Wring:
Sorry about the sarcasm. It’s just that we were on that sideline for a while, and I’d also truly forgotten where we were going with it.
Wring:
Sorry about the sarcasm. It’s just that we were on that sideline for a while, and I’d also truly forgotten where we were going with it.
No apology necessary. (as long as you don’t nag me about missing your “I am pro choice” statement - DUOH!)
“Paying for abortions [or counsel on them, etc.]” means that there is some fund which is going only to groups that perform abortions [or counsel on them, etc.]. “Paying groups that perform abortions [or counsel on them, etc.]” however, means simply that there is a fund, some of which goes to groups that perform abortion [or counsel on them, etc.].
Paying for abortion [or counsel on them, etc.] is supporting abortion [or counsel on them, etc.]. Paying people that perform abortions [or counsel on them, etc.] is not.
And, BTW, I thought putting “[or counsel on them, etc.]” after every instance of “abortion” to be sort of silly, but it seems like every time I leave a single detail alone, someone always jumps on it. Knowing the people that inhabit the SDMB, it seems almost certain that someone would jump and say “But I thought you said no money is going to groups that perform abortions”. :rolleyes:
Abortion is an act, not a thought. And yes, we can and do pass laws against actions that most of the people find repugnant and morally wrong (rape, incest, murder, etc.).
This scenario is akin to the anti-apartheid protests of the 80’s. A lot of people thought that giving their tax money to countries who practiced apartheid was morally wrong. They were indignant that we could support a nation who practiced such atrocities against its own people. So they protested. The wrote letters. They sang songs (“I ain’t going to play Sun City”). They put pressure on the legislators to STOP sending tax money to nations who oppress minorities. And it worked.
If there is a government-sanctioned act more controversial than terminating your own offspring, I don’t know what it is. And since a great deal of people in this country – far greater in number than those who protested apartheid – find this act abhorrent, we should not allow our tax money to support this act in any way.
**
Try and get on the same page as everyone else, please. We’re not really discussing abortion per se. We’re discussing Mr. Bush’s executive order which denies USAID funding to groups who offer any abortion services at all (which includes the term ‘counseling’ - and as DoctorJ so keenly described is the term used by physicians to describe the process of ‘giving information’). Which is controling those persons ability to speak of abortions.
So, we are not debating abortion, right or wrong, (well, you seem to be). Your description of the anti-apartheid movement was moving and stirring and not at all applicable. The apartheid system was in effect in one country, and pretty much universally, across the world, detested. Abortion is legal in most countries, and certainly is legal in the US and all of the countries where the USAID money goes, (which is the basis of this discussion). So, we’re not talking about one nations vs. the rest of the world here at all.
And please, also retire your arguement about ‘we don’t approve, so our tax dollars …’ it has been pointed out, over and over and over and over again to you -
-
your tax dollars are not paying for abortions overseas.
-
No. one. not. a. single. person. agrees. with. how. our. government. spends. each. single. penny. of. their. tax. dollars.
By the way (as opposed to your statement), the great majority of Americans believe abortions should be legal, at least in some cases (see the link I provided on the second page). Abhorrant? well, I don’t think anyone says oh, goody, I get to have an abortion. I think all would prefer that there are zero unwanted pregnancies. We differ on who should have the ultimate control over the question of ‘should person x get an abortion’. You believe that you should have the control since you personally find it so abhorrant, I would prefer that person x and her physician/supporting family members etc. should make that painful and personal decision. But that’s a different thread.
I see. So let’s pretend that there is an organization.
It does two things:
- It provides pride and meaning to certain poor disenfranchised people. It lifts them up, helps them get on their feet and involved. It gives them identity and purpose, and unity.
It does other things to, which some people don’t agree with (after all lot’s of people disagree over different things,) but according to your “distinction,” it’s all right to support this organization financially because of these positive aspects, and by doing so I am not supporting the negative aspects.
What if this organization was the Ku Klux Klan?
Your distinction didn’t work at Nuremburg, and it doesn’t work here.
Yowza.
First off, thanks for the debate link, wring. Looks like Dubya didn’t express any intention to review the abortion drug during the debate - I must be thinking of something else. Have to agree with DoctorJ - we should be seeing Dubya find some obscure complication or side effect to pull RU486 (?) off the market.
Secondly, I was not trying to defend the perception of pro-life posters in my request for Pepperlandgirl to provide a little better evidence of 50%+ of pro-lifers approving of abortion in cases of rape or incest than “Dubya is one, therefore I am correct.” I was just calling her on a poor argument, that’s all.
