You know…
When you post a smart-aleck reply, you should NEVER skip preview, no matter how slow the board is:)
You know…
When you post a smart-aleck reply, you should NEVER skip preview, no matter how slow the board is:)
Freedom, I’ll be the first to admit that I am not as knowledgeable about the Constitution as I’d like to be. So please enlighten me. (Please note that I am saying this out of genuine curiousity and not at all to be rude or accusatory).
In order for these clinics to continue operating, they will have to stop providing abortions and stop mentioning the idea of abortion altogether. This will reduce the number of places where a woman can safely obtain an abortion. Note I said SAFELY. They will still obtain abortions legally, but not safely. Without funding from outside sources, these clinics cannot operate. Yes I know that I am opening up a whole new can of worms by saying that our money should not only go to help support abortion, but that it should also go to help directly fund abortions. I am not an advocate for baby killing. Nor am I against proper use of birth control so that there is no need for an abortion in the first place. What I am is a realist. The cold hard truth is that there are millions of women living in poverty who already have children they cannot afford. They can barely even feed the children they already have, led alone afford proper birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. What we are now asking these women to do is to carry these babies to term, only to deliver them into a life of suffering.
The reverse is also not only true but more pointed. It is the Bush administration position on the abortion gag rule that to ‘fund ancillary activities funds the others indirectly’. Then, they of course, went on to suggest the faith based charities, while noting that ‘we won’t fund religious activities, but merely the ancillary ones’. (IOW, 'twas the Republican camp (gag rule came from the Ron era IIRC) that made the original ‘indirect’ funding = morally the same as direct funding, then now Bush is chosing to specifically ignore it later).
featherlou writes:
In an alternate timeline, probably not very far away as such things are measured (however they are measured), Gore got Florida’s electoral votes and is president today. In that alternate timeline, on the alternate SDMB, somebody wrote:
The virulent responses damning that poster for daring to question the good judgment of a caring, sensitive, environmentally-aware man, and the sincerity of the global warming industry, are left to the Teeming Thousands to compose.
Not true. All they have to do is fund themselves privately. Trust me, I used to be on the mailing lists of NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood in my pro-choice days. They have no qualms about asking their supporters for money and they seem to do especially well when they can play up a “crisis” like this one. Again, as I’ve said above, if you believe this strongly, fire off a check to one of these groups–they’ll be thrilled to have it. Without government funding , they will be free to say and do whatever they want within the laws of the countries in question. They should welcome that freedom.
Various religious groups manage to run schools and hospitals just fine in foreign countries without American taxpayer support. Family planning groups that educate on or advocate abortion will also do just fine if their own supporters pony up the money.
While it is true that religious groups manage to run schools and hospitals just fine in foreign countries without American taxpayer support, they also have the added financial benefit of belonging to that religious group. They are able to pool their money together and direct it to where it is needed. Organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood do not access to as many people’s wallets as a religious organization does. The way I see it, a church operates in much the same way as the government does, but with donations rather than mandatory taxation. The church is free to route the money to where it deems appropriate. This money is given by the church-goers out of a feeling of obligation, not completely voluntarily. (Note that the previous statement is based on my experiences only, and is not meant as a generalization of all church members).
Is it also true that rather than providing funding for these clinics, Bush would direct them to programs that would promote abstinence only education? I am not sure about this, as I just heard it from my room mate earlier today.
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**<snip>How does Bush’s decree, in any way, prevent citizens of foreign nations from having an abortion? Mr. Bush, of his own power, does not dictate the laws of any country, not even the flippin’ United States.<snip>
**
Personally, I don’t know exactly how the US Government works, and I don’t know how much Bush dictates foreign policy; if he is not the author of this mandate, than my wrath is aimed at whatever governing body is responsible. To me, whether Bush made this happen or not is not the issue. The issue for me is that there is and will continue to be a crisis of overpopulation in many underdeveloped third world countries, and the people who suffer the most from this are the women and the children. I would like to see the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world acknowledge this global crisis, and do whatever he can to help control it.
