Bastard
That is sad news indeed, and I’m speechless.
Yeah, but Bush is doing this for the greater good. After all, he’s saving their souls, which would otherwise have burned in eternal hellfire as murderers if he’d allowed it to continue.
What’s the health of the body compared to the health of the soul?
(If you question my sincerity, well, you’d be correct.)
:mad: :mad: :mad:
I have nothing to add. I just want to see what the Usual suspects will have to say about it.
Bush is a :wally.
I am not sure if I am a usual suspect but I will answer anyways. I agree legally that the government has no right to make abortions illegal. Morally on the other hand abortion is completely wrong, parents mothers espicially are killing their children becuase they did not have the responsibility to be able to provide for them before having sex. That being said I am happy my money is not going to kill babies.
IN YOUR OPINION.
You have no right to force other people to believe what you say they should believe.
Since when is America responsible for abortions in other countries? Why is it wrong if we don’t pay for procedures in another country?
I had no idea that we were obligated to do that.
So you believe that abortion amounts to the killing of children… and yet you say that the government has no business making this illegal?
How does that jibe with this:
Well, I suppose the argument in favor would go something along the lines of “we’re not closing the clinics, we’re just not spending American tax dollars on something we don’t believe in. If this is something they want, let them pay for it for once. It’s not our responsibility to be nursemaid to the world.”
The isolationism line rings a bit hollow in light of recent adventures, but it’s the justification I’ve heard in the past.
We are not, and we didn’t under the Reagan rule. If Bush had just reinstated the Reagan rule, that would be one thing, but he went a lot further.
bolding mine.
Wow, DtC’s was the last post up when I wrote mine. I see that Joel has beaten me to it, though.
Is that what you believe?
Besides, I don’t see where treis was forcing anyone to believe in any particular way.
rsa nailed it on the head. The fact that the clinics are funding abortions with their own money is the crux of the argument. It’s not a matter of funding something the “country” (by that I mean Dubya) doesn’t believe in, it’s a matter of attempting to blackmail countries into adopting his standards of morality.
Of course, considering recent events, it’s not entirely suprising.
:rolleyes:
It just goes to show you that no matter how hard we try we just can’t win. If we send them our movies, television programs, and fast food joints then we’re practicing cultural imperialism. If we don’t send them money for population control we’re isolationist.
Marc
This is not really about abortion on their behalf. Because the clinics there offer abortion as an option, they lose their funding. In some cases, whole areas have lost medical treatment because of Bush’s beliefs.
So who is a sinner, Bush for letting funding continue, even thought they offer abortions as a choice (as in the US), or Bush, for removing funding to clinics so that everyone in the area suffers due to lack of medical care?
This is simply horrid of Bush to impose this on the ones who can’t vote for someone else.
No tears here. We don’t owe them a damn dime, especially for abortions of all things.
Maybe the French will step in and help out 
I must be missing one link in the causal chain.
Making U.S. aid funding contingent on refusing to fund, preform, talk about, or even mention abortion would not itself be sufficient to close any clinics. Why? Because you can still get the money if you toe the Bush party line and excise the “A” word from your clinic vocabulary. The money comes with significant, galling, and IMO unwise strings – but if you’re willing to live with the strings, you can still get the money.
The article appears to bear this out: It says: “While her group does not promote abortion or even condom use, [und]it does talk about the possibility[/und], and that was enough to lose U.S. funding, Fyfe said.” It says “Five family planning clinics run by nongovernmental organizations have closed in Kenya [und]because they refused the restrictions[/und] and lost funding from the U.S. Agency for International development, the report said.”
I don’t agree with the policy underlying this change, but I do think as a general proposition that aid recipients have no right to demand that the aid be given unconditionally. And if it has conditions on it, then of course they must decide if they can live with those conditions or not. But if clinics ultimately close because of it, surely the blame for that must be shared both by the government placing the conditions and by the organizations that conclude they cannot follow them.
I must be missing one link in the causal chain.
Making U.S. aid funding contingent on refusing to fund, preform, talk about, or even mention abortion would not itself be sufficient to close any clinics. Why? Because you can still get the money if you toe the Bush party line and excise the “A” word from your clinic vocabulary. The money comes with significant, galling, and IMO unwise strings – but if you’re willing to live with the strings, you can still get the money.
The article appears to bear this out: It says: “While her group does not promote abortion or even condom use, [und]it does talk about the possibility[/und], and that was enough to lose U.S. funding, Fyfe said.” It says “Five family planning clinics run by nongovernmental organizations have closed in Kenya [und]because they refused the restrictions[/und] and lost funding from the U.S. Agency for International development, the report said.”
I don’t agree with the policy underlying this change, but I do think as a general proposition that aid recipients have no right to demand that the aid be given unconditionally. And if it has conditions on it, then of course they must decide if they can live with those conditions or not. But if clinics ultimately close because of it, surely the blame for that must be shared both by the government placing the conditions and by the organizations that conclude they cannot live with them.