Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[starsapphire]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-lift-ban-funding-groups-providing-abortions-overseas/comments/

I mean, with our economy like it is, why are we doing this? I wish I could choose what my tax dollars were going to.

 

[iheartscience]

Because Americans love killing babies?

But I know what you mean about having a say in where my tax dollars go. If it were up to me, I''d have us stop spending TRILLIONS of dollars on an illegal war in Iraq, for starters!

 

[bobbin]

How reputable is this source? I think this is more to do with funding UN projects that provide women in developing countries with education, information and access to contraception and abortion. Prior to this I believe that only abstinence only programmes were funded.

In providing aid for health programmes, I don't see anything wrong with this. It is certainly better than the farce of abstinence only programmes. '

I think that the budget would have been worked out pretty carefully and the government wouldn't be spending this money if it was really needed somewhere else. But hey, as thing2 mentioned, if it really needs money, there is always the huge defence budget!

ETA- just read the actual story (instead of the headline- didn't see it before). This isn't about funding abortions it is about not removing funding from groups simply because they provide abortions. It may in fact be used to fund abortions, but the old system of funding meant that large groups of women in developing countries were denied access to abortion, not because it is illegal in their country, but because the lovable George Bush decided that they shouldn't have one because of his moral code .

So I say good on Obama!

 

[hlmr]

Date: 1/21/2009 6:01:28 PM
Author: thing2of2

But I know what you mean about having a say in where my tax dollars go. If it were up to me, I''d have us stop spending TRILLIONS of dollars on an illegal war in Iraq, for starters!

Touche!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/21/2009 6:21:07 PM
Author: bobbin
How reputable is this source? I think this is more to do with funding UN projects that provide women in developing countries with education, information and access to contraception and abortion. Prior to this I believe that only abstinence only programmes were funded.


In providing aid for health programmes, I don''t see anything wrong with this. It is certainly better than the farce of abstinence only programmes. ''


I think that the budget would have been worked out pretty carefully and the government wouldn''t be spending this money if it was really needed somewhere else. But hey, as thing2 mentioned, if it really needs money, there is always the huge defence budget!


ETA- just read the actual story (instead of the headline- didn''t see it before). This isn''t about funding abortions it is about not removing funding from groups simply because they provide abortions. It may in fact be used to fund abortions, but the old system of funding meant that large groups of women in developing countries were denied access to abortion, not because it is illegal in their country, but because the lovable George Bush decided that they shouldn''t have one because of his moral code .


So I say good on Obama!

Thank you, bobbin.

Seriously, people should actually look into what the measure being repealed actually DID [well, does]. The "global gag rule," as it''s often called is not about keeping us from "funding other countries'' abortions." Not only is that incorrect, it''s also misleading. The "global gag rule," prohibits US funds to be given to any group that so much as mentions family planning, which, for the purposes of this rule includes not only abortions, but also many forms of contraceptives. In other words, we refuse to fund any group that mentions abortions, period, even when abortions are NOT part of the programs we are involved with overseas. This is stupid. It leaves us with almost NO options in terms of where to put money, because almost all reputable groups dealing with things such as, oh, I don''t know, the AIDS epidemic also counsel on family planning of ALL sorts, not just the morality-based BS that the US seems to be so fond of promoting. It''s also pretty key to remember that in many of the countries where the programs we''re refusing to fund operate abortions ARE NOT EVEN LEGAL. This means that while the broader organizations generally promote all family planning measures, they cannot even counsel women to seek abortions... since they can''t obtain them legally.

By the way, you should look into the tiny amount of money that is even given by the US government for these initiatives... I''d find something else to fixate on. This amount of money would do basically nothing to fuel the economy in any meaningful sense.

If I could have chosen where my tax dollars went the last 8 or so years I''d have withheld almost all of them. Heck, I shouldn''t even pay taxes since I''m being denied civil rights. A story for another day.Just do NOT talk to me about taxes.

