General Question

critter1982's avatar

How do you feel about Obama reversing the abortion funds policy?

Asked by critter1982 (4105 points ) January 25th, 2009

Obama has reversed the abortion funds policy which seems to be playing pinball between republican and democratic presidents. In a quick summary, this law gives federal money to international groups that perform abortions. In a time when money seems to be scarce, people are losing their jobs, losing their healthcare, and losing their homes, do you think it was wise to sign this piece of legislation? I’m not concerned with the morality element of the question but rather the idea that the US is spending federal money on abortions in foreign nations?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

54 Answers

Snoopy's avatar

How much money is involved….?

cdwccrn's avatar

I wish I had the time to research this bill. I had a sense that this was more about prochoice/women’s health issues than about lots of money. Am I wrong?

omghannahyay's avatar

they shouldnt be spending money on abortion since it SHOULD be against the law :/

iwamoto's avatar

@omghannahyay: nice job at still trying to squeeze in your opinion on abortion, too bad that cleverness doesn’t rub off on the actual comment itself…

i wonder how much money is involved, i mean, a lot more money goes into the war, so maybe that’s where we should start fussing’

critter1982's avatar

I believe it’s part of funding the UNFPA, and in 2002 $40 million was appropriated for it, which was obviously not given because of the ban. Of this money how much goes to abortions directly, I am not sure.

dalepetrie's avatar

Well, as someone who supports reproductive choice (though I know that’s not the bent of the asker and clearly at least one answerer), I think he did the right thing by reversing what is known as the Mexico City gag rule. What this question doesn’t point out is that it’s not about giving less or more money in aid, the aid amount to foreign countries stays the same. What the rule does is it blocks any organization which either performs abortions or which in any way educates people about abortion from getting any of these funds. So, organizations which want to provide comprehensive family planning to include all options including abortion can not get their hands on any of the available funds. So essentially our government is forcing organizations which might rely on these funds to either have their focus changed by an outside party, or requires tehm to get by without US aid. So, even if 95% of the funds go towards services which the US would say is OK under a Republican administration, if they rely on US funds to operate, they may not even be able to provide those “acceptable” services becuase they also provide services which the religious right has deemed to be unacceptable. As long as the 25% of Americans who think abortion is murder under any circumstances have a stranglehold on one of the two viable political parties in this country, it will always be a game of ping pong, until either science reigns over superstition, or alternately God reveals himself to be something other than a theory and personally decrees that abortion is murder. Just my opinion.

critter1982's avatar

@dale: Do you know then, is it not part of funding through UNFPA? I’ll be damned if I can find any useful information regarding this policy.

dalepetrie's avatar

I honestly don’t know that level of detail about it, but I’m willing to see what I can find. I simply have heard that it’s a matter of blocking which organizations are eligible to get the funds, it’s not really ever been presented to me as a way to increase or decrease overall funding….I’ll do a little browsing and see what I can find…

dalepetrie's avatar

From what I’m reading, the UNFPA is under the direction of the United Nations General Assembly. The Mexico City Policy relates only to Non Governmental Organizations, which is defined as “a legally constituted organization created by private organizations or people with no participation or representation of any government.” A further, more important part of the definition for the purposes of this discussion however is, “In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status insofar as it excludes government representatives from membership in the organization” It seems to me that government representatives are members of the UN General Assembly and therefore, I would said that UNFPA would not be an NGO, and therefore would not be subject to the rules related to the Mexico City Policy.

Bush however did block funding to UNFPA from 2002 to 2006 on the grounds that is supported Chinese government programs which include forced abortions and sterilizations. I believe however this was done outside the parameters of the Mexico City Policy, and funding is at the discretion of the US government regardless of the status of the policy governing NGOs.

