In this case, Bush’s abortion policy is in direct contradiction to domestic policy and constitutional law within his own country. He is imposing a personal standard on foreign aid which is out of step with the standards that America places on itself, and he is doing so purely for religious reasons. There is no legitimate policy reason for him to do this. It’s inappropriate personal moralism. There’s nothing “public” about it.
But until someone amends the Constitution or installs a law prohibiting it, it is still Bush’s right to impose his will in this manner. Our right, collectively, is to vote for someone different, if we find this policy offensive enough. Bush is not required to design his foreign policies so that they are in agreement with someone’s interpretation of “public policy.” And it is indeed an interpretation. Even Roe v. Wade allowed for the possibility of restricting abortions.
Public morality is determined largely by public consensus. Democratic process allows us to construct a public morality which is acceptable to the majority. The POTUS does not unilaterally get to decide what is moral and what isn’t and that’s what Bush is doing in this case.
There are also some rights which are protected from the moral judgements of governmental power and the Supreme Court has ruled that reproductive rights are one of them. It doesn’t matter what Bush’s religious opinions are with regards to abortion, he is constitutionally forbidden from imposing those standards on the populace.
In this case he is attempting to impose those standards on people who do not enjoy the same protections. He may have the legal authority to do it, but I also have the legal right to publicly disagree with that decision and to question the morality of denying health care to all in order to squelch the the expression of an ideal he doesn’t agree with (remember, we’re not just talking about clinics that perform abortion, he doesn’t want them to even give out information about it or in any way express support for it).
See prior post. Yes he does, in this instance concerning this policy, despite your strong desire that this not be so.
In regards to how much foreign aid each country gives, nobody on the planet gives more aid than the USA. Besides Japan, nobody even comes close. I’m not talking about silly percentages or anything, I’m talking about raw dollar amounts.
Of course, you acknowledged that.
Maybe I’m smoking way too much weed, but did you just quote yourself and then replied to yourself ?
:rolleyes:
Too much weed. After the mental haze dissipates, try reading the sequential posts, particularly between Dio and me. I’m pointing out that I didn’t ultimately miss his final point.
Shame on everyone involved in closing those clinics. They are the people that complain about the cost of feeding other countries. Birth control is the only option in cotrolling starvation and orphaned children. We know what causes it and I think they should open the clinics again and offer free sterilization.
In a statement I read on this same message board that the person read about them preforming abortions on unwilling children. If you think about it they were probably unwilling to be impregnated to begin with so, who are the real torturers?
Finally, the voice of reason.
And it’s amazing to me that the people who are bothered by this are probably the same ones opposing Bush’s request for $87 billion in aid to Iraq. Hospitals, roads, and markets are not “genuinely needed” in Iraq? Keeping family planning clinics open in Africa is more important than building schools, water treatment plants, and other infrastructure in Iraq? More important than getting our troops home and allowing the Iraqis to run their country themselves? Because I would think that liberals would be in favor of aid to the poor Iraqi people. Is it just because Bush is in favor of giving aid that so many oppose it?
Noone is going without healthcare because of this policy. The money went to family planning clinics. If family planning clinics were the only clinics in the area, then that kid was already going without healthcare. As the article points out, AIDS funding is unaffected. Of course, I don’t expect you to see that, with your hysterical blinders on and all.
How do your studies take into consideration the money spent on the American military? Or doesn’t our military presence on the border between North and South Korea serve a purpose other than US interests? And why do we keep the USS Kitty Hawk, a freakin’ aircraft carrier, permanently deployed in the Far East? And what about our humanitarian military expeditions, like in Kosovo and Liberia? Are those considered aid? . . . No, I see that they are not considered.
Of course, you and jjimm are both right that US per capita spending on foreign aid (by your measure) is lower than many other countries, but that’s at least in part due to the fact that Americans like to keep their taxe rates low. It’s easy for Scandanavian countries to give more per capita in foriegn aid when they take in more per capita from their citizens through the highest tax rates in the world. I guess that doesn’t really answer the question of whether we should be giving more, but consistent with the American spirit of independence, individuals are not stopped from giving all they want. So how much have you naysayers given to African family planning clinics?
I think a lot of people are misconstruing the argument of the Bush admin. Yes, some people oppose sending money to Africa for abortions because they’re against abortions generally. And while it’s true that many people who oppose abortions are also religious, I don’t remember the Bible ever saying anything about abortions. So anyone that puts it off simply because of religion is taking the easy (and inaccurate) way out. People oppose abortion because they think it’s wrong, not because they’re religious. And equating opposition to abortion with evangelism blurs the lines to the point of myopia.
Personally, I’m in favor of abortion rights for women. However, if we’re sending money to foriegn countries to be used for health care and family planning, I don’t think our money should be used on abortions or abortion counseling. The reason we’re sending money to African family planning clinics is for disease prevention. How does paying for abortions help with that mission? Uhh, it doesn’t. To some (like me) paying for abortions and abortion counseling is helpful for the women that want an abortion, but it’s a drain on the money used for the greater good. Between spending hundreds of dollars on one abortion, or hundreds of dollars on thousands of condoms, I’ll take the condoms please. Otherwise, it’s like sending money for health care and finding out it’s being used for plastic surgery – it’s helpful to someone, but it’s a poor use of a lot of money.