 

[brooklyngirl]

I agree with you about wanting to choose where my tax dollars go as well. However, our political system doesn''t work that way, and we elect *representatives* who are to act on our behalf, and who represent our interests, and our tax dollars are used to support those interests.

If you want your money to go to a specific cause, you are free to donate to said cause, and you can be reasonably sure that your money will be spent supporting that cause.

With that said, we, as inhabitants of a country that allows women to do as they please with their bodies, really have no right to judge, or deny medical care to women who live in countries where they''re not allowed to do as they please. Groups who provide medical care to women in impoverished nations don''t only provide abortions. Many times the care they provide is the only one that''s available to impoverished women, who have no reproductive choices. It''s morally reprehensible IMHO to deny these women their only source of health care because we don''t like that they''re given the choice to abort.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/21/2009 6:21:07 PM
Author: bobbin

ETA- just read the actual story (instead of the headline- didn''t see it before). This isn''t about funding abortions it is about not removing funding from groups simply because they provide abortions.

Exactly.

Reader comments on FAUX news articles are always good for a laugh, though!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/21/2009 6:37:29 PM
Author: brooklyngirl
I agree with you about wanting to choose where my tax dollars go as well. However, our political system doesn''t work that way, and we elect *representatives* who are to act on our behalf, and who represent our interests, and our tax dollars are used to support those interests.


If you want your money to go to a specific cause, you are free to donate to said cause, and you can be reasonably sure that your money will be spent supporting that cause.


With that said, we, as inhabitants of a country that allows women to do as they please with their bodies, really have no right to judge, or deny medical care to women who live in countries where they''re not allowed to do as they please. Groups who provide medical care to women in impoverished nations don''t only provide abortions. Many times the care they provide is the only one that''s available to impoverished women, who have no reproductive choices. It''s morally reprehensible IMHO to deny these women their only source of health care because we don''t like that they''re given the choice to abort.

This is spot on, and as an addendum it''s important to note as I did above that in many of these cases the women in question whose health providers receive [or would receive] US funding are actually NOT offered abortion as a reproductive choice because abortion is not legal in some of the countries in which the organization operates. Just because the larger organization counsels women facing reproductive choices to examine abortion as one possible option does NOT mean that the more localized initiatives where our funding is going necessarily include abortion as an option.

Not that there would be anything wrong with offering it in my book, but important information nonetheless.

 

[brooklyngirl]

Let's not forget that childbirth in the third world is not the same as it is here. I don't remember the exact statistic, but death during childbirth is much more common when there is no medical care.

So, what happens to the children of a mother who died in childbirth? Is it more important to allow one fetus to come to term at the expense of the lives of the mother, and multiple siblings?

If we also consider the fact that most of these women are not seeking abortion, the lives of many more aside from the hypothetical mother and siblings are being sacrificed for one fetus.

I wonder what people in favor of shutting down these groups say about that? What would be your solution to this conundrum?

 

[starsapphire]

But why does this money have to go to other countries? Why can''t we just take care of the people in THIS country first?

 

[brooklyngirl]

This country does not give that much money to overseas aid. It''s somewhere near 1% of total government spending, and that amount does a lot more there, than it can do here.

We can help people in this country if perhaps we didn''t have an unnecessary war. Imagine how much money we would have had to spend on our own people? We could have also used the money from the bailout to help our own people, but instead it went to the richest among us.

 

[starsapphire]

The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

 

[brooklyngirl]

I agree that it''s a good thing that Saddam and his sons are gone! But, it''s been 8 years since that''s happened, and we''re still trying to figure out how to get out of Iraq.

We are spending an enourmous amount of money rebuilding, and protecting a country that is not our own. How is that different from other international aid?

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM
Author: starsapphire
The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

 

[starsapphire]

I agree that we did not need to go into Iraq, and that we should leave. I have no problem with that. It''s just that our country needs every penny right now. People are continuously losing jobs here, and spending money on programs overseas, does not make sense to me. Usually war pulls an economy out of a slump. That is how we came out of the Great Depression. But we are in another Depression, and we are already at war. Maybe getting out of war, will help us now.