Proceed.
This is a separate question, but the big hubbub over RU-486 is that you could get it from any G.P. or gynocologist, right? From what I’ve read, it’s not any “easier” than a surgical abortion - it takes more doctor visits and is currently more expensive - but you wouldn’t need to go to an abortion clinic to get it. Therefore, it would be harder to track “abortion doctors” or clinic activity. While the the anti-choice lobby is opposed to any kind of abortion at any time, this is really the thing that makes them most worried about RU-486. It doesn’t make the process of abortion easier, but it improves access. Is this correct?
Second, I’m not linking to this because you need to sign up for a log-in to read, but this morning’s Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial by Cathy Young that pretty much sums up what many of us said in this thread. To sum up:
-
Abortion is an extremely divisive issue for the American people, and not using tax dollars to pay for them respects the strong feelings about this issue. No international organization, or citizen of a foreign country, has a right to U.S. government support.
-
Yeah, our tax dollars fund a lot of things we don’t support. So do what the anti-abortion lobby did. Organize, and get candidates elected who support what you support and will stop U.S. support for what you don’t.
-
This is nothing new - the ban was in effect from 1985-1993. Organizations either changed their practices in order to qualify for funding or went and got alternative funding. Young makes the point that many wealthy feminists who are so angry about Bush’s decision (I believe she names Susan Sarandon) could raise the money that they spend on shoes each year to provide private, charitable funding to family planning organizations, and that they should have done this from the beginning. The result is a network of privately funded clinics that would provide services independent of the screwiness of American politics. And hopefully this is what will develo - with long-term benefits.
For the record, I think Bush made a bad decision. International family planning NGOs have well-developed networks on the ground to provide poor women with a host of services - birth control, nutrition information, AIDS prevention, pre-natal care, and basic medical care - in one place. Women who might not see a doctor for themselves will see one for the sake of an unborn child. I think if we looked at the statistics of what services are being provided, abortion (operations, follow-up medical care, and information) makes up a miniscule part of what these organizations do. These organizations are an excellent and efficient outlet for our development dollars.
But no one’s rights are being trampled here. It’s up to the organizations to make decisions about what they stand for, and adapt as necessary - either go along with Bush’s decision or seek their funding elsewhere.
I am absolutely pro-choice, but the legal right to seek an abortion does not equal the right to have one provided for you at a convenient location wherever you may live in the world.
magdalene-correct about the “abortion pill”. In fact, from what I understand, it causes major hemorhaging, cramps, vomitting…not for the faint at heart.
Let me say this again. His order is no different from an executive order denying U.S. funding to a nation who practices apartheid. There was a controversy at the time that forcing American companies to divest, while sending a clear message to the South African government, would also inadvertenly HURT the very people we were trying to help. Because it would harm the economy, which would be bad for EVERYone.
Another analogy is the foreign countries (e.g. France) who will not allow extradition of alleged criminals who are charged with a capital crime here in the U.S. It doesn’t matter whether executions are legal here, or anywhere. It doesn’t matter what the criminal is accused of or how compelling the evidence is against him. What is important is that the French government has said that capital punishment is WRONG and therefore they will not cooperate. End of story.
Abortion is legal in the United States. Apartheid and racial discrimination, at the time the apartheid “embargo” went into effect, was not. That’s how it’s different. If you fail to see that, then…well, I don’t know. But that’s the distinction.
No, you completely missed the point of my distinction. You were specifically looking for a group that does some good things, but also a lot of bad things, so that you could “prove” me wrong by suggesting that we give money to them. In other words, the only reason you’re suggesting that we give them money is because they do bad things. As I said before, paying someone money because they do something is the same as paying them to do that. So you’ve presented a situation in which you imply that we are not paying them to do something bad, yet we are. Clearly, you still don’t understand the disctinction.
That’s just completely nonsensical. The issue of whether giving money to people that do X is the same as paying them to do X wasn’t even remotely an issue during the Nuremburg trials. If you’re going to stoop to making Hitlerisms, at least have them make sense.
magdalene:
Pretty much. You probably won’t see a lot of internists using it, since they generally don’t do OB, but any family practitioner or OB/GYN would be able to do it.