(By the way, I don’t consider myself a bleeding heart liberal. I do feel very strongly about the issue of overpopulation because it will affect every human being living on this planet at some point. We are all going to have to live on this planet for a very long time to come.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Star Light Star Bright *
While it is true that religious groups manage to run schools and hospitals just fine in foreign countries without American taxpayer support, they also have the added financial benefit of belonging to that religious group. They are able to pool their money together and direct it to where it is needed. Organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood do not access to as many people’s wallets as a religious organization does.
Perhaps not, but you’re also talking about a much smaller remit here. Religious groups provide education, health care, communication, recreation, and any number of social services to the communities they serve abroad. If American government money goes only to clinics that provide pre- and post-natal care to women and their children as well as contraception and other health care, well then, if Planned Parenthood and NARAL want to open clinics in foreign countries to provide abortion counseling and services, all they need to fund are those activities. You see, it works for both pro-life and pro-choice people–taxpayer money is not going to free up funds for what many people see as the taking of human life, other health services are still being provided to women, and pro-choice groups are free to provide whatever counseling and services they wish. Plus, why shouldn’t NARAL and Planned Parenthood have access to many people’s wallets? Supposedly half the country is pro-choice. That’s far more than the number of Catholics or Baptists or Lutherans or Jews in this country. Trust me, these groups have deeeeep pockets. They also have the same sort of strong belief that chracterizes religious faith. Shoot, when I was pro-choice in college, some small restriction was placed on abortion and the mailings I got from Planned Parenthood also included instructions on how to do it yourself if that became necessary. Given that sort of over-reaction, if these groups feel this is a comparable crisis, they should act on it themselves.
Is it also true that rather than providing funding for these clinics, Bush would direct them to programs that would promote abstinence only education?
No.
to clarify a point, featherlou I believe that UncleBeer is pointing out that the global gag order does not outlaw abortions in these foreign lands, so they do not ‘directly’ deny any woman an abortion. Of course, the whole direct/indirect thing comes into play, but that, I believe is the point that he was making.
(read the links given already, most of these issues were hashed out there - neither side gave a centimeter, but…)
*Originally posted by wring *
**to clarify a point, featherlou I believe that UncleBeer is pointing out that the global gag order does not outlaw abortions in these foreign lands, so they do not ‘directly’ deny any woman an abortion. Of course, the whole direct/indirect thing comes into play, but that, I believe is the point that he was making.(read the links given already, most of these issues were hashed out there - neither side gave a centimeter, but…) **
The quote that keeps coming to my mind is that if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. I concede that the US is not directly denying abortions to foreign women; I do think, however, that the US should be playing as large a role as possible in fighting overpopulation problems in third world countries. (I suspect UncleBeer and I are having two separate arguments here.)
*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
** Bush has every right to do it. **
Technically, mebbe so. but not by the logic your’e using. Bush’s personal morality is not the country’s morality. I would think that such things would reflect our system of laws. And our laws say that women are the ultimate arbiters of whether or not they will bear children. Any strings “we” choose to attach to “our” gifts, should reflect that fact, not Dubya’s problem with it.
stoid
Stoid:
And our laws say that women are the ultimate arbiters of whether or not they will bear children. Any strings “we” choose to attach to “our” gifts, should reflect that fact, not Dubya’s problem with it.
Ok, I’m confused now.
Exactly how have the “strings” affected the rights of women to have abortions?
My guess is “not at all.” But perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
*Originally posted by andros *
** But perhaps you can convince me otherwise. **
I might, but I’m not going to, mostly because I never made that argument.
stoid
*Originally posted by andros *
Exactly how have the “strings” affected the rights of women to have abortions?
My guess is “not at all.” But perhaps you can convince me otherwise. **
The strings haven’t affect the rights of women to have abortions at all. What they have affected is their ability to have then safely. If these clinics cannot get adequate funding from outside sources, they cannot continue to operate. Sure, private funds from places like Planned Parenthood could help these organizations, but it wouldn’t come close to providing enough funding to keep an adequate number of places open. Then women would be forced to travel sometimes very far to go to a place that provides abortions. Most women in that condition do not have the time or the money to travel that far. Again, they have the more pressing issue of finding food for their children’s next meal.
Is it it just me…
…or did somebody really just put forth this arguement:
The country’s morality supports paying for abortions in foreign countries.
Churches have more supporters(freewill) than Planned Parenthood and NARAL(freewill).
Churches are able to provide education and medical care in foreign countries without taxpayer support.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL are not able to provide abortions in foreign countries without taxpayer support.
So we should use the government to tax (captive audience) the American people to reapportion how the money is being used to pay for abortions in foreign countries.
???
FTR…
I think that subsidizing parts of an organization that provides abortions ends up being the same as paying for abortion.
I also think it is duplicitous for Bush and others in the Religous Right to claim that subsidizing churches doesn’t end up paying for evangelism.
*Originally posted by Freedom *
**
FTR…I think that subsidizing parts of an organization that provides abortions ends up being the same as paying for abortion.
I also think it is duplicitous for Bush and others in the Religous Right to claim that subsidizing churches doesn’t end up paying for evangelism.
**
Your consistency is noted and appreciated.
However, let me note the INconsistency again: The US Constitution specifically forbids the government from supporting religion. The Supreme Court, ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, have consistently upheld the fundamentals of Roe v. Wade: that abortion is private matter to be decided by each individual. Call me crazy, but I happen to think that regulations imposed by the US Government should be consistent with the laws of the United States of America…which *demand * separation of church and state, and * protect * a woman’s right to choose. Bush is, in BOTH instances, substituting HIS OWN feelings and morality for the US CONSTITUTION and system of laws.
Bush is, in fact, a much bigger asshole than even I feared.
Again…I’d rather have a guy that gets blow jobs in back rooms and lies about it, and hands out pardons to dickheads that make no difference in my life, than a guy who decides that when he gets to play President, that means he gets to take a dump on the Consitution.
stoid
PS: And I’d DEFINITELY rather have a guy that exaggerates a little about how involved he might have been in the formation of the Internet, and I am amazed that anyone else wouldn’t.
Stoid:
So, all pro-life people are violating the constitution? Let’s not be non-sensical. Don’t you think that atheists could be pro-life too?
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that being against abortion violates the separation of church and state. I can’t see how anyone could imagine they did. All they did was strike down state laws prohibiting abortion.
So, you think pro-life people are shitting on the Constitution? There are several ways I could respond to that, but I’m going to wait until later when I’m not as enraged.
The bottom line is that the US government can do what it likes with the funds it hands out to foreign organizations. It just so happens that Bush has been delegated to disburse those funds. If your analysis were correct, then the Supreme Court should be ordering the payments for abortion counseling to be reinstated. Oh, wait, the supreme court is a bunch of right wing partisans. And here I thought they were the supreme arbiters of our sacred constitution. My mistake.
*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
** There are several ways I could respond to that, but I’m going to wait until later when I’m not as enraged.
**
You completely and utterly missed my points, so no point in being enraged.
Freedom brought up, before anyone else could, the apparant inconsistency in Dubya’s positions regarding abortion and “faith based” social programs. I was responding to that.
If you really care about the argument, I suggest you go back and read it over again, you’ll probably see the connections that we were making, and you’ll see that they were not the ones you thought they were.
stoid
Actually, I can’t take all the credit.
You’ll note that Uncle Beer brought up the point here:
It’s the exact opposite of the argument the liberals used to condemn Bush’s decision to allow faith-based charities to appply for federal funds. While those federal funds aren’t allowed to be spent directly for proselytizing, liberals made the case that charities receiving federal funds could simply redirect their spending to achieve the same effect. Now that Bush has decreed that U.S. money cannot fund foreign abortions, many liberals are crying that those tax dollars did nothing but provide counseling and education services; none of it was used to fund abortions. Did this federal money not also allow these clinics to redirect their spending in order to directly fund more abortions?
This issue pretty much sums up why I am a conservative/libertarian type.
Take less money in taxes, and let the people decide where the money should go. If churches want money, then they should not be getting money from atheists and people of other religions. If organizations want to provide abortions overseas, then they should not be getting my money.
Instead of fighting over what is the “true” morality and will of the country, why don’t we back off and see what happens when people get to make their own decisions on what they want to support. C’mon people…the last election demonstrated that there IS NO consensus in the country.