What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
915 Comments
- nikpappagiorgio, on 01/23/2009, -28/+542He doesn't waste any time does he? He must have kept a notebook of all the bushisms that he hated and he is just crossing them off the list 1 by 1...
- krellor, on 01/23/2009, -64/+404I like how social conservatives get all riled up about abortion. They call themselves pro life. Save that fetus they say. You're a murder they think. But they also don't like teaching contraceptives. Or funding sex education in schools. Or education in general. But save the fetus if it does happen. And then when the baby is born to a 15 year old mother on the south side with no father around you would think the same conservatives, so called compassionate conservatives would step in and help. Wait, what? Well fare is bad, screw well fare. Ok, so life is worth saving, but once it is fully here, ***** it, it can take care of itself. The same "Pro lifers" that support the death penalty, and the war in Iraq, and Isreal, screw you if you're a vegetarian, even if you try not to force it on anyone else. Yeah, pro life my ass. Self righteous ***** who refuse to deal with reality. Being against abortion is all well and good on paper. In an ideal world there would be no unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. But I'll not be the person to tell some 17 year old girl who was raped by her uncle that she has to carry the baby to term, even if I don't like the idea of abortion. Anyone here willing to do that? What about 14? Is that ok?
- Cannonballkid, on 01/23/2009, -17/+345So much done in one week already Guantanamo closing down, bailout plans, stem cell research, now this. Say what you want he's wasted no time getting things on the move.
- pintomp3, on 01/23/2009, -42/+339Separation of church and state is back? Thomas Jefferson would approve.
- farfromsubtl, on 01/23/2009, -19/+162How does expanding funding for abortion intrude? No one will come into a home and force someone to have an abortion, and yet the Bush administration fostered the refusal of abortions to those who wanted/needed them.
- vandernderyid, on 01/23/2009, -13/+150You know, you could read the article:
"When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources."
In other words, taxpayer money is not *necessarily* going for abortions, eg we can now pay for AIDS testing at the same clinic where EU money funds abortions (hypothetically).
Reading for comprehension is difficult, I know, but please try. - brstilson, on 01/23/2009, -12/+120For Christianity being supposedly such a compassionate religion, I'm flabbergasted why any real Christian would want to be a conservative. Conservatism to me is the exact opposite of Christianity. Christ was all about charity and not judging people, but conservatives seem to have this overwhelming attitude of "I got mine, ***** everybody else."
- apackofmonkeys, on 01/23/2009, -103/+200What the--! What's the purpose of government again? Whether you agree with the right to abortion or not, WHY are we paying our taxes for OTHER COUNTRIES' abortions?
- PhillyMJS, on 01/23/2009, -18/+114Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -9/+95Your sentiment might make some sort of twisted sense if 100% of those abortions were not VOLUNTARY. Obama is responsible for exactly 0% of them.
- spaceddaisy, on 01/23/2009, -22/+93So what about the life of the woman? You care about her life at all? Because in the countries where this help is going thousands of women still die in childbirth, hell even in the US women still die in childbirth.
Is her life, her body worth less than a zygote? - spaceddaisy, on 01/23/2009, -15/+81Except one is a fully living person and the other is a cluster of cells that cannot live independently of the 'host' body. You can use that argument when science can extract a fetus and keep it alive and raise it in a machine or other host body.
Right now you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term, you have any clue how cruel and inhuman that is?
And are you seriously comparing that to a race issue? - Shiftgood, on 01/23/2009, -12/+76How does that effect the decision making?
If you are against it... dont use it... if you are for it.. .now its available.. when it may have not been before. The decision is now open, a lack of decision is 'intrusion'.
logic escapes you. - farfromsubtl, on 01/23/2009, -53/+117Good to see Obama stands for reason.
- antistupid, on 01/23/2009, -13/+72Skewed statistics as abortions performed by private practices are not recorded..not only that but you did not cite a source. Thanks for playing, we have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
- ahhell, on 01/23/2009, -43/+101Holy ***** are pro-lifers ever delusional.
- Shiftgood, on 01/23/2009, -4/+57you are so ignorant it hurts my face.
- Daxx22, on 01/23/2009, -18/+71More morons here need to read the article (well, one can hope eh?)
This is NOT "Funding abortions in other countries"
This is "Funding aid organizations who also happen to provide abortions as part of their services, as well as family planning and birth control methods" - spaceddaisy, on 01/23/2009, -15/+65Inhuman for a women to carry a pregnancy to term AGAINST HER WILL
Yes it is.
Are you a woman?
I am, and I can't imagine how horrible it must be to carry a pregnancy to term when you don't want it. We're not incubators. That is what I am saying, what about our life?
And as a disclaimer, I've never had an abortion, I am fortunate to have had access to good medical care and anticonceptives and good information about preventing pregnancy in the first place. - Grazfather, on 01/23/2009, -37/+84***** finally, now I can abort my little baby.
she was born 4 months ago though. it's still OK, right? - bigfinger, on 01/23/2009, -23/+68"Nothing wrong with killing babies" Chris Rock
- ADVIZR, on 01/23/2009, -11/+53Obama's done more good in the past couple of days than Bush did in 8 years (or a lifetime were Bush allowed).
- crackwassist, on 01/23/2009, -15/+56we don't believe it's a life yet. the only logical way you can say it's life is to interject god into the mix, which then becomes speculation of what your god thinks of the unborn. I'll go out on a limb and say you have no idea when god thinks a human life begins.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 01/23/2009, -45/+85I agree...why the HELL are my hard-earned tax dollars going to fund an abortion in a foreign country?
- wendelgee2, on 01/23/2009, -12/+52RTFA
"When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources."
This is not necessarily about "funding abortions" but about financing clinics that provide family planning services, including THE USE OF CONDOMS, which also will reduce the spread of STDs, including AIDS. Bush was essentially using this to promote abstinence-only programs that have been proven ineffective. - spaceddaisy, on 01/23/2009, -5/+44In the countries that are receiving this help, pregnancy and childbirth can and does kill women
http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html - pintomp3, on 01/23/2009, -17/+55Learn the difference between potential life and life.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/zygote.jpg
^ is not a human being with full constitutional rights. - krellor, on 01/23/2009, -6/+44I would agree with that. I have a neighbor who is a very strict christian. But is completely against not only the implementation, but the concept of social welfare. I just don't understand how someone who purports to be trying to be "Christ like" could be against helping others.
- dirrtydirrty, on 01/23/2009, -8/+45"The solution is birth control. Not killing unborn children."
Oh yeah there's a whole lot of birth control being practiced if the person gets RAPED!
I'm not a big fan of abortion and the fact that many women use it as a form of birth control bothers me but I do support the fact that women have a choice, especially when it involves rape and incest. - haikuFU, on 01/23/2009, -3/+40Can I abort a 44 year old fat guy I work with?
- publiclurker, on 01/23/2009, -11/+48Maybe not for you, but it is for Americans.
- Kamino, on 01/23/2009, -5/+41Yea, let's solve the financial crisis with a snap in the fingers. Perhaps because rushing delicate things can have an adverse effect?
*facepalm* - inactive, on 01/23/2009, -14/+49People, this isn't about funding abortions. It's about not denying funding to organizations that wish to inform clients of their legal rights as they relate to family planning...up to and including abortion. We provide humanitarian aid all over the world, and some of the most effective forms of humanitarian aid involve 'family-planning' to help prospective parents make the best decision for their family's future.
The executive order that Obama has just signed lifted a ban on providing aid to organizations that even speak of abortion...whether it be in a pamphlet..or a standard spiel from a 'family-planning assistant'...or whatever. It just so happens that some of these organizations also perform abortions... We're not funding abortions. We're funding family-planning efforts that describe the full repertoire of legally available possibilities for a prospective parent.
Beyond that, this ban has been ping-ponging back and forth with republican/democratic presidents since Reagan first dreamed it up. It'll likely continue to do that for as long as there's a debate. Get over it. - gijoeler, on 01/23/2009, -7/+41What does the abortion issue have to do with the church? I always thought of it as a human issue.
- pilot3033, on 01/23/2009, -2/+36many scholar's on the subject would argue that a fair amount of the founding fathers (Jefferson included) were in fact for things like ending slavery, increasing women's rights etc etc. But they were dealing with 13 separate colonies, each with different ideals, different ways of life. In order to unite them, not everything could be put on the plate at once. An example of this is the addition of "god" to early documents regarding independence. Many were reluctant to do so, but needed the support of the people in order to win a greater battle.
It's why the constitution is so vague. It allow for the rest of society to catch up to its core values of equality. - strangewill, on 01/23/2009, -4/+38Abortions are cheaper than welfare, keep that in mind taxpayers against abortions.
- trshtehdsh, on 01/23/2009, -10/+44at least the man is getting ***** done, like he said he was going to.
- krellor, on 01/23/2009, -3/+34A bit. But I think I made my point. To quote Scott Adams:
Word Snob- Did you see all the typos in Dilbert’s email?
Alice- Were you confused about its meaning?
WS- No, that’s not the point.
A- Then I don’t know what your point is.
WS- I think he should be more professional, that’s all. [WS appears to be a ConfidentGrammar graduate]
A- So instead of sending clear, efficient messages, he should follow your example and be a gossipy critical time-waster who values appearance over function?
WS- Are you done hurting me now?
A- I’m saving a scoffing sound for when you turn to leave. - apackofmonkeys, on 01/23/2009, -5/+36It's just a post-term abortion. She's still basically a parasite, since she can't survive without you and is living off your resources. And obviously she's encroaching on your ability to live your life the way you want to. Just poison the little bundle of tissue!
- Hetman, on 01/23/2009, -9/+40I just cannot believe conception happens as soon as the egg is fertilized. It just seems silly that you would consider this a human.
- scuzzmonkey69, on 01/23/2009, -5/+35condoms break.
the pill is not 100% effective.
Some people can't go on the pill because it messes with their hormone levels so they can't "double up" so to speak.
There are perfectly valid reasons for someone to seek an abortion even if it isn't the result of a rape.
If you were actually pro-choice you'd see it.
Personally, if someone doesn't feel they are fit to raise a child, and wants to terminate, then that is their decision. The only person you are punishing if you force them to have a kid is the child themselves, as they will do have the support that is needed. - maloconn, on 01/23/2009, -5/+35Church and state are like water and a grease fire. Just a bad idea.
- Talphin, on 01/23/2009, -9/+37Yes... I am not the sort of person to idolize someone. But if I were, right now, it would be Obama.
- ldkronos, on 01/24/2009, -0/+27Back in November it was mentioned in the news that Obama had a group of people who were reviewing every single executive order that Bush had made over the years and determining which ones could be quickly undone.
- helenkupo, on 01/23/2009, -1/+27I bet that list is loooonnnnng.
- inactive, on 01/23/2009, -5/+31Helping control population growth in other countries helps keep Bono out of our hair later on. Plus, it irritates the Pope. Both are worthy causes.
- ADVIZR, on 01/23/2009, -10/+35Stop calling them "pro-life." It makes them actually believe that everything they do in life is humane (as they meanwhile support the deaths living humans and remain ignorant to actual human suffering).
Call them "anti-women" or at the least "anti-choice." - Suricou, on 01/23/2009, -8/+32Incidentially, essentially. The money isn't going out to fund abortion, it's going out primarily to pay for HIV control programs. It's just that they overlap - a lot of the most effective NGOs trying to reduce the incidence of HIV are also involved in some way with providing abortion.
Because it all ties into sex, there is a lot of overlap. For a more domestic example, Planned Parenthood, best known for performing abortions, is also one of the leading providers of subsidised breast and cervical cancer screening to those on a low income. - ThinkBox, on 01/23/2009, -22/+45Adopt
- pantsperch, on 01/23/2009, -3/+25All of this "is it medically necessary" junk imposed by male beliefs on female existence is all just a sly coverup for what is really happening, and it is called Slut Punishment. It's this insane, hateful perspective that a woman who gets pregnant should just have to live with the consequences therein, because if she's gonna be such a slut, then she deserves to be punished with the ramifications of her godless ways.
The irony of anti-abortion groups implied agreement than raising a so-called precious child is punishment can not be understated. They don't give a ***** about these kids, if they did, they'd support contraception and wouldn't allow ***** pharmacists to refuse to hand out contraception due to their own dubious moral beliefs. No, no, it all boils down to revenge, to shaming women, once again, into the bubble of virgin and then mother, without any actual consideration to what the economic, psychological and emotional ramifications are of essentially legislating women into having unwanted babies. -
Show 51 - 100 of 928 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 