 

[starsapphire]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM
Author: starsapphire
The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM
Author: starsapphire
The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son's deaths now.

And yet I, and many other people, have an issue with what is the BIGGEST issue of all: the war was carried out against the terms of international law. International law that we pretty much designed. The same international law that we hold other countries to as a standard of conduct, but yet we cannot seem to find it in ourselves to obey as well.

Absolutely no one has debated the despotism and horrible violence perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and company. What is up for debate, and rightly so, is firstly the issue of waging an illegal war, and committing war crimes in the process. Secondly, the fact that we went into Iraq officially using a web of lives to justify our actions, lies which our government knew to be false is reprehensible.

Anyways, as has already been pointed out there is really no reason to be up in arms about a ridiculously tiny portion of government spending going toward funding family planning abroad. In case you hadn't noticed the AIDS epidemic is a huge crisis, and one which needs to be taken care of globally and collectively. My compassion for people I do not know regardless of where they live, and the thousands [millions?] of children left orphaned because their families have died of AIDS far outweighs any concerns I might have about government spending. We have much bigger issues than this to occupy our concerns.

ETA: I'm done when you are. My mind is actually elsewhere at the moment.

 

[brooklyngirl]

Yes, our country does need every penny, BUT, government cannot fix this depression -- not with taxpayer money, anyway. Even if you took the aid money, and divided it among every American, it still wouldn''t help the economy.

This country''s businesses are just going to have to fix themselves, and I''m afraid there isn''t much that the government can or should do to help them.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:18:58 PM
Author: starsapphire
But why does this money have to go to other countries? Why can''t we just take care of the people in THIS country first?

Hopefully they will buy Fords

Also something about "helping the least among us."

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: HollyS

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

that is one of the funniest posts i''ve read in a very long time! i cannot even begin to imagine you as a stepford wife!

movie zombie

 

[JulieN]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:45:46 PM
Author: starsapphire
It's just that our country needs every penny right now. People are continuously losing jobs here, and spending money on programs overseas, does not make sense to me.

We should also stop giving any government money to all Americans who are too old to work. They don't contribute anything to our economy.

 

[strmrdr]

cheaper to kill em than feed em

 

[tulip928]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:39:05 PM
Author: brooklyngirl
I agree that it''s a good thing that Saddam and his sons are gone! But, it''s been 8 years since that''s happened, and we''re still trying to figure out how to get out of Iraq.


We are spending an enourmous amount of money rebuilding, and protecting a country that is not our own. How is that different from other international aid?

The Iraqi people are well on their way to taking on the responsibilities of their country now. I know it''s unpopular to point out progress in political discussions for the sake of a certain election campaign, but for the most part, it has been a success. There is already a timetable for departure which is on target - you are aware of that, aren''t you?

 

[tulip928]

Related to my above post - if you would like to see for yourself about progress in Iraq and for the people of Iraq, you can read about it here, instead of "hoping" that our news media could find *any* good in the mission:

http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/22/2009 5:39:04 AM
Author: tulip928

Date: 1/21/2009 7:39:05 PM
Author: brooklyngirl
I agree that it''s a good thing that Saddam and his sons are gone! But, it''s been 8 years since that''s happened, and we''re still trying to figure out how to get out of Iraq.


We are spending an enourmous amount of money rebuilding, and protecting a country that is not our own. How is that different from other international aid?

The Iraqi people are well on their way to taking on the responsibilities of their country now. I know it''s unpopular to point out progress in political discussions for the sake of a certain election campaign, but for the most part, it has been a success. There is already a timetable for departure which is on target - you are aware of that, aren''t you?

Well you know, there was an article just yesterday at the WSJ, bloviating about how Bush "won" in Iraq - how it''s been a "success". Not surprisingly, there were a few reader responses. They fit as responses to your assertion of success just as well. For your reading pleasure, and to save me composing my own, when so many others have read my mind and done the work already, I''ll post a few.

"Actually, i would contend that the very victory with which this author speaks, is only in reference to Bush''s glaring failure to properly manage the war during its inception. We did not send the proper troop level, which lead to the cluster@%#$ that indeed needed fixing with the subsequent troop surge. But what''s more deserving of opprobrium than Bush''s mishandling of the war is the censure of those who would assert that the war is indeed over. What''s the basis? Because things have calmed down? I do, in fact, hope this to be the case, but from a tactical standpoint and one mentioned in journals describing the subtle nuances of a fight against insurgency, all the enemy must do is not lose -- that statement, although seemingly lacking in nuance, is indeed everything. So now, with withdrawal finding a spot on a time-line, a victory will only be conceded when certain parameters have been met -- most importantly, that the cessation in fighting continues to decline after we leave. This, i would imagine, is the only this metric with which the Iraqi people measure ''our'' victory."

"Iraq may be no Viet Nam, but to say that Bush confounded his critics by winning the Iraq War is to twist the English language and make an Alice-In-Wonderland claim for an outcome still long in the future. Bush’s disastrous decision to use 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq may yet be rescued from the horror of genocide it once looked to be, and the surge may play a role in helping prevent that. But to say the war has been won – even if there were some way to measure that – is nearly as obtuse and arrogant as the phony issues the administration claimed were the reasons for going to war in the first place. It will be log after Bush has faded into historical memory before we know whether we, like our British allies, have proved that ignorance of the Middle East cost us some of our finest young warriors and a chance to gain allies in the region for our efforts to combat terrorism."

"Your sin, sir, is your complete absence of common sense. George Bush''s sin was not "winning" in Iraq. It was taking our nation there in the first place. And the "opprobrium" you assign to the Washington "elites" is not limited to them alone. Bush leaves saddled with the opprobrium of the world. He earned it by wasting more than four thousand American lives, by lying to the nation and the world in order to initiate the Iraq war, and by mishandling the war from its start to its current state of "winning." Surge or no surge, his policies have been failures. He is despised because of his administration''s disregard for human rights, because he permitted the torture of prisoners, because he sent our soldiers to Iraq inadequately equipped for the battles they would fight, because he failed to assure adequate care for the wounded soldiers and their families, because his foolish policies have, by any measure, weakened our armed forces and thereby put our nation at greater risk, and because he shifted attention from the "right" war in Afganistan to the folly in Iraq."

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/21/2009 9:32:01 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: HollyS

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

that is one of the funniest posts i''ve read in a very long time! i cannot even begin to imagine you as a stepford wife!

movie zombie

I need a ''tongue-firmly-in-cheek'' emotie!

(Thank you for being amused and not annoyed, ''cause of course I''m just doing some good-natured razzing.

)

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM
Author: strmrdr
cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM
Author: starsapphire

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM
Author: starsapphire
The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Now, if I were you, I''d lay off the "Messiah" moniker; it really rankles with some on ATW. ''Course maybe that''s how you like it. Ruffling feathers seems to be my particular forte, so who am I to judge. . . . .

If you want to see poetic waxing about the first day, there is another thread which will entertain you.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/22/2009 1:35:49 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM
Author: starsapphire

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM
Author: starsapphire
The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son's deaths now.

This is a losing battle you're waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Now, if I were you, I'd lay off the 'Messiah' moniker; it really rankles with some on ATW. 'Course maybe that's how you like it. Ruffling feathers seems to be my particular forte, so who am I to judge. . . . .

If you want to see poetic waxing about the first day, there is another thread which will entertain you.

Thanks, Holly. Starsapphire, if you really believe that President Obama is the Messiah, please state your case. I would like to know if I can expect him for Passover this year

 

[zhuzhu]

Thanks, Holly. Starsapphire, if you really believe that President Obama is the Messiah, please state your case. I would like to know if I can expect him for Passover this year

[/quote]

No kidding.
I am still wondering if the Christian in me should feel more insulted, or the Democrat in me should feel more insulted.