he got from the abortion industry)he's got the blood of millions of babies past, present and future on his hands, as do his voters. And whether you want to believe it or not, our nation is in trouble because of such ghouls as your demi-god and the 95 majority thugs and RINO's who haven't problem with child sacrifice on conveniences altar. This isn't about women, it's about what is right for a society, especially one founded on Judeo/Christian principles. Incidentally, the
women I met who suffered abortion are still in
pain even after repenting and many of them were bullied and coerced by family and boyfriends..so much for choice. |
|
"Does anybody else have a rational answer to this question?"
Democratic presidents ALWAYS rescind Reagan's nod-to-the-religious-fringe gag rule when they get into office; it's a TRADITION. |
|
Typo regarding the thug majority now running our government..not 95 but 9% nine per cent approved
and the demi-god's mind numbed congregants.
He's so cold he doensn't care that the Sanger
Nazis in Planned Murder Inc have more of their
abortuaries sited in Black neighborhoods and it's not unimaginable that most of those funds will go to countries that are not caucausion
centered but mostly black, asian and hispanic.
Seems he's got a bit of the bigot in him, we do know he's bigotted against caucasians given his
church affliation and his "committed" christian teachings there. He's so committed a Christian
he did't have a bible for his flubbed retake that was blamed on John Roberts. How nice,
another liar in chief..wonder if Billy's big
Bible will be available when the scandals catch up to him so he can borrow it when he goes to a
'show" church. |
|
That doesn't answer my question. Oral contraceptives do in fact have a modality which is deliberately abortive. That's not me talking, that's the Physician Desk Reference and the literature of the manufacturers themselves.
So again I ask, since the oral contraceptives that 14 American women take daily has a deliberately abortive function, do you advocate for their abolition. |
|
|
I'm all for government sponsership of birth control for leftians. I have to draw the line at abortion, however. I may not see any use for these people, but God does. |
|
|
Didn't know I was talking to you! :-O! What flavor would you like your contraceptive in? |
|
Bob Munck wrote: "Democratic presidents ALWAYS rescind Reagan's nod-to-the-religious-fringe gag rule when they get into office; it's a TRADITION."
Before last week there had only been one Democratic president since Reagan. I hardly think that qualifies as tradition. One nod-to-the-baby-killing/fetus destroying crowd does not make a tradition.
But, as it seems with most of your rather silly answers you avoid the real question I asked so I'll ask it again.
"I am simply asking if Darfur is one of the countries to which he plans to send this money and if that is the purpose to which it is to be put. As most of the genocidal raping that is occuring in Darfur is being sanctioned by the government there how is sending that same government money for abortions going to help the issue?"
|
|
"I am simply asking if Darfur is one of the countries to which he plans to send this money"
There isn't any money involved. A law going back to 1961 says that money we give to international NGOs cannot be used to perform abortions or to advise people about abortions. Obama canceled a Reagan/Bush rule that says in addition that we can't give money to any NGOs that use money from other sources to do either of those things. The original law remains in effect; I doubt that Obama can cancel a law with an EO. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, January, 24, 2009 11:11 PM
"There isn't any money involved. A law going back to 1961 says that money we give to international NGOs..."
If there is no money involved as per part one of your statement what is the "money" you refer to in part two? At least it appears it isn't being given direct to corrupt governments such as that in Darfur.
The actual sum of money involved was $461 million per the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. This money will now be taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortion, and instead, given to organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method.
No money involved? You just keep kidding yourself.
|
|
"The actual sum of money involved was $461 million per the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. ... You just keep kidding yourself."
You're right; I should have said "no *new* money involved." |
|
|
...if you are too ignorant to understand, or are just trying to be willfully obtusive, that's your problem. I stated that I'm not ARGUING anything. That means I'm not taking any stands on the issue of whether it's right or wrong to kill unborn human life. I'm just trying to find out why you and your ilk want to hide behind your euphemisms in such a cowardly manner. If you're pro abortion whether by surgical butchery or by poisoning the unborn baby with a "contraceptive", why can't you all just bravely say, "it's an acceptable form of, or a justifiable homicide"? As I have pointed out, historically societies have used a very broad spectrum of what they considered justifiable destruction of human life. Even in modern times we have seen Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hussein and others killing people by the millions in combined total mostly for political expediency. They used their euphemisms also, but you don't buty them, do you? Why do you hide behind yours? You haven't answered those questions, buddy. |
|
Unlike you I am willing go beyond theory. I support Roe v. Wade, as well as some restrictions such as parental notification, waiting periods, and no late term abortions unless the life or physical health of the mother is at risk.
Now instead of hiding behind rhetoric and circular reasoning, are you willing to stand up and make a stand? |
|
You're being disingeneous as the fact that you frame the debate in terms of unborn human life reveals.
You see that is the crux of the argument, at what point is the unborn afforded the rights and protections of humanity. I believe those protections only exist from the point of viability which the medical community agrees occurs in the 3rd trimester. |
|
|
The word you're looking for is obtuse. |
|
|
|