The main objection from pro-lifers is that it will lead to more abortions. I can’t really argue with that, because I do think it will result in more abortions. It depends on the degree to which you consider that a bad thing. I don’t necessarily like it, but I do think that anyone who wants an abortion in this country should be able to get one.
guinastasia:
So does surgical abortion. So does term pregnancy. Most of the studies I’ve read on mifepristone give fairly low rates of complications. The biggest one is that it doesn’t work 2-8% of the time (depending on the study), necessitating a surgical abortion.
(I’m following this issue very closely because I’m leaning toward family practice, and I’m going to be practicing in an area where it’s very hard to get an abortion. On the one hand I’d like to see it available to those who want it. On the other, it would probably get me at best boycotted and at worst shot.)
Dr. J
Yes, it does.
No, I am suggesting that we have knowledge that they are doing bad things, and we aid them, we share in the responsibility for those bad thing, even if we aided them only for the good aspects of the things they did.
Legally, it has an analogue in instances “aiding and abetting.”
Ethically, it’s a pretty basic concept. One that you might even learn from Saturday morning cartoons.
I’m not saying we should be outlawing it, just saying that it isn’t like some people seem to think-pop the pill and the baby is instantly gone! (At least, that’s the way some people talk!)
It’s a very harsh drug, and any one who thinks people will be popping it with ease are mistaken.
Flymaster;yep, that’s the distinction.
I would like to bring up again that a major issue in reproductive healthcare in developing countries is post-abortive complications, due to unsanitary practices. This is an important issue affected by Bush’s reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule.
Scenario: A woman comes into a USAID funded clinic with post abortive complications. Of course, her immediate medical needs are attended to. In follow up care, the main issue would be to educate her in contraceptives, but also in why an unsafe abortion is unwise. If healthcare practitioners cannot mention abortion out of fear of “promoting” it, and educating a populace of dangerous procedures, a grave mistake is made.
The ideal is that no one would ever need to make the unfortunate choice of abortion. But, the reality is that women have always had abortions, and will no matter what monetary assitance dictates. The current difference in women in developing countries and the US is access of a safe abortion. Clinics then have to deal with the repercussions of that, at a much greater effort, and overall cost.
A specific illustration:
“Botched abortions use up scarce resources of public health systems desperately needed for other life-saving interventions. In many countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, studies estimate that botched abortions:
– fill half of all obstetrical/gynecological ward beds
– use up half or more of the blood bank resources of local hospitals
– take up half or more of the operating theater time
– occupy half or more of the time of surgeons or specialized professionals.
Thirty-four to 57 % of all admissions to the gynecological ward of a hospital in Tanzania were women suffering from complications of abortion. The cost of care was U.S. $7.50 per day in a country where the health budget provides U.S. $1.00 per person per year.”
The current World Health Organization figures are; out of 600,00 pregnancy related deaths, 78,000 are resulting from unsafe abortion. These deaths make at least one million children motherless each year. That’s not counting the women who never make it to hospital care.
By not allowing education and the safe practice we afford to our own citizens as an adjunct to USAID beneficiaries, we are endorsing more suffering in terms of lives cost. And, with the money spent on post-abortive complications, instead of contraceptive education(the goal of all reproductive health agencies), more abortions will undoubtably result.
The international guidelines that family planning agencies cite as their bellwether: {url=http:///www.iwhc.org/rhc.html]Cairo
A summation of the ongoing ordeal, as according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute:
here
If you don’t feel like reading the whole document, at least scroll down to US Leadership and Reflecting American Values; Wendy Turnbull puts it in the way I might say.
OK, I’ve been caught in a strange board Twilight Zone of not accepting my second link…
The Botched Abortion site should be available here
The bellwether reference ishere
You seriously expect me to believe that you picked this example at random?
The feceral government gives money to the KKK? News to me.
So by allying with the USSR in WWII, we are responsible for all of its atrocities.
Suppose your neighbor robs a bank, and you know it. Later he starts repairing the fence between you property and his, and asks for your help, which you give. Are you now guilty of bank robbery?
Aiding and abetting a criminal is not illegal. Aiding and abetting a crime is illegal. Oh, wait, don’t tell me. Let me guess. The distinction between a crime and a criminal is “unimportant”.
What, that once you help someone do one things, you’re complicit in everything that person has done? By “basic” do you mean “absolutely absurd”?
No, jokes please, I think we all know what I meant to say.
So every single order denying aid on the basis of behavior is exactly the same? How about denying funding to all countries that don’t speak English? Or how about denying aid to every country with a parlimentary government? Is it really that absurd to suggest that there are some situations in which it is appropiate to deny aid, and others where it is not?