Jeruba's avatar

Reversing the last president’s action on this policy has been among the first presidential acts for several administrations now.

dalepetrie's avatar

Reagan implemented it, Clinton reversed it, Bush II reinstated it and Obama reversed it again. I think what happened was, after Clinton reversed it, he didn’t put anything in place to keep it reversed…not that he probably could have however considering that his party did not control Congress after 1994. So, when the Dems got Congress back, they weren’t really thinking about it until Bush reinstated it, and so Barbara Boxer introduced legislation to rescind it permanently. But Bush threatened to veto, and since they only had about 52 votes, they couldn’t pass it. Now I would say Obama could urge Congress to pass a bill that would effectively kill off the Mexico City Policy forever, and if the Republicans didn’t filibuster, it would be a done deal. Of course, the next time we have a Republican President and Congress, they could easily enact something even more restrictive. Bottom line is, until the Republican party becomes a regional party and is replaced by libertarianism (which actually seems plausible), or reinvents itself in a way which is not beholden to the religious right (probably the second most plausible scenario), as long as a) the Republican party remains a national force capable of winning Presidential elections and b) continues to associate itself with the values of evangelical Christians, then we will have this back and forth in some manner.

TylerM's avatar

I’m going to be honest, I’m strongly against Abortion for moral reasons. But I don’t think that’s the issue in this case. The federal government should not give funding for this type of thing. I wouldn’t care if they were giving it to churches.

The place of the American federal government is for infastructure (roads) and national security. That is it. It is radical I know, but I think the states should control healthcare, education, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I want my federal taxes to make the roads between my states and protect my from getting killed. I don’t want my federal taxes to be spent on anything that is extra or not needed. This is why we are so bad off as a country.

aprilsimnel's avatar

In answer to the question: Comparatively speaking, between $40m for this vs. $750m for the bailout, as well as the next $825m, $40m is nothing. How much of $40m is eaten up by any good-sized organization in a year for administrative costs alone?

I agree we could use a new WPA. The state of our national infrastructure is a travesty.

susanc's avatar

@TylerM: one of the ways the USA keeps the world safe for itself is to give foreign aid
to nations it wants to control. Did you not know that?

kevbo's avatar

As long as there are provisions for the abortion of bankers as late as the 320th term, I’m for it.

augustlan's avatar

Unsurprised and pleased.

breedmitch's avatar

@aprilsimnel : You have the right idea but your math’s a little off. The bailout is in Billions not millions. Think bigger. 40 million x 20,000 = 800 billion.

I’m not always sure that folks realize how different a million and a billion are. (just because they rhyme) A billion is 1,000 millions.
800,000,000,000!!!

aprilsimnel's avatar

No, I just probably skimmed the articles when I should’ve read them.

breedmitch's avatar

No foul. I just recently realized the difference myself and I’m spreading the word. :)

galileogirl's avatar

This is a common right wing twisting of the facts. Under every Republican abministration the US has refused to fund any international groups that provide family planning or reproductive health aid.

Yes that’s right, we won’t fund condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, vasectomies, tubal ligations or even information about the rhythm method to countries with out of control population growth because these organizations MAY offer abortions or referrals.

To hear Bush express dismay at the AIDS epidemic in Africa while refusing to sign bills that would have provided condoms and educational material was sickening. At the same time some African leaders were AIDS deniers and others were spouting the “punishment from God” crap.

This funding will go to organizations who will give people in very poor countries ways to control their own population and STD’s in ways they think best. Undoubtedly some money will be spent on abortions but just as in the US the vast majority will be spent on cheaper more efficient solutions. After all we are talking about people who want manageable healthy families as much as we do.

TylerM's avatar

@susanc Yes because I’m sure to keep the other nations happy we better help give abortions to their citizens or they’ll bomb us.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

Here’s a WSJ article that was linked in HuffPo . The original policy dates back to the Reagan years. If I’m recalling the policy correctly from the time the Clinton administration reversed it, Reagan banned funding for family planning in third world countries to groups that also provided abortions. The funding for was at that time primarily for condom and birth control distribution by groups that were pro-choice, as pro-life groups are not usually big on any sort of birth control methods. The Republican policy limited funding to pro-life groups, which severely hampered the distribution network for condoms and birth control in Third World countries. The situation has become dire in Africa, where all funding for contraceptives ran out earlier this year.

