In one of his first acts in office, President Obama rescinded the Bush administration's longstanding Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which restricted federal funding to international groups that promoted or performed abortions. Obama said that overturning the policy would "restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development." Was Obama right to reverse U.S. abortion policy overseas?
Featured Image:
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
I personally do not approve of abortion that is my opinion.That does not mean I shuold have the right to make that choice for anyone esle.That is right it is none of anyone esle's business.It should be up to the person facing the choice.Ok if you don't believe in an abortion DON"T get one and leave jane doe alone if she does again none of your business!!
I have always been pro-choice and strongly believe that the decision to have an abortion is a strict matter between the woman and her husband or physcian. If she is single then someone she respects is fine as well. Ultimately, its the woman, not the government, that should make the decision. Barry Goldwater, a strong conservative, was strongly pro-choice because he thought like me, that what goes on in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom! Today, if he tried to run as a Republican, he would be trounced in the GOP primary! Abortion services, especially in the 3rd world, was until Bush became President, was one of many services that was sponsored by our government. Its always been interesting to me, that the very people who are so strongly against abortion, are the same ones against government-funded, pre-natal care and government-sponsored health care services to the poor-including food stamps and financial help to kids who have no health insurance ! Force the poor girl who has no way to provide for the child or was raped
to the pro-lifers, it doesn't matter-she must have that unwanted child!
Over population is a major threat to our world and our standard of liv-
ing! I encourage abortion as a means of keeping the population under
control-especially in 3rd and 5th world countries. Adoption, is a viable alternative and should be examined. Encouraging women who already have too large a family to support, to not have an abortion, is iimmoral and a further strain against the social welfare system in much oof the world. Keep in mind, that a lot of these poor, uneducated women, are the sole breadwinner-the husbands have deserted the family, or died of AIDS like in sub-Saharan Africa for example. Why bring anoth
er child in the world to face hopeless poverty and misery when the woman could make an informed decision and have her pregnacy terminated.
These pro-lifers in the U.S. are so disconnected to the real world-living in wealthy suburbs and driving SUV's-have no idea what its like ffor these poor women live day to day trying to feed and cloth their
kids! Its so immoral that it makes me so sick! They feel that it doesn't matter that these kids with bloated stomachs, living in filth, arfe better off than had their Mother had the abortion. I know thats a
terrible thing to say but thats the reality for over a billion children iin the world who go hungry and have no future!
That funding should have gone to educating women and men not to create life in the first place. Seriously it isn't that hard not to spread your legs. A condom takes 5 seconds to put on, birth control isn't that hard to get, spermicide costs less than having an abortion .
There are so many preventative measures out there. That if the person gets pregnant regardless of the options available to them, then they should be forced to live the consequence there actions have brought.
My money should not be used to fund 'fixing' someone else's mistake, and irresponsibility.
Yes Uzma. Let's force irresponsible people to raise children . After all 5 seconds for a condom was too much trouble but love, care, guide for 18+ years should be a snap. Yes?
We agree that the education and empowerment of women will reduce the need for abortion .
A baby is not a accident or a consequence. There you were bad and the baby is your punishment? What kind of pro-life attitude is that? A baby may be a surprise but it should never be thought of as a mistake. Oh, and the Bush policy that Obama changed didn't support birth control either.
If you look at the websites of organisations opposed to abortion you find that many of them also oppose contraception.
Contraception was banned in the Republic of Ireland from 1921 to 1992. The Irish government did what the Catholic Church told them.
Do not assume that condoms and spermicide are allways available in every country.
But you are still paying for what you consider someone else's mistake and irresponsibility when they have a child that they couldn't afford to care for independently.
It's much cheaper for the state to pay for a woman to abort a child she cannot afford than for the state to pay for that child through its entire life.
Forcing women to carry children to term, especially when they don't have the means or desire to raise the child is good for no one, not least the child. Children born to mothers without the means to take care of them are more likely to be abused, uneducated, unhealthy, do drugs, commit crimes, etc.
In the book Freaknomics, the authors discuss the fact that crime rates inexplicably plummeted about two decades after Roe vs. Wade; they argue that this is because many poor women chose to abort their children rather than have them, resulting in fewer criminals 20 years on.
If the collective wishes to maintain the position that an unborn fetus is indeed an independent or separate life from the mother with necessary rights and liberties of its own, I would suggest the collective express their deeply-felt convictions by allowing the mother to exercise her right to distance herself from that independent or separate life - regardless of its stage of development - to allow it the opportunity to survive on its own as one would do for any genuinely independent "person". If the collective wishes to impose its will that this independent and separate life survive despite the mother's personal choices - i.e., her values, it falls to the collective to take responsibility for that life to remain consistent in its collective beliefs.
In the belief the fetus has rights and ought to have liberties, you cannot ignore the fact the mother has rights and liberties too. To deny the rights and liberties of the mother is to, in effect, contradict your belief a fetus has the same because it falls into the collective definition of "person". In light of the "collective will" in situations where a pregnant woman wishes to end her pregnancy, the only possible fairness to mother and fetus is to allow the fetus and the mother to go their separate ways allowing each to survive as best each is able on their own. The collective - no matter how large - cannot have the right to hold the mother hostage to the survival of the fetus by compelling her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, particularly if the argument is said fetus is a human being technically equal to the mother. The rights of one human being do not include the right to deny the rights of another. In that case, if one insists the fetus is a "person", neither said fetus nor those who wish to stand in unity with said fetus can insist the mother remain as incubator.
If a "fetus" is, in fact, a person, let that fetus fend for itself. It has no claim to the body of the mother - if you wish to maintain the mother has no claim on the fetus. If, instead, you change your position to claim a mother has legitimate claim on the fetus within her womb, that changes everything. In such case, the mother has the right to abort at a time and place of her choosing.
The collective - no matter how large in number - has no legitimate claim to the body of an individual woman or to the bodies of all women. Neither individual nor collective rights extend far. They cannot because the source of individual rights are an individual life. The source of collective rights are the individual rights of its members and ONLY of its specific members. Those collective rights cannot extend to the lives of non-members of the collective, said collective in this case being those who oppose abortion or a "majority" that supports imposing its will onto a potential mother's body.
Based on the Declaration of Independance, our rights from from "our Creator", not from an "individual life" as you claim.
Once the baby is born, a woman doesn't have the right to voluntarily part ways with him. She can't legally leave him to fend for himself and go her own way. Neither can the child 's father . Even if he physically leaves the baby, he is bound by law to provide financial support for him until he reaches the age of 18. Since this represents clear legal precedent for the "collective" to limit the rights of one individual to ensure rights to another individual, why should this precedent not extend to the moment of conception of the child? Why is the baby's location, inside the womb vs. outside, used to justify this disparate legal treatment ?
In theory it sounds right that the mother also has rights and that the collective should care for the fetus, if they feel it has a right to live. However, what about personal responsibility? The personal responsibility of the mother to prevent life from forming if she did not want it? It's a bit late to talk about her rights over that fetus' rights that late in the game. If she used contraception and it was truly a mistake, I still say she has the ultimate personal responsibility. If she wanted to be sure not to conceive, use 2 forms of contraception, abstain...whatever it takes. Why should I, as part of the collective, be responsible for her whims? Or her lack of personal responsibility. That is the main theme here that is missing from our society...personal responsibility!
So a mother can be irresponsible, even to the point of expecting everyone else take care of the child she doesn't want?
You are confusing the two things. It may be that the woman by making the personal choice whether to have a baby or not is making the most responsible decision. The problem for the pro life side is that they want to enforce their personal opinions on others and then make them responsible for this view that may not be the way the woman feels. If there is something missing in our society today it is that not enough people are minding their own business.
Odd, that in our bad economy that we can't find money for alot of things but we can find money to kill children. That money has been stored since Bush did the right thing 8 years ago. That money should have gone to things like homlessness or how about the foster care system.
IT should be a choice of the person facing that question not your I don't approve of abortion that don't mean it should be that way we live in a country of free choices if you don't believe don't go get one!!!!
Actually, reversing the ban doesn't change how much money the program takes up. It just makes more groups and places eligible for funding. Those places aren't performing abortions 24/7, you know. One might say it's pretty inhumane to deny funding to a medical organization because, in addition to providing malaria nets and polio vaccines and clean drinking water, they are also willing to perform abortions. Funding should go to the groups best equipped to spend it most efficaciously, regardless of whether they sycophantically agree with the entire conservative Christian agenda.
The thing has been growning by 40 mill every year since it has been gagged. I am saying the money shold have been used some place else. You don't have to agree with the Conservative Christian ideaolgy to agree abortions are wrong.
He should not have reversed something that was voted, and reflected the will of the majority. THAT should never be allowed in a true democracy. We are moving away from being one every day.
I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.
Super Expert
What are you talking about moving away from a true democracy ,in a democracy you are alloud to make chooses for yourself in this case someone esle is making it for you. I Personally do not approve of abortion that don't mean I can decide for someone esle and niether should you or anyone esle!!! It's should be the single person choice!!!
So if the majority of people want to bring back slavery then we should do so because that is what the majority want?
The gag rule was put in place by Reagan, kept by Bush Sr., reversed by Clinton, put back by Bush Jr., and reversed again by Obama. It just alternates as the Republicans and Democrats exchange control of government. If you think the will of the people is important to listen to, you should agree with the reversal -- the people elected a Democrat, and reversing the global gag rule comes along with that.
Here is a link to a site with all the major polls from news agencies and polling entities.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
You find that the majority of people do not share your views.
I wouldn't buy anything that this corrupt media portrays
Fox news polls usually come out leaning conservative, MSNBC polls come out leaning liberal - surprise, surprise...not!
In most of the polls pro life and pro choice are statistically equal. I saw no big surprises from any of the polls in the way you put it, except for the fact that even most of the people FOX polled still came out in favor for abortions in various situations with the exception of using it for unwanted pregnancies. None of the so called "liberal" news organizations established anything near a majority for pro choice.
However, given that the majority of people do allow for a range of exceptions where abortion is permitted, Obama's repealing of the MCP brings how the federal government gives financial aid around the world more in line with the view of our citizens. The MCP established a false majority, in favor of the pro life ideas, this clearly not the case in the polls nor by the votes. Don't forget the couple of states who put legislation, trying to either restrict abortion or to do away with it entirely, to the vote in the last presidential election were defeated.
Repealing the MCP just puts thing back to the equal footing between the opposing sides that existed before default status was wrongly given to the pro life side.
I think it should be a choice for the person facing the question and noone esle business.I personally don't approve but that don't mean jane doe shouldn't get one if you don't approve don't get one!!!
where do you stand on my opinion???
I share your views, I also think it is one of those questions that only the person involved can make based on a personal level. This is why I always defend choice.
Sounds like a fair man|women there that is one thing that makes this country great because we can make choice's and I am glad to hear someone agree with me I tip my hat to ya....thank ya
Being the devil's advocate here. Where do we draw the line. How about if I say I support the personal choice to do away with my neighbor if I don't like him.
With abortion , 1. I think we allow states to vote their local laws, and 2. we draw the line at partial-birth, live-birth, late term abortions (the latter has exceptions where the life of the mother is at stake).
Our illustrious president doesn't draw the line on #2 anywhere. He's afraid that if he gives in on that point, it'll be that 'slippery slope' towards conceding that fetus are alive. Well, I don't know that I'd care about a slippery slope vs. crushing in babies skulls who are born alive following an abortion. My humble opinion.