Bush already dividing not uniting?

[WriterDom]

Bush says will sign order blocking abortion money


WASHINGTON, Jan 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Monday he will soon sign an order barring federal funds to international family planning groups that offer abortion services and counseling.

Asked if he was planning to sign the order, Bush told reporters: "Yes, I am." He said he would do it soon.

Bush's order would reverse a decision by President Bill Clinton to allow federal funds to such groups.

The decision, which could complicate Bush's vow to improve relations between Republicans and Democrats, came as thousands of anti-abortion protesters rallied in Washington to mark the 28th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision making abortion legal.

 

[CreamyLady]

Is anyone surprised by this? Not me.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Not surprised, but I'm holding back ont he whole "dividing" thing. EVERY President does this, particularly if he's from another party. Of course he's going to do things differently. Is this is divisive? Not yet. I'm willing to give George W. the six month honeymoon the office deserves.

But come July the twerp's mine, all mine.

 

[Juliangel]

Is anyone surprised by this? Not me.

Me either and it is one of the main reasons I did not vote for him.

 

[ranajja]

A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, and she also has the responsibility to pay for it herself.

Sounds logical to me.

 

[Guest]

A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, and she also has the responsibility to pay for it herself.

Sounds logical to me.

First of all, Bush disagrees. He does not believe a woman has a right to choose. This is Step 1 in his plan, which he's admitted freely, to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Secondly, the same can be said about any medical procedure. It's your 'responsibility' to pay for your doctor visits, but you'd scream bloody murder if you had to be 'responsible' for your next physical.

Thirdly, he's cutting off aid to groups that help women in foreign countries - China & India - whose people can't afford to pay for an abortion. But I suppose it's their fault that they live in a poor country, right?

You Conservatives crack me up. You want to ban abortion, then don't want to shell out money to feed & clothe all the poor children your policies create. Fucking hypocrites. Totally out of touch with reality.

 

[ManOSafety]

First off, I agree with DCL that doing something different than the previous president does not mean that President Bush is being divisive, just different. Some would say that Clinton's decision to allow such use of federal funds was divisive since there were, and are, people that disagreed with the use in the first place. Since we are a pluralistic society, we are pretty much doomed to divisiveness if we choose to define it so strictly.

As for the opinion that conservative policies create poor, unclothed children, I always thought that children were created by sexual intercourse between two people, not by governmental policies. So, if a child results from unprotected sex, how are conservative policies to blame? Shouldn't people be held to some level of accountability for their actions?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Conservatives generally distain change......

It costs them money, money they so desperately want to hold onto.

Liberals love change but only if makes them look good when doing so.

Moderates - are too dumb to know the issues.

Philanthropic Pragmatists - love change but only when it makes logical sense to do so, when it (change) makes money or breaks even - and/or helps people who otherwise would not be helped.

 

[Guest]

So, if a child results from unprotected sex, how are conservative policies to blame? Shouldn't people be held to some level of accountability for their actions?

So if you're too poor to afford birth control or you live in a country where birth control is not widely available, you shouldn't have sex? Only rich people or those in rich nations are allowed that 'privilege'? Typical Conservative classist bullshit. 'They're hungry and can't afford bread? Let Them Eat Cake!'

Face the facts. You got lucky when you were born into a country and a family that had access to education, money, and social resources. Not everyone is as lucky. Get over yourself and your elitist crap. A young child born into poverty does not 'deserve' to starve to death.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

In case you haven't noticed......

There are a lot of stupid people out there. They need to be helped and guided - they have no real sence of right/wrong or responsibilities to society. In fact they often think society owes them.

Yeah sure - that's wrong - but, but, but they're dumb.

Do you want to suffer from their sumb mistakes - or try to prevent them from happening.

Please - let's not let them breed.

 

[ManOSafety]

Hmm, I don't see where I said that anyone, much less a child deserves to starve to death, so I'll let that pass.

And, I will agree that I am extremely fortunate to have been born in a society that gives me access to money, education and social resources.

However, I don't really see how it is elitist to suggest that people have some accountability for their actions, even if that means that you don't have sex if you don't want a kid.

 

[Laurel]

Woo hoo! I was hoping someone started a thread about this issue. Here's my 2 cents...

I'm as selfish as they come. I put a lot of effort into taking care of myself, my Manu, and my cat. My life centers around bettering my little 'family'. However, I can also see past my own nose. I realize that I don't live in a vacuum. If I were to say, "Screw the poor people, the unwed mothers, those less fortunate than myself," I would be ignoring the fact that those people affect my life. As a society, we are better off if we are all educated and healthy. Anyone who thinks they can let those less fortunate than themselves 'rot away' without any effects on the rest of society is totally and completely without a clue.

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility - and personal freedom. I believe in the right to own guns. I also believe in the right to choose an abortion. To believe in one and not the other is to totally misunderstand the concept of personal freedom. Whether you think abortion is morally right or wrong is irrelevant. Laws should not be created on a moral basis. Period.

Can anyone give me one rational, non-religiously-based reason why abortion should be criminalized?

 

[WriterDom]

I see nothing wrong with an individual giving money to assist foreign groups to overturn anti-abortion laws but why as a government should we be funding these groups?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Regardless of the abortion issue.....

Or whether or not one is selfish or elitist.....

These are not the issue. The issue is one of practicality.

It's simply not practical (or logical) to "assume" that just because one - lives, breaths and has a driver's license on this planet (in the US) that they should be/can be accountable for their actions.

It simply isn't so - and it simply isn't so for a whole bunch of people out there. What'er ya gonna do - just let'em fuck up?

Ya gonna educate'em? Ya gonna tell'em what they should do and force'em?

If so - you'd better watch it - that's tricky - you could have an uprising on your hands. And then where are you? Actually - and more accurately - what have "you" done? Because you did it.

Not them - it's not their fault their dumb. Not their fault they are under educated. Not there fault they don't have the mental tools to make more money.

These people - lots of these people - they really do need to be taken care of. If not - you will have all kinds of problems - piles of bodies, diseases, unwanted children (future criminals) allmost all of it bad.

It's your responsibility as "a have" to help those who can't, who have not. Other wise - big trouble in Little China.

 

[CreamyLady]

I can't.

However, for a very funny, scathing and dead-on rationale regarding the poor and reproduction, may I recommend The Heart of The Country, by Fay Weldon? In it, poor women are referred to as unpaid childminders for the state, which pretty much says it all.

 

[Laurel]

I see nothing wrong with an individual giving money to assist foreign groups to overturn anti-abortion laws but why as a government should we be funding these groups?

Because it's in our best interest to help eliminate poverty and improve the welfare of other nations as best we can. The US does not exist in a bubble. Just like the song says, "It's a Small World After All".

WriterDom - What do you think of his 'reconsidering' Roe v. Wade? Do you support gun owner rights? Do you believe in the illegalization of abortion? If so, how do you reconcile the two? Do you think the Federal government has the right to control your private life and determine your morality?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Just remember this.....

It's easy to be dumb and uninformed - AND - still watch TV and own a car and have a driver's licence and vote too.

It's easy to be dumb and uninformed and feel like you have nothing and won't ever have anything.

It's easy to be dumb and uninformed and be lead by any lowd mouth with half a brain.

And it's easy to point weapons and pull triggers too.

The haves always need to watch it. The risk is high.

 

[TN_Vixen]

I disagree

Not surprised, but I'm holding back ont he whole "dividing" thing. EVERY President does this, particularly if he's from another party. Of course he's going to do things differently. Is this is divisive? Not yet. I'm willing to give George W. the six month honeymoon the office deserves.

But come July the twerp's mine, all mine.

I think it is divisive. This isn't a middle-of-the-road issue that he's taking a stand with. It doesn't have to do with taxes or sanctions or anything else that Dubya could choose to just take a stand as a Republican. He's chosen abortion. This in itself is a highly controversial issue that affects women worldwide. This is a pointedly divisive act. He's drawing the line in the sand, crossing his arms and holding firm against something he knew would cause an uproar.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Regardless of the abortion issue.....

It's your responsibility as "a have" to help those who can't, who have not. Other wise - big trouble in Little China.

Exactly. It's not a "Good Samaritan" thing. It's not a "mushy-feel-good-help-those poor-wittle-people" thing. It's about understanding that society is complex and interdependent.

Here's an example...I make a living as a designer. I make a good living. Suppose we have a recession that hits the lower and lower-middle classes. Who cares? Doesn't affect me, right? Wrong. During a recession, people buy only the necessities. The companies I work for depend upon sales to survive. Less sales = less money for them = less money for me.

It is in my best interest, and the best interest of ANY PERSON or CORPORATION that makes a living off of consumers, to try to expand that base as much as possible. If you own your own company that markets a product or service, or if you work for a company that markets a product or service, and you think that a wide rich/poor gap won't affect your livelihood, then you'd better pull your head out.

If that means that part of my paycheck (an infinitely small part, btw) goes to feeding, clothing, and educating the poor so that they in turn make more money so they can spend that money to keep ME in business, then I'm all for it. The idea behind government is to pool resources for projects that would be difficult or impossible for an individual to complete, or that are in the interest of the nation but don't turn a profit and thus aren't attractive to private industry.

Roads, defense, police, the FDA, poison control, welfare...our taxes pay for these, and these improve our society. If we want to live in a country where the cities are relatively clean and safe, where the police will protect you, then it doesn't come free. The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the 'civilized' world. I'm so sick of people complaining about the government stealing 'their money', then preaching about social responsibility.

You pay to play, kids! You want streets, you want an army to protect you, you want hospitals and clean public schools? Well, these cost money. If you're willing to build your own roads and hire a squad of bodyguards to protect you, then go ahead - don't pay taxes. But don't take from society and expect to not have to give anything back, or you're no different from the 'welfare frauds' you claim to despise.

That's totally off topic, but anyways...

 

[WriterDom]

As far as I'm concerned you can have drive thru abortions if that's what you want. I'm just not sure the US interest is spend tax dollars to push abortion rights in Muslim or predominatly Catholic countries. Private funds, sure, knock yourself out.

 

[Laurel]

As far as I'm concerned you can have drive thru abortions if that's what you want.

Gross! Do you get fries with that? What are the combo meals like?

I don't think abortion is a wise option. I think birth control is much, much better. I think many women use abortion as birth control, which is beyond dumb. However, I think many people mishandle guns. Does that mean people shouldn't own guns? Of course not! As long as people drive cars, there will be stupid drivers who kill others with their vehicles. Does that mean no one should drive? Of course not! Where there's a right, there's people abusing or misusing that right. I let people post without registering, and that means there will be trolls. I happen to believe that the benefits of allowing unregistered users to post offset the negatives. Unless you want the government to decide your life for you - to keep you 'safe' and 'moral' - then you have to allow people to make decisions for themselves...and accept that some will do so poorly.

Bush's sanctions on overseas abortions is just one part of his agenda. Then he'll cut state-funded abortions. Then he'll chip away at Roe v. Wade. I support the US helping to distribute birth control to countries where it's unavailable, so long as those countries allow us to do so. If he were to cut abortion funding internationally and leave it at that, fine. Whatever. But you have to look at the Big Picture...look at what Bush wants to do. He wants to outlaw abortion. He wants to outlaw web porn. He wants to legislate morality. He wants Big Government to have control over your personal life. If you believe we have the right to own guns, to choose our religion, and to visit this website, then how can you say we don't have the right to take care of our own bodies? If you don't believe we have any of those rights - if you believe that the government can decide morality - then I understand you supporting Bush on this issue. Otherwise, I'm confused.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I believe in the right to own guns. I also believe in the right to choose an abortion. To believe in one and not the other is to totally misunderstand the concept of personal freedom. Whether you think abortion is morally right or wrong is irrelevant. Laws should not be created on a moral basis. Period.

Can anyone give me one rational, non-religiously-based reason why abortion should be criminalized?

I can give you 800 pages worth of reasons and they're found in my embryology textbook. With every passing day, medical science reveals more and more what it means to be human and these things all point to conception, not birth, as the beginning of human life. Upon the fertilization of the egg, the zygote has his entire genome, just as it exists in each of your cells (save the gametes). By the time a woman misses a period and takes a pregnancy test, she has two heartbeats inside her. The embryo begins to respond to stimuli from its environment not much later. Technology allows us to save babies as young as 22 weeks of development today. Yet it's legal to abort them up until the moment of their births at approximately 38 weeks.
How do you justify the killing of a child that could and would live if removed from it's mother's womb?

The ideals of belief in gun ownership and opposition to abortion are not opposed. They would be if there were only the rights of the woman to consider. When you begin to consider the liberty rights of the fetus (yes, I'm invoking the exact same rights you ascribe to yourself) the analogy breaks down. To maintain the analogy, one has to discount the rights of the fetus. To do this you mustdeny its full humanity.

Lastly, the act of opposing abortion is definitely a moral position, but it is no more a moral position than the opposition slavery, belief in equal protection under the the law for all citizens, allowing women to vote, and countless other positions that have been made into law. All of these are moral decisions, they're just associated with a civic form of morality and not a religious one.

This morality applied to the rights of the unborn is civic as well as religious. You obviously believe in freedom. All innocent people deserve to have our lives protected.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 01-22-2001 at 03:26 PM]

 

[Madame Pandora]

Can anyone give me one rational, non-religiously-based reason why abortion should be criminalized?

Nope.

And, here is even a RELIGIOUS reason why this shouldn’t even BE an issue.

All sin is the same under God according to the Bible. That's right - if you take the name of God in vain, you are just as much a "sinner" and going to burn for it as you are if you commit murder. This concept of one sin being different comes from mankind. Period. There is no "first degree murder" in the Bible. There is no "temporary insanity" plea.

If you want abortion to be illegal on the basis of the Bible, then you better be ready to march for a WHOLE LOT of changes in United States law. Sin is between an individual and his/her God. Period. The law needs to butt the hell out of personal morality.

For those of you on the other side of this issue, here goes.

Why does the US try to provide money for birth control and abortions in foreign countries? The same reasons we send FOOD. They need it. The people ask for it. They are overpopulated, and starving. THEY ARE DYING. When you stop by McDonalds on the way home from work, think about that. THEY ARE DYING. And do you think they give a damn about US foreign policy?

Go to Africa or some miserable place is South America and talk to an uneducated, poverty-stricken mother who has watched three of her children starve to death and then explain to her that Bush doesn't think spending money on abortions or birth control for her country is moral. Explain to her that she should be responsible for her own life and her own decisions, even though her culture has been fucked in all directions by every superpower in the world for centuries and she’s forced to live in some dirthole you wouldn’t want to even have nightmares about. Explain to her that even though foreign powers have KEPT HER uneducated and wallowing in poverty and made every other decision in her life, that we now feel she should simply shut up and watch MORE of her children die. You do that. Because by taking the stance you have in public policy, THAT is what you are asking our representatives to do. THAT is what you are giving them permission to do.

And let’s not forget those who are uneducated and poverty-stricken in the US. Who have been conditioned by YEARS of poverty to have no opinions, no self-worth, and no decision making skills in their personal lives whatsoever. Who live in a vacuum of drugs and brutality and don’t care about tomorrow for the simple fact that they don’t know that they will LIVE or EAT tomorrow. Are THESE the people we should tell to go suffer the consequences of their fate? Fuck them? Let them deal with the decisions of their own lives? Certainly. And when their lives begin to trickle over into your nice, safe, neighborhoods, just remember you benevolently saved them from the sin of abortion.

DCL, you may give Bush a "six-month honeymoon" if you choose. I don't understand that. He became president the minute he took office. The decisions he makes TODAY matter just as much as the ones he will make in six months. Where is the first step toward improvements on education I heard so much about? That would be a UNITING first act of office…wouldn’t it? Both parties agree on education…our country CERTAINLY needs it desperately. But…no. Let’s not make something involving THAT our first act of office. Let’s pander to the Pro-Life dollars that helped him get into his undeserved and unearned office. Honeymoon my ass.

I am not an alarmist, but I do watch this first act with a sense of foreboding. The same way I winced because there are schools willing to go back to teaching creationism instead of evolution. I think sometimes, because we have enjoyed freedoms for so long, we forget how much those before us fought for them, and how terrible it was when those freedoms were denied. They’ve become movies of the week instead of our treasured heritage.

And, from what I have seen of him, Bush is just ignorant enough to lay down and let his puppetmasters take us back several steps. If I WERE an alarmist…I’d be stockpiling food in a fucking bunker just about now.

Just MHO

MP

For a man who presents things better than I ever could, here's a link. He hasn't posted anything on this issue, yet. But, I expect he will, if he can.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

 

[Sonora]

I first heard this this afternoon. I'm still stunned. My first thought was too bad his momma didn't abort him. Then this guy comes on (didn't catch his name) and actually said that this is the beginning of the end of abortions. How FUCKING stupid is this guy or how FUCKING stupid does he think we are?? Abortions will continue. They will just become more dangerous. Then we might have toddlers being raised without their mommas. This is looking to be a sad day in the history of America.

Just recently saw clips of an interview (I think it was Diane Sawyer). The question was, Laura has come out in favor of keeping abortion legal, do you agree with her? He evaded answering that question as much as Clinton ever evaded any question relating to Monica Lewensky.

 

[Johnny Ringo]

Okay, what's it gonna be?
To kill or not to kill?
First off George W is accused of being an evil man because he was Governor of a state that uses capital punishment (alot).
Now he's an evil man because he wants to take away Government sponsered "Baby Killing" (AKA Abortion).
Why is it the governments (AKA taxpayers) responsiblity to pay for other peoples abortions? Do we also have a responsibility to pay for everyone in the worlds Abortion (AKA Fetus execution)?
It don't make sense. Find a side of the fence to stand on and stay there.

Pulling my hair out and banging my head on the desk.