Quite frankly, I view the Republican policy akin to Gen. Winfield Scott distributing blankets from smallpox victims to Native Americans during the Blackhawk Wars. Show of hands—who thinks Darfur needs more children?

Pro-choice does not mean mandatory or forced abortions, or preferred method of contraception

janbb's avatar

Yes – I think there’s a big misunderstanding about this issue. Under Reagan and Bush, we were not giving aid to NGOs that provided the full range of reproductory advice, including abortion, thus hampering women’s health and family planning in those countries. Now we are restoring that aid as Galileogirl and Alfreda said. Any aid we give to help poorer countries improve health and living conditions for their people ultimately helps us all. We’re all on the same boat!

tonedef's avatar

Big misunderstandings abound! The policy actually rescinded all aid to NGO providers who even mentioned abortion as a possibility. That sounds a lot like another policy we’re familiar with, and that is just as ineffective.

Good riddance to this horrible policy. I can’t wait to see our own “gag rule” bite the dust.

EmpressPixie's avatar

I thought this was a horrible policy. I think it is a horrible policy. I hope it is gone forever. It almost has nothing to do with actual abortion so much as taking funding away from programs that might do anything about comprehensive sex ed. I really think it was a way to promote abstinence only education (because any responsible sex ed will actually tell you all the options, even if it doesn’t promote some of them), which has been proven again and again to not work. You end up with teens getting into bad positions with no idea how they got there or what to do next.

The Global Gag Rule decimated 20% of Planned Parenthood’s budget. Because they perform abortions or even might list them as a choice. Even if you don’t support abortion, the GGR was wrong because it prevented important education around the world.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

It’s unfair to call it an abortion policy. The term “Global Gag Rule” is a fairer assessment of what it was, and yes, I am glad he did it.

critter1982's avatar

@ictheosaurusRex: Why is that unfair? It is a policy of which money goes to performing or giving information regarding abortions?

galileogirl's avatar

critter: Get on board-It is unfair to call it an abortion policy because it is primarily a policy to prevent abortion by giving information and birth control sources that greatly limit the need for abortion.

critter1982's avatar

@galileogirl: I am on board and based on my understanding of the Mexico City Policy/Mexico City Gag Rule/Global Gag Rule/Abortion Funds Policy, it is strictly a policy which prohibits federal funding to go towards organizations that perform or promote abortion services. This money is free to go to organizations which give information about birth control which greatly reduces the amount of abortions. The extent of the policy has nothing to do with birth control. Perhaps the money that is being withheld does but the policy does not. The fact that these non-government organizations spend any money on birth control sources has no relevance to the policy itself.

I’m not really sure it matters what we call it, but I highly disagree that calling it the Abortions Fund Policy is unfair.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

The conservatives are great at naming things. Who in their right mind would be in favor of a “death tax” or be “anti-life”?

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@TylerM: Sounds like you’re a libertarian. I’m sure Bob Barr appreciated your vote.

I think some excellent points have been made, and here’s my two cents. I am an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood, and I am incredibly well versed in and have a good deal of expertise in the world of birth control and STD prevention methods, ranging from the abstinence and the rhythm cycle to barrier methods, hormonal methods, and abortion practices. While I in no way support the idea of abortion as a go-to method for birth control, I also am rigidly pro-choice. I, as well as the rest of the Planned Parenthood community, was thrilled when Obama reversed the effects of the rule/policy. The fact that it was one of his first actions as president was significant and symbolic, and I am ecstatic to finally have a president who thinks women can think and act for themselves.

galileogirl's avatar

@critter1982 any legitimate group dealing with women’s health and birth control will deal with ALL measures. Ergo none would meet the ‘holier than thou’ controlling guidelines set out by the most recent administration. No policy of the United States govt should be mandated by a particular religious viewpoint.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

Here’s a good link to valid information. Not funding abortions does not stop abortions. It means women use unsafe means. Women have no access to birth control. Is it okay to abort a fetus by knitting needles, or unsanitary means? The death rate for women in third world countries is astronomical. In Africa, many of these women are pregnant due to rape. And, in most cases live in abject poverty, and will be raped again. And again. And again.

Case Studies

critter1982's avatar

@galileogirl: I knew it would only be a matter of time before somebody would put their opinion about abortion in this thread. People who oppose abortion are not only religious fanatics. Pro life is supported throughout the world by both religious and non religious groups. Second, it’s not like the bible states in any of its books that life begins in the womb. It’s not a question of what you do in your home. The question at hand is whether you believe the body in the womb is a real human being or not. The question is, at the point the child leaves the womb does it then become a life or does it become a life when it’s conceived? The question is, is the process of abortion murder? Well if a murderer were to kill an unborn baby, then yes it would be murder, but if the mother happens to not want the child and a doctor performs the abortion then no it is not. I still have yet to see why people do not see this double standard. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If it did then I would agree with you, the government has no right defining my morality based on any one religion, but the government has no right to define a “life” by a mothers desire to either want or not want her baby. But since it has nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with what you do in your own home, I absolutely feel the government should be mandating it.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@Critter1982, it’s unfair to label it thus, because it’s a more complicated issue than that. Besides, it’s a done thing, so my pragmatic principles dictate that I disentangle myself from this discussion.

Maybe a conservative Republican president in the future will reverse it again, but I have a feeling that’s at least 8 years off, and probably longer than that.

dalepetrie's avatar

The big problem I have with placing laws against abortion is this. I understand how from a moral (not even necessarily religous) standpoint that someone could think abortion is murder. But from a purely scientific standpoint, I don’t think abortion is murder when it’s done in the first half of pregnancy. I think the term murder can not be properly used unless you end an “independent” or “viable” life. An embryo prior to 20 weeks has the potential to develop into a human, the same way that a sperm or an egg has the potential to do so, but I don’t see either a sperm or an egg as a human. I do believe it is wrong to perform abortions after the “embryo” becomes a “fetus”, the difference is essentially that a fetus “hypothetically”, could survive and continue to develop outside the mother’s womb, and therefore it’s not simply a matter of taking away the conditions in which that entity could flourish into an independently living human, but it is is matter of ending a “viable” life. The scientific vs. moralistic argument has nothing to do with whether a woman ends it or a Dr. ends it, nor is the definition of a life based on a woman’s desire to gestate that being. The scientific (which is an objective standard based on knowledge and research) definition is 20 weeks…before this it is an embryo…a potential human which could not under any circumstances develop into a human being without being inside the mother’s body, after this it is a fetus, a human being which is not fully developed, but even though in many cases it would be unlikely, it hypothetically COULD survive. In other words, if it can survive on its own, it’s life, if it can not, it is not.

To create a sane, rational policy around this where the government has any right to mandate what happens, one can not use a moralistic standard, because morals vary from person to person. But science is absolute, and therefore we must govern based on these absolutes. So, I have no problem with say the “partial birth abortion” ban or any ban on abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, but overreaching beyond this is not for governments to do. It may well be an abomination to someone who believes life begins at conception, but there is no objective proof that this is the case, medical and scientific evidence point to something else. Now, science could be wrong, and abortion foes could be right in the grand scheme of things, and perhaps there is a God in whose eyes this is murder. And He should be the one who punishes (or forgives) for these misdeeds. But placing laws to restrict something like this when there is no “proof” that it is murder, just a belief on the part of some (not even the majority of people), just can not be justified in a system of laws based on objective evidence.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

I can’t help but feel that there is a perception created by “pro-life” elements that “pro-choice” means tie women down and force them to have abortions against their will…

critter1982's avatar

@AlfredaPrufrock: I’m pretty sure the perception you have does not exist. I don’t think anybody believes Americans are having abortions against their will. Perhaps in China but not in the U.S.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@critter1982: That perception is absolutely there. Are you anti-choice/pro-life? I’m pro-choice. And I’ve definitely experienced people pushing that agenda at me.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@critter1982: OMG! That reminds me about this article for cheap, available contraception. More than one of the comments interpreted the need for cheap, available birth control as asking people to give up their fertility. Not having the ability to choose when you do become pregnant but flat out giving up their fertility.

critter1982's avatar

@EmpressPixie: You’ve had pro-life people tell you they are against pro-choice because they think doctors tie them down and force abortions upon them??

EmpressPixie's avatar

@critter1982 I’ve had pro-life people tell me that I am a murderer because I convince good Christian women, who never wanted to get an abortion, to get one through my evil talking ways and they were so tragically depressed after and it’s all my fault! I forced it on them! They didn’t really want one!

I’ve never worked at a clinic, in fact my only real acquaintance with Planned Parenthood is that a good friend works there (this is very recent) and they used to give me the shot. This came simply because I said I was pro-choice and feminist.

dalepetrie's avatar

I personally think it’s part of the human condition to want to end anything you think is “wrong”. I think it’s a right vs. wrong, black vs. white kind of thing. Some people decide, based on whatever criteria they live their lives by…be it a personal moral code, a religious set of beliefs, or a belief in the scientific method what is right, and what is wrong. We all indeed use some combination of our morals, our values and our sense of right vs. wrong every day in guiding how we choose to live our lives. And no pro-choice person is going to say it’s OK to murder people just because you want them off the planet…everyone has some subjective standard when it comes to deciding what they think is right vs. wrong. But the main problem is that each of us holds nothing more dearly than our own values…our own moral code, and it’s hard to say in certain circumstances that I will just mind my own business, live and let live and let people get away with doing something which in my mind is concretely wrong. That’s the problem with the abortion debate is that for some, it’s a deeply held conviction that all abortions are wrong, period, and they should not be allowed. And this group will seek to do whetever they can to put a stop to this practice as they see it as what they MUST do in order to be able to live with themselves.

So playing politics with semantics is just one tool in this battle which they are compelled by their own values to fight. And both sides do it…just like anti-abortion is known as “pro-life”, pro-abortion is known as “pro-choice”, and it’s hard to step back and see that this is all political semantics. For the pro-life movement, they don’t see themselves as simply “anti-abortion”...they may indeed thing that there are times it is permissible, or they may not. And to their way of thinking, “anti-abortion” does not capture what they are trying to say, which is that they value all life equally. But from the other side of the picture, it would seem that this is a backdoor attempt to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “anti-life”. But look at the “pro-choice” side…I don’t like to say I’m “pro-abortion”, because I would prefer that we do all we can, via comprehsive sex ed to make people understand consequences of their actions better, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies…along with information on other non-abortive options for those who do become pregnant but do not choose to raise a child. But I think of first semester abortions as something that people should try to avoid if they can, but an option to potentially chooose if you feel you have no other option at that point. I believe the individual should make that choice, and that our role as a society should be to inform and educate that opinion. I only believe we should take that option away in cases where the result of the procedure meets the scientific definition of bringing about the end of a viable life by artificial means. So, I’m pro-abortion rights, but I am not “pro-abortion”, nor am I “anti-life”.

But I don’t call myself “pro-choice” for the express purposes of painting those who disagree with me as “being against a person’s right to choose” their ultimate destiny. I understand that some simply feel that certain options should be off the table, but just as I’m well meaning in calling myself pro-choice, I believe people are well meaning when they call themselves pro-life. But the pro-choice people aren’t trying in any way to force people to have abortions. Unfortunately, I can’t say the reverse, because the pro-life people ARE seeking to prevent people from being able to obtain legal, safe abortions. But the real difference boils down in my opinion to this…both sides by and large would prefer there be fewer abortions…even women who have them often live with a lifetime of shame and regret and only undergo them as they feel they have no other choice…so desperate are some that they will risk their own lives if they are not able to obtain abortions safely and legally. Pro-choice seeks however to let the woman make that decision, and pro-life seeks to let government make that decision. But I can’t blame pro-life, if I saw something going on that I thought was completely wrong, I would try to get the government to fix the problem as well, it’s just that from a legal standpoint, if you are looking for a burden of proof as to where life begins, science can demonstrate this, morality can not.

critter1982's avatar

@dale: GA. Thanks for your insight. I rarely get to see this actual take on abortion from pro-choice advocates. Regarding your last statement ”it’s just that from a legal standpoint, if you are looking for a burden of proof as to where life begins, science can demonstrate this, morality can not.”:

I do not disagree with the statement, science can present truths that morality cannot, in most scenarios. The problem I have is that the definition of “life” is not black and white. Your definition of life (excuse me if I get this wrong), is when the unborn child is capable of growing into a human being outside of the womb. Some peoples definition of ‘life’ is when the unborn child is born, other believe it is at contraception, others believe when there is a measureable heartbeat, yet others believe it begins when the brain is capable of producing brain waves. Most of these are based on science, the one that is obviously not is the view that life begins at conception. This one seems to be based moreso on morality and the belief of some sort of spirit or soul, of which science has not yet proven or disproven.

Agreed science can demonstrate some wonderful things but in my opinion is not always the end all. There are many things of which science can not prove or has yet to prove. Just because science has yet to justify or discover something does not deem it wrong.

galileogirl's avatar

@critter1982 Duh! A question about women’s health and birth control funding, with abortion specifically stated in the question and there may be opinions about abortion. Where did you think it was going to go…the new color for spring?

You were obviously trying to stir something up. To claim you expected anything else is terminally naive or intellectually dishonest.

critter1982's avatar

Intellectually dishonest :)

dalepetrie's avatar

@critter1982 – I agree that science can’t do everything, and basically that’s why this area I think is a judgement call based on the BEST information we have. That’s why I say, OK, maybe we’re wrong, maybe there is a God and maybe He knows what’s wrong with the conclusions we’ve drawn, and therefore we have to say as mere mortals, we’ve done the best we can to answer this question, what we’ve arrived at is what we must base our laws on (because OK, there are different opinions as to where life begins as you point out, but the accepted scientific definition IS black and white…< 20 weeks = embryo = not viable life, > 20 weeks = fetus = viable life). So inasmuch as science can understand about the natural world, by the definitions it has put forward under the parameters it uses (what it can observe), it has created a definition which, if we’re trying to create laws based on the best possible information we have, it may not be perfect, it may not ultimately even be right, but it is, given everything we know, the best definition that does exist, and therefore this is what we need to base our laws on…and if we’re wrong, God help us, but that’s God’s issue, not ours. It’s kind of like in the caveman days, if Ack had something that Uck needed, Ack would kill Uck to get it…matter of survival, getting by the best way you can within the world as you understand it. Maybe God didn’t want Ack to kill Uck and sent Ack to Hell, or maybe Uck’s death was part of the natural evolution of the human mind so that it ultimately could comprehend Godly morals. And maybe abortion is like that…maybe God is sending every woman who has, and ever doctor who performs an abortion to hell, or maybe he is allowing it to occur so that some day man will realize that life begins at conception and this is murder. Or maybe there is no God, and science has the answers. Point is, no one knows for sure, and anyone who says they do, great, I’m glad you have moral certitude, but unless you can prove to me that your faith has gotten it right, whereas the faith (or lack thereof) of the at least 2/3 of the world’s people who disagree with you has gotten it wrong, then the most reliable way to live our lives is by creating a society of laws based on the best possible information we have, and just hope we understand our world well enough that we’re not making a mistake.

When you look at it that way, it becomes a matter of our deciding whether to restrict anything that a large number of people think may be wrong based on their personal values because they “may” be right, and we “may” be making a horrible mistake if we do not. Unfortunately, that only looks at one side of the issue…what if restricting what a large # of people think is wrong is actually in and of itself THE big mistake. Maybe abortion serves a greater purpose either in the eyes of God or nature or whatever force is driving us…the thing is, you can “what if” all day. But before our entire society should be forced to accept a restriction on its behavior because of a “what if”, it seems to me that we have to look at that “what if” based on a preponderance of the evidence. And right now, the preponderance says that people should be able to get first semester abortions if they feel they need them, it says that any larger spritual or moralistic arguments against have not been demonstrated to be absolute enough to shape the non-negotiable rules of our society. And I think what happens is, many pro-life proponents know that the burden of proof rests with them, and because matters of faith or morals can not be proven, they resort to whatever tactics CAN win arguments…like say blowing up a picture of a microscopically small embryo to the size of a skyscraper and flying it behind an airplane, or slapping the label of muderer on someone who is trying to live her life according to her own moral code, or denying funding to programs which even present abortion as an option (no matter how bad of an option they represent it to be) as just one of many tools for family planning…these things in my opinion, based on the fact that it’s not man’s place to make rules based on absolutes of right vs. wrong, but based on what he can know and understand about the world around him…are well intentioned in that they are only trying to prevent what they see as a great tragedy, but are nontheless overstepping the bourndaries of what types of considerations should be at play in governmental descisions in a democratic society.

gooch's avatar

I think he is stupid to play politics at a time when our country is hurting financially.

janbb's avatar

@ gooch – He’s not just doing one thing at a time. He’s working on several policies at once – including the economic stimulus bill.

bea2345's avatar

Thank you, Mr. Obama. It was a cruel and unnecessary policy, and caused the deaths of many. The anti abortionists – what irony, to call them pro-life – were forgetting that in a humane and efficient system, abortion would be only one of the options available, and not the most immediate, either.

Also, funding spent on abortions is but a fraction of the expense of providing family planning services.

JeanneBee's avatar

There’s been some very thoughtful discussion here. I’ll just share my personal experience with abortion. I am adopted (and to be very candid, I’m glad it wasn’t legal many years ago——and have had the opportunity to thank my birth mom for giving me life), have an adopted son (glad she didn’t abort) and have a nineteen year-old daughter who did abort. When she first told us she was pregnant she was certain that abortion was not an option for her (“it’s so common at college Mom…..the girls use it like it was the pill”). Even with our full support that she carry to term (and parent, marry or make an adoption plan), she had a boyfriend who was able to convince her otherwise. Now she says “the abortion was the biggest mistake of my life.” My passion is to make adoption more of a viable option. With only 1% of women making adoption plans in unplanned pregnancies, I wish the least discussed “choice” was truly considered more often.

bea2345's avatar

(“it’s so common at college Mom…..the girls use it like it was the pill”). Because a few privileged girls – yes, privileged – misuse abortion, is not a reason to deny a right to the rest of us. If only one percent of women make adoption plans, then perhaps it is long past time to educate women and girls so that they are free to say NO. NO to sexual activity before they are ready; NO to unwanted pregnancies; NO to ill-considered unions.

dalepetrie's avatar

There is nothing wrong with encouraging adoption, but each person should make her own choice.

jaketheripper's avatar

@JeanneBee thats great, I don’t see why more pro-lifers aren’t pushing adoption. It doesn’t make sense. If we are going to tell them they can’t kill it then we should be prepared to help alleviate the problem.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther