• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to end anti-abortion policy for overseas funds

dclxvinoise said:
Perhaps we should consider it at some point, but definitely not when we are facing an economic crisis. We have to take care of our own problems first. I fail to see how this makes me nationalist.
Click to expand...

I read more of an emphasis on your first two sentences. Sorry about that.

I do agree the level of funding should be cut back as other expenses are cut.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How would this change my opinion that my money should not go to third world abortion clinics?
Click to expand...

Because labeling a clinic an "Abortion clinic" simply because it offers abortions as well as life saving procedures, general health related exams and practices, and increases the living conditions of the people is like shooting yourself in the foot because an ant happens to sit on it.

I would rather our money be focused more on our citizens, but if we are already funding healthcare facilities in these countries, I don't think we should pick and choos based on whether they allow abortions or not.

Now, if it was an abortion clinic as in "Its MAIN purpose was to abort pregnancies" then I would be with you.

I just think you guys are missing the part where they are basically small hospitals and happen to offer abortions as well.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Thanks.

It is. It's very exciting but also tiresome. I can only imagine what it will be like once he arrives. I'm looking forward to it more each day.
Click to expand...

I felt that way when the first came. Now I have two, VERY tiring, but I love both of my girls very much. Love isn't split when children are born, it multiplies.
 
Gibberish said:
Very nationalist of you. Personally, I am more of a humanist. We have the capabilities of helping under privileged people in third world nations, and so we should.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the "humanist" impulse to help the underprivileged. I just don't agree that the murder of the unborn child is an acceptable option to present to anyone.
 
ludahai said:
I agree with you on the "humanist" impulse to help the underprivileged. I just don't agree that the murder of the unborn child is an acceptable option to present to anyone.
Click to expand...

And in turn, I wouldnt agree with you that just because a place offers that service as well as all necessary services, that you should deny funding.

Once again though, I would rather see us spending our money on.. well.. us.
 
Gibberish said:
So because the Chinese government has suspect practices all NGO's around the world should be denied funding?
Click to expand...

The funding goes to the organization, not each nation individually. The organization is not holding up it’s part of the deal, and historically never did.

Please quote the part of the executive order or the program itself which stipulates that nations which are forcing abortions will be denied funding.
 
Shewter said:
Because labeling a clinic an "Abortion clinic" simply because it offers abortions as well as life saving procedures, general health related exams and practices, and increases the living conditions of the people is like shooting yourself in the foot because an ant happens to sit on it.

I would rather our money be focused more on our citizens, but if we are already funding healthcare facilities in these countries, I don't think we should pick and choos based on whether they allow abortions or not.

Now, if it was an abortion clinic as in "Its MAIN purpose was to abort pregnancies" then I would be with you.

I just think you guys are missing the part where they are basically small hospitals and happen to offer abortions as well.
Click to expand...

Abortion service in a clinic is like the terrorist HQ in the basement of a children's hospital.
 
danarhea said:
You know, I don't have a problem with people living overseas getting abortions. I DO have a problem that we are funding them, especially at a time in which we are having huge financial problems of our own.

Before we give out money to other nations, let's take care of Americans first. Let other nations deal with their own problems, and let's deal with OURS.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

This is a glimpse of Obamas stupidity in handling the most important isues of the day. The economy would be that isue if you were any other sane individual elected to the presidency. I voted against the man ,but threw my support and hope behind him...,both are in retrieval mode. God-damn this guy if he keeps this up.
 
Jerry said:
The funding goes to the organization, not each nation individually. The organization is not holding up it’s part of the deal, and historically never did.
Click to expand...
You seemed to be overtly generalizing. There isn't just one organization this policy affected. Also, what deal? These NGO's chose to provide family care services. What exactly did they agree to that they aren't holding up?

Jerry said:
Please quote the part of the executive order or the program itself which stipulates that nations which are forcing abortions will be denied funding.
Click to expand...
Nations wont' be because the policy wasn't targeted toward nations. It was targeted towards organizations. Your logic above seemed to be that a nation's government (China) was forcing abortions so all NGOs in the world should be denied the ability for US federal funding.
 
Isn't this the law that Republican and Democratic Presidents have been reversing as soon as they're in office? If it's what I'm thinking it is Bush reversed it in the first month and now Obama has put it back where it was.

I think this is the same one but I'd have to do some research to be certain.
 
missypea said:
Isn't this the law that Republican and Democratic Presidents have been reversing as soon as they're in office? If it's what I'm thinking it is Bush reversed it in the first month and now Obama has put it back where it was.

I think this is the same one but I'd have to do some research to be certain.
Click to expand...

It is. Clinton switched it when we got in office too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom