Pro-choice quandary

[funscout]

Pro-choice groups tend to want government to keep out of the abortion issue. They feel that it is a woman's right to decide what she does with the baby inside her. So how is it that Pro-choicers like Clinton and Obama think it is all right to involve government to fund abortions? Does anyone else out there see the hypocrisy of this?

 

Here we are in a recession, and one of the first things Obama did was to take our tax dollars to help fund abortions overseas. I don't see how that is going to help the American economy. It's sad that he is more concerned with liberal agendas than helping Americans where they really need help.

 

This is a respectful disagreement. Notice that I did not call names. For those who respond to this topic, I hope you will show similar respect.

[GernBlansten]

You do realize that what Obama did was the antithesis of hypocrisy. He removed the government from the abortion decision. That's what his constituents want. Government out of the reproductive decision making process.

What Obama did was rescind the executive order the Bush placed on the funding. That executive order restricted the use of those funds to exclude abortions. That was government deciding against abortions.

You also realize that what Obama did was not fund the aid, just removed the restriction. So to say that Obama is funneling money away from Americans isn't correct. The funding was already in place and untouched.

 

Keep in mind, when Bush put the restrictions on the funding, he did so to satisfy his constituents. What Obama did in removing them, was the same thing.

[Lisabob]

There's hypocrisy on all sides of the abortion issue, I think. For those who refuse to fund organizations that also provide abortion, the hypocrisy is often evident in that these same organizations supply non-abortive family planning information that could have the effect of LOWERING abortion rates. In some cases, there are also those with moral objections to the use of contraceptives (esp. the pill) as a means of family planning, and so perhaps that's the hang-up. But a lot of pro-life folks I know have little or no objection to contraceptives, yet they would refuse funding to organizations that would supply those contraceptives because those orgs. also discuss abortion. In some ways I think that such a stance is counter-productive, as women who have no access to family planning are probably far more likely to end up having abortions anyway.

 

There's hypocrisy, too, among many who refuse funding for programs that include abortion, yet who also are willing to do little or nothing to help struggling mothers care for their children, or to improve economic and social conditions to the point where women wouldn't be so likely to need abortions in the first place. Not saying this is universally true of all abortion opponents, but it is certainly true sometimes.

 

I have never met anyone who thinks abortions are an absolute good. I've met many pro-choice advocates who would like to see abortions be far less common. It saddens me sometimes that that interest, which I think most pro-choice and pro-life folks do share, can't be maximized when it comes to policy.

[funscout]

LisaBob, you are right that there are some middle ground issues that both sides should be able to agree on.

 

Gern, Reagan was the first to put the restriction on, and Clinton rescinded it. GW Bush brought back the restriction and now Obama has again rescinded it. I don't see how taking govt. OUT of the equation, like Reagan and Bush did, is interfering. Providing tax payer funding for agencies that provide abortions is most certainly govt. involvement in the abortion issue. Taking away the govt. funding is taking govt. OUT of the issue. People can still have abortions, according to the current govt. So, if pro-choicers want govt. to butt out, then they should also expect govt. not to help fund abortions.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>He removed the government from the abortion decision. That's what his constituents want. Government out of the reproductive decision making process.,,

 

That is like saying that Obaman didn't flood the fields by opening the dams, the water did.

 

Barry

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

The only reason abortion isn't considered murder is because it's a medical procedure.

[TheScout]

The only way to get the government out of making decisions in this regard is to stop funding this stuff altogether.

[Beavah]

I disagree with Lisabob entirely here when it comes to "hypocrisy". I think da pro-life folks are entirely consistent. Abortion is the murder of innocents. Funding an agency that promotes the murder of innocents just because they also provide health care to others, or contraceptives to help prevent those in the group yeh want to murder from being conceived, just isn't enough to excuse the murder. Almost all murderers do somethin' good in their lives, eh?

 

Da argument you're makin' is not that pro-lifers are hypocritical, it's that they're not pragmatic or good strategists. That might be true, eh? Faced with a culture which condones the murder of innocents, shrill opposition is provin' to be an only partially effective strategy. Reducin' the numbers through smaller steps, providin' support for the working poor and working women, better education and all that might help put abortion further on da fringe of society, and therefore render it less culturally acceptable. Dat's a pragmatic, long-term, strategic view of workin' to end the monstrosity of abortion, eh? To change practices and change hearts until the practice is increasingly seen as unnecessary and then as disgusting. Social taboo works better than imposed law.

 

But yeh have to admit it's hard to be the general lookin' at the slaughter of millions and stick to that kind of long-term strategic vision, eh? Anyone with a heart who is not a hypocrite wants desperately to do all they can to save each individual kid.

 

Happily, da global gag order change Obama made won't change much, eh? It's not like we could do a good job monitoring these organizations anyway. It's mostly symbolic. But it does show da racism inherent in abortion. Let's be sure to try to reduce da surplus population of blacks and poor people around the world, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

Well Beavah we will have to disagree. But I can't sit back on the racism comment. It is no less "racist" to deprive poor people (well maybe "classist" is better) of medical services, which is often the result of refusing to fund family planning organizations that include information about abortion (among other approaches - generally not in isolation) in their work. Let's face it. Wealthy people have lots of opportunities to gain access to family planning information and services; poor people are often reliant on programs designed specifically to target them, whether gov't programs or charitable/non-profit enterprises. Without funding for those programs, poor people of whatever racial background have few other avenues of access to info and care. This is completely aside from the abortion issue. But the reality is that most programs that provide non-abortion-related family planning services to the poor ALSO include info about abortion. So, until or unless the structure of such providers changes (which is unlikely in the near term at least), you either allow funding for family planning writ large, or you deny funding for it at all. The practical result of denying any funding is likely to be that abortion occurs more frequently, due to lack of info and access to contraceptives.

[CalicoPenn]

Seems to me we need to clear a little something up here. The executive orders are not about funding, or not funding, abortions in other countries. Congress has never allocated any money, ever, to be used to fund the actual act of abortions.

 

I would call it disingenuous of Anti-Liberty activists (you can call them Pro-Life if you want to, 95% of the so-called "pro-life" people I ever met are also for the death penalty - and you can't truly call yourself "pro-life" if you're also "pro-state putting people to death") to keep claiming the money is being used to fund abortions, but that would be tantamount to winking and nodding at the complete dishonesty about how the funds are used. Instead, I'll call it for what it is - Outright Lies.

 

The funds are used to offer information about choices in family planning and health. Reagan and the two Bushes signed executive orders prohibiting any funding to be given to any organization that provided information about abortion as a method of family planning - even (and this is very important and is lost on the Anti-Liberty folks) if the grant request is for a program that doesn't involve abortion or family planning at all. An organization may have requested a grant in order to put together an educational program to stop the spread of AIDS, or to warn women of dangers from Breast Cancer, or even to provide information to mothers about infant vaccinations, and if that organization also provided information about abortion - even if none of the grant money would be spent on that part of the organization's mission, the GOP exec orders prevented funding from going there at all.

 

Clinton and Obama have signed exec orders reversing that first exec order - in doing so they are showing that they believe in giving people all the information they need to make informed choices, and they have gone back to the original intentions of Congress in allocating those funds. Had Congress not wanted it to go for abortion information, they would have said so - they didn't.

 

So given that the US does not now, nor has it ever, funded abortions overseas (with the very narrow possible exception of female US military personnel), the questions posed in the original post are moot.

 

Calico

[ASM915]

Crew Advisors, here's a good one for your Ethical Controversies part of your program.

 

It is strange how some people consider abortion of an unborn not murdering the unborn. But if the unborn dies from the result of an auto accident or other external trauma the expectant mother suffers at the hand of another party, the same people are out there attempting to try and convict the other party for killing the unborn. If God allowed the fetus to be conceived, it was God's will. If the unborn dies before conception, it is God's will. Government and man, keep your nose and hands out of it.

 

Now God (or who ever you believe in) gave us a brain to use. If we have become smart enough to figure out ways to handle birth control, fine. Let's spend the money where it is needed. Educate the public on how not to get pregnant while having sex. Oops, did I say that? Put the money into helping the poor mothers get educated, get a decent job and get off the welfare rolls. Help provide day care at the training site and funds for education, without telling the mother she will lose her welfare and food stamps because of this new funding, making her choose between getting educated or staying on the rolls to feeding her family.

 

Is this the government getting involved in the reproduction scene, or the education scene to help reduce the single mother welfare recipients, thus reducing government spending to support those mothers and offspring? Is it not better, spending money this way, then paying for costly abortions, because it is the easy way out, by killing the unwanted unborn?

 

My wife is Catholic, and I'm a convert. Both of us deviate from Church doctrine, in that we believe in birth control and preventing unwanted births. God gave us the brain to figure out how to prevent conception. But abortion is stilling killing a beating heart, no matter how little, or where it's living quarters are for the first nine months. The only time I would ever condone abortion is if for some reason, the fetus for what ever reason is causing an immediate life threat to the expectant mother. But then again, are we playing with God's plan, or using the tools he let us discover?(This message has been edited by ASM915)

[scoutldr]

"I don't want my daughters to be punished for making a mistake by being forced to have a baby!"

 

I am pro-choice. The choice to lay down and make a baby is yours to make. I am also conflicted. Having worked in health department free clinics and visited people in the projects, I have seen first hand 12-14 year old mothers with babies of their own living with the 25 year old grandmother. This is no exaggeration. Never saw a man (father?) in the picture, either. It is not a way that I would want ANY child to start out in life...because the cycle continues. I never saw a pro-lifer in sight offering to help out with money, or moral support, or anything. They are too busy preaching and funneling tithes to their "mega-churches" with fancy buildings, TV stations and orchestras. The notable exception was Jerry Falwell, who offered any pregnant girl free room and board and a 4 year scholarship to Liberty University, with free child care and adoption services if that's what she wanted. Now THAT's Christian charity. Say what you want about Falwell, but he was willing to put his money on the line for what he believed in.

 

The key to this is education, contraception, and a strong family environment. This is not the Government's fault, nor can the Government fix it. It is a case of moral and intellectual agenesis and (dare I say it) lack of personal responsibility. As long as sex is glorified in the media (TV, movies, music), and producing a baby is seen as "cool" or "manly", we are wasting our time.

[TheScout]

"I don't want my daughters to be punished for making a mistake by being forced to have a baby!"

 

Gotta hate being held responsible for what one does.

 

What ever happened to personal responsibility in this country?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Having an abortion IS one way to be responsible.

[TheScout]

Wow. I am quite sure I do not need to say anything to that.