However, the US government also does not ban aid to international charities who sponsor fite flying.
jmullaney: LEGALLY SPEAKING, FLYING A KITE IS OK TOO. I don’t see the government doling out money for kites, do you?
:rolleyes: If abortion opponents “cared that much” about having the government dole out money for abortion, “they would drop out of the system and then they won’t have tax dollars going to it.” Once again: why should the moral principles of abortion opponents “deserve” to be respected by restricting the use of federal funds, but not the moral principles of the opponents of other things funded by the government?
Exactly. It disgusts me that my tax dollars are funding the School of the Americas-but what can I do about that?
That’s not what he asked a cite for.
So if people care so much about their taxes going towards pro-choice groups (and DON’T call them “pro-abortion”; outside of China, I have yet to find a group in favor of abortion), shouldn’t they drop out of the system?
That’s a blatant straw man. You are implying that Kimstu is saying that since abortion is not murder, we should pay for it. That is not her argument at all.
I only have one question here:
Is anybody actually surprised by this?
I mean, this is George W. Bush here. There is a reason that pro-choice groups opposed him. I would have been shocked had he not done something like this.
Hopefully, those who are pro-choice but who voted for him anyway because he wasn’t Gore (or for some other reason) are now having second thoughts. Or maybe first thoughts. Hopefully, Democratic senators who were considering a vote for Ashcroft are also having second thoughts.
David B said:
Nope. IMO abortions are almost always wrong with exceptions being rape and medical danger. In spite of this conviction, I don’t feel that I have the moral perogative to inflict this belief on a woman and force her to carry a baby she doesn’t want. If she so chooses, I should not be able to stop her.
Certainly though, I should not be compelled to aid her in what I believe to be a fundamentally immoral act. Nor should the government assist her in terminating her pregnancy.
I think the action taken is exactly correct.
You don’t think that a clause requiring money recipients to prove that they weren’t using the money to promote abortion or abortion rights wouldn’t have done the same job, without compromising the AIDS education movement?
flymaster:
I see you’ve said that 3 times, but that doesn’t make it true. A cite would be needed to convince me, one that also demonstrates that those funds are somehow irrevocably lost and may not go instead to other worthy organizations that happen not to promote abortion.
Mercutio & Kimstu, your points are well taken.
I would like to add that agencies that can be looked upon as “pro-abortion” are, in addition to doing vital work in birth-control, AIDS, and general reproductive health education, often doing more of a clean-up mission in regards to abortion. In India, where abortion is legal, the conditions that women undergo are abysmal.In dealing with the post-abortive complications that arise from those conditions, the obvious step is to provide education in safe practices. The alternative of cutting funding to allow that does no good at all. Women in India (and everywhere) will still seek out the termination of pregnancy, and without the help of many U.S funded programs, will suffer and perhaps die needlessly. It’s not even a matter of being pro-abortion in the course of reproductive health care in the Third World; it’s one of dealing with the reality of a grave problem that can be helped with the medical knowledge we have.
If a funding “gag” is enacted on agencies that are trying to deal with the real circumstances of Third World healthcare, because of a particular US easy political Hot Button, many women will suffer. And it does gall me that Bush’s particular symbolic piece of meat thrown to the wolves is this easy out. If he’s going to be against abortion, go on ahead. Ban it in this country. Make a bold statement, and sweat out the results. By making a proclaimation that we’ll just stick our heads in the sand and not deal with complex problems rationally, with programs already doing a great deal of good in other countries, is pretty sad.
Scylla-you don’t want your tax dollars funding abortion, fine.
I don’t want MINE funding:
School of the Americas
Capital Punishment
Vouchers
Nuclear Weapons
Softening of environmental protection laws.
The whole Clinton impeachment crap.
The argument that we shouldn’t use public money to fund abortion because I disagree with it or whatever is flawed in that, the same argument could be used to say I don’t want my money funding this or that…unfortunately, you cannot always pick and choose what you want your tax dollars spent on. There’s so many things I hate seeing my tax dollars spent on, but I don’t get to say I don’t want that-why is abortion so special?
This is the best point I’ve heard made so far here. It is not concerned with “my tax dollars” or “what I think”. The fact is, folks, that there are plenty of people in the world who need the monetary aid of the United States, period. To those who support Mr. Bush’s action: are you suggesting that we ban all overseas aid? Or do you simply take a stance on abortion? Would you look in the face of Aids-ravaged Africa and shrug again, not caring that the population is exploding into Aids infected children who will not survive past childhood? That these children will be without care because their parents and families are dead? Shall the sins of the father be visited upon the children?
And, I blame EVERYONE who voted for Nader. Do you actually think that Nader would have run in this race if it was thought that he had a rat’s chance? He was a pawn, people. I sincerely hope that everyone who voted for Nader is proud of their new president, since they are the ones who elected him in essence.
What are you talking about? That’s what politicians DO–they decide what to spend the money on, how much, what not to spend the money on, why not, etc. The president can, to a certain extent, do just what you allege to be impossible, i.e., he can pick and choose what he wants the tax dollars spent on. Just because you personally can’t do it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for elected officials to do it.
**
Yes, you do get to say that, through your elected officials. If some day you become a representative, this is exactly what you will get to do, say “I don’t want that, but I do want this.” Abortion isn’t special beyond the fact that it’s an issue to George W. He’s going to have to take a stand on hundred of other issues with respect to who gets the money. Nothing special about abortion in that respect.
I’m confused about something else, but perhaps its because of ignorance… the money that is no longer going to “abortion providing” aid, where does that money go? If it’s still going to aid programs, just ones w/o abortion abilities, then where’s the harm? If it’s going somewhere else… well, where is that? Cites please.
Quix
Too bad, those are all matters of general public policy.
, which apply to the population at large.
Abortion is a personal choice. So is smoking. If I choose to smoke should tax dollars fund my cigarettes? Should the government buy me a nicer car? A personal trainer? A maid? A nosejob?
Nice argument, and maybe I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read, you appear to be wrong. It appears from the article, and other sources, that US money wasn’t going to abortions. It was going to orgs that used their own money for family planning. So your argument has no teeth.
To paraphrase Esprix: Evidently, you rock!
Life sure sucks, don’t it? You can always move to Canada.
Exactly.
And you may be interested to know that I am ardently pro-abortion rights.
I can recognize and respect, however, that some are morally opposed to the practice (you liberals should try it sometime - giving respect and acknowledging the intellectual credibility of a viewpoint that differs from your’s).
So long as abortion opponents are not allowed to prevent abortions by those Americans who aren’t, that’s fine with me.
When it comes to our taxpayer dollars, however, that big kitty of money is everybody’s. People who feel so strongly against abortion shouldn’t be forced to fund them.
And as noted above, the argument becomes even weaker when it’s extended to non-American, non-taxpayers.
Anybody here see Cradle Will Rock? Saw it last night.
Good movie. Pertinent.
Aparently no-one bothered to read the article linked in the OP. Or you would all know that this has nothing to do with ending funding for overseas abortions.
It has always been illegal for the US Gov to fund abortions overseas. It was so under Regan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.
What Gov. Bush has done is to make a rule so that even organizations who use their own money to fund educational programs that mention abortion will be denied federal funding for all of their programs.
So If JoeBobAid offers family planning, and disusses abortion as one of the options, then their funding for teachaching birth control or helping AIDS victims is also cut off.
This a heavy handed attempt by Bush to coerce aid organizations into spending ALL of their money in the way he wants. Not just the money that comes from the Govt.
Of course, aid orginzations that do ONLY abortion stuff are unaffected, because they couldn’t get goverment funding even under the old rules.
For the link-following impared, here’s the relevant bits from the article:
Do your homework people. this is GD, no IMHO.
tj
Wow, I didn’t expect one of them intellectually superior liberals to come in and given the Sermon on the Mount so quickly. But thanks, Tejota.
Let me be clear: for all the same reasons as I mentioned above, I have no problems with stopping spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars to any organization that in any way promotes abortion as an option.
I certainly hope privately funded organizations provide that service, however, as I am pro-choice.
It’s just not an arena where public funds should be involved. There is no other issue so divisive, with each side so fervently entrenched in their position. None.
And Tejota, if you want to pretend that none of the U.S. tax money was going to any facility involved in performing abortions, you’re the clueless one.