Of course they can vote for someone else. They can vote for their own elected leaders, and then ask those leaders to come up with the money to run their own clinics. Then they won’t have to answer to anyone for the policies they follow or the advice they give.
Perhaps some of you have missed the part where it clearly states in many cases the abortions are NOT paid for by us, as in, paid for by the clinics themselves, not our taxpayer dollars.
You’ve apparently overlooked the bit where it states entire areas have lost ANY healthcare, including preventatives for pregnancy…you know, birth control. It also pointed out the fact that clinics who do NO abortions at ALL have also lost their funding because of this.
But I’m sure you read those parts, right?
Why is it the second the word abortion enters a conversation, common sense and logic tends to fly right out the window?
Um, Cerri? Can you give us a reason as to why we should be paying for healthcare in Africa to begin with, considering tens of millions of Americans don’t have health insurance here?
It’s not our fucking problem, frankly. I’m sorry Africa is a shitty place to live but why should we bend over backwards to make sure people in Africa get healthcare when we can’t even provide it for our OWN citizens?
Um, maybe because we are all members of the global community? Um, maybe because a lot of the ‘first world’s’ wealth has come about via the rampant exploitation of the resources of the ‘Third World’? Like, maybe places like Africa are ‘shitty place[s] to live’, BECAUSE places like the US and other developed nations have ridden on their bowed-backs to begin with?
Why should we be paying for healthcare in Africa?
Because WE FUCKING CAN, and the local citizens CAN’T. If you need a reason greater than that Snoopyfan, then I can’t fucking help you.
Lots of other countries FUCKING CAN, and they DON’T. It’s their turn to pass the plate for once.
Oh, big deal. . . .
This is from that same link in the OP
*But White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the policy only affected family planning clinics, not general health clinics.
“The president had just unveiled a $15 billion program to address the biggest healthcare crisis facing Africa, which is AIDS,” she said in a telephone interview. "Any organization that wants to participate in delivering healthcare services relating to AIDS can do so.*
I don’t see how the USA is obligated to pay for various horny people around the globe. I wonder how much of that 15 billion is coming from my pocket.
One second, everybody hates the USA, and they want no USA interference into foreign matters/countries etc.
The next second, everybody hates the USA, and they want more USA participation in certain things, or they are upset when the USA pulls out of something.
Screw 'em. The haters will continue to hate, regardless. Face it, they like our money, but they don’t like us.
Also, I agree with what one previous poster said. Let’s take care of the uninsured people with no healthcare in this country for starters.
Fucking load of old shit.
US per-capita spending on foreign aid is very low compared to the majority of other western countries. And they all have foreign aid budgets. The crap you’ve said in this thread is entirely at odds with reality.
I think this is action tells the world TMI about Bush’s true motivations towards all aspects of foreign policy (i.e. middle east) - it’s spiritually based. And is it representational of the majority of Americans? What do the polls say on the pro-choice/pro-life split?
Whether or not I think we should be giving them money to subsidize their health car when I can’t even afford decent health insurance is another story altogether, and not the point I was trying to make.
My point is, it makes me sick that it appears to me the sole reason those clinics are not being funded now, being denied money, denied healthcare, birth control, treatment for and education of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, (which I defy you to argue isn’t a world concern) that they WOULD have recieved…had they complied to what amounts to a religious stipulation, looking very much like the result of religious beliefs held by (apparently) our leadership. Last time I checked he wasn’t the Pope, and the US wasn’t the fucking Christian World Fund,and unless I’ve fallen asleep and slipped through time, this isn’t the Dark Ages.
Offer them help or no, but to put what seems tantamount to a religous mandate to others, I suspect, beyond myself, seems oh, I don’t know…theocratic?
Theocratic…fundamentalist theocaries…wait…where have I heard this term bandied about as being a BAD thing in this day and age…
Of course, that’s an exaggeration, but I doubt I’m alone in feeling that beginning to base our International Aid packages based on religious mandates, rather than political reasons, world concerns, and rational thought is a slippery slope that a good many of us would very much NOT like to see our government begin sliding down.
That, and it makes me feel oogy.
treatment for and education of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, (which I defy you to argue isn’t a world concern)
Did you even READ the article and what Daisy Cutter wrote?
I don’t know. How much do you make?
The USA isn’t “obligated to pay for various horny people around the globe”, as it were. You are oversimplifying the problem - it’s not about a couple of teenagers who wilfully forget to use birth control.
For better or worse, Western countries tend to help out the Third World. As has been stated already, the US does this to a lesser extent than other Western countries, on a per capita basis - but that’s perhaps another thread.
The point is, that in a continent like Africa, you can’t separate general healthcare from family planning, and sex education. In some African countries, 40% of the population is HIV-infected (I recall that figure for the black population of South Africa, for example). A lot of this is due to ignorance about HIV. A lot of African governments do fuck all about educating the masses about the dangers of unprotected sex: it’s often up to family planning clinics to do that. And since these same African governments often don’t care a whole lot about funding such clinics, they heavily rely on foreign aid.
Cutting of this aid because the clinics also engage in abortions is ludicrous, especially if the funding isn’t even used for said abortions.
Oh, get off the fucking “Everybody hates the US” thing already. It’s boring, it shows your ignorance, and most of all, it’s incorrect. You’re mixing up genuine criticism of US foreign policies on the one hand, with the moral obligations that come with being a world power on the other. Learn to separate the two, please.
I fully agree that the US has a lot of things to improve upon internally, as well. I suggest you ask your president to use some of that $87 Billion war fund he seems to be collecting now on health care for those who can’t afford it.
Since I don’t object to abortion (reasonable early in the pregnancy), I’m appalled. But try and see the other side:
Imagine you were president, and these clinics were, say, providing a murder-your-1-year-old, or a female-castration (“circumcision”) service, or, hell, a gas-a-jew-or-a-gay service. Wouldn’t you want to try and use your freely-given aid to lever them into stopping? Would it stop you if a majority of your country said “Gassing Jews is OK, they’re not really people”?
A frightening comparison, isn’t it? I apologise for the obscene comparison but to some people, isn’t abortion (or even contraception :eek:) as bad as that?
Now I don’t know what to think.
Geeze Louise.
Someone close the lid on the “Obscenely Tacky and Completely Irrelevant Comparisons Container”[sup]TM[/sup] already. WTF?
Anyone who has ever built a large budget could tell you how specious this argument is. Our dollars are only for the non-abortion stuff, eh? There’s no practical difference. If the U.S. kicks into the kitty, then the clinic gets to decide how to use the total pot of money, some of which they’re using for abortions. “But we’re directing U.S. dollars *only * to other stuff” is an accounting distinction that is meaningless from a practical perspective. If we send them dollars, we are funding their overall mission, period. If you’re OK with that, fine.
From the same article:
I cannot imagine the suffering.
There is an irony that Bush is blackmailing them into restricting their freedom of speech – something that would be illegal here. So how much value does he really place on democratic principles?
You make a valid point, of course. I guess the real question would be: how much of the funding of a particular clinic is from the US, as a percentage of the whole?
I agree that it all ends up in one budget, which gets spend on all activities. But if a particular clinic is, say, reliant on US funds for 80% of its total budget, the decision to withdraw funds will have a much larger impact than when the percentage is 10 or so. It’s all fine and dandy to let one’s morals prevail, but is that still the moral thing to do when it affects the lives and indeed deaths of so many people?
Methinks a more pragmatic approach would be warranted here.
That’s aimed at me? I think it’s a valid point.
I might think it’s stupid that killing a 1-month old embryo is murder but if someone really believes that, then you would hope they would do everything in their power to stop it, wouldn’t you?
does the funding go directly to the clinics, or to Charities/Aid organisations that fundraise in the US?
Do the people grumbling about the US donating overseas also refrain from personal contributions to aid organisations that operate overseas medical centers?
Get the Pope in on the pragmatism, too.
The minor difference being that not a whole lot of societal debate seems to be going on whether or not gassing Jews is in fact murder. Honestly, don’t you see the distinction?
Not if it means using their religious beliefs to go against the political will and laws of the nation, and indeed to provide conditional aid to nations who badly need the services, (even though the funding itself isn’t used to provide the services the religious beliefs go against).