“silly percentages” tell us a lot.
If Bill Gates gives a million dollars to charity, it may be more than 99% of us will ever give, but considering that he is worth 46 billion, it’s not particularly generous when you look at it in comparison to his total worth. (Yes, I know Gates has donated much more, I am merely using him as an example of a rich person)
What was the Regan rule? I’m not familiar with that.
Hey, I don’t deny it. You don’t match us man-for-man, but you beat us on numbers. You’ve got a lot more people. Which means that the impact of religion-based aid decisions are even more dubious.
We’re number one! Holland! Holland! Holland! 
OK, in seriousness now.
And a monarchy the US is quite keen on keeping in place, unlike some other ME rulers as of late. SnoopyFan, are you reading any of this? Or are you keeping quiet out of pure embarrassment (which would be understandable, given the earlier display of ignorance)?
In a word, yes. The two are not mutually exclusive: the US is what is known in scientific terms as “a big-ass country with shitloads of people”. Therefore, it’s entirely possible for the absolute monetary aid to be way above any other country’s, but for the per capita monetary aid to be appalingly low, compared to other western nations. The US spends about 9 times as much on monetary aid to third world nations as the Netherlands. The US has what, 350 million inhabitants? The Netherlands has 16 million.
You do the math, OK?
End result: a nation with apparently sub-par third world aid gets to morally dominate world aid decisions because of its sheer size.
It’s not rocket science, honestly it isn’t.
Yes, thank you, Daisy Cutter. All Americans combined also weigh more, pee more, and shit more than all Germans combined. Did you see the second graph in your link?
Gah.
Were strawmen on discount at your local supermarket this week?
Of course infrastructural investments in Iraq are needed. Of course they need new hospitals, bridges, water supply and electricity networks.
BECAUSE THE COALITION BOMBED THEM ALL TO HELL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
How on earth can you compare that to third world aid resulting from poverty, lack of education, and lack of resources? If the war on Iraq wouldn’t have happened, GWB wouldn’t be begging for $87 Billion right now, and/or said funds could be used for internal purposes, such as better health care for US citizens so people like SnoopyFan don’t feel upset when a few dollars of her annual taxes are spent on “horny teenagers in Africa”.
Yeesh. Some people piss me off.
Your point stands (and I fully agree with it) but the US population was 281,421,906 as of the April 1, 2000 census. Add a couple years to that and we’re getting closer to 300 million, but 350 million is about 25% too large.
My apologies. It’s just that you guys are so damn loud. You sound like at least 400,000,000. 
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter…although could you please run it through the Dialectizer first (I find the “moron” setting works best)?
“Shame on ebehyone inbolbid in closigg dose clinics. Dey are de peoble dat c’plain bou’ the, errr, cost of feedigg odeh countries. Bird control is de on opshun in cotrolligg starbashun ‘n orphanid children. Webuh know what cuzs it ‘n I dink dey shudd open the, errr, clinics again ‘n offeh free stehilizashun. Lee me lone! In a statemin I read on dis same message board dat de pehson read bou’ dem pref’migg aborshuns on unwilligg children. If you dink bou’ it dey webuhre probab unwilligg t’ be ipregnatid to begin wid so, who are de real torturehs, duh…uh…?”
Thank You.
I would think most people are understandably pissed about the 87 billion coming out of our pockets because of the fact that we blew all that shit up, CAUSING the need to spend 87 billion to put it all back. It’s a slight distinction I know, I can see how you might have overlooked that fact.
As for the second part, I can also see how you might have missed the FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE, where it reads
It was only the first paragraph, I can see how you might have skimmed over it. You missed this bit too:
I’m very happy that AIDS funding is in no way being cut. Sadly, my vast reading comprehension skills make me question how effective that AIDS funding will be when, according to that SAME article, just a short paragraph or two down from the first one you missed, it says
I know many people might not be aware of this, but alot of the family planning clinics here in the US offer a wide variety of healthcare services well above and beyond abortion and abortion-related services. I don’t see how that would differ in Africa, especially when the article has pointedly implied exactly that.
The biggest example of an equivalent here in the US would be Planned Parenthood. The majority of PP’s don’t offer abortion services, though there’s generally at least one PP clinic in every major city that they are in, that does (at least that I was aware of without referring to the website itself). Most of the PP’s that don’t offer abortions simply offer women’s healthcare services of all stripe. Good healthcare, that isn’t high cost for people without health insurance. Planned Parenthood has been my choice of women’s health care providers for years, because I don’t have health insurance, and they offer good women’s health care that doesn’t cause me to be broke. Realize when you close down or cause to be closed down all the family planning clinics in an area, be it Africa OR the US, the simple fact is, for many people, you MAY be removing the only source of healthcare they may have readily available or easily accessible to them.