frostyjacks wrote: » I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it. I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.
frostyjacks wrote: » I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it.
I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The Dutch government says it wants an international fund to finance access to birth control, abortion and education for women in developing countries. Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Lilianne Ploumen announced the plan Tuesday in reaction to an executive memorandum U.S. President Donald Trump signed a day earlier. It reinstituted a ban on U.S. funding to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about abortions. Ploumen wants to launch a new fund that could be supported by governments, businesses and social organizations to “compensate this financial setback as much as possible.”
aloyisious wrote: » If they were needless, no one would be looking for them.
frostyjacks wrote: » Absolutely. Why on earth would a healthcare provider jeopardise funding by offering needless abortion services? It's dangerous.
Delirium wrote: » So you're okay with the funding being cut for HIV/cancer treatment or screenings for mere mention of abortion services?
pauldla wrote: » Scurrilous gossip gleaned from the internet: Pence is gay, and has undergone conversation therapy. There are a few skeletons in that closet, it is said. Can I pass this off as 'alternative facts', or is it 'fake news'?
volchitsa wrote: » Very true, sadly, except for one quibble, which is that unless I've picked it up wrong, this won't actually cost the US government, because it's aimed at NGOs providing pregnancy care services in poor and developing countries. Trump is probably a happy bunny over this, because he gets to make a "big" gesture that pleases his conservative allies, while not causing him the problems a higher rate of illegal abortions would/will do. I suspect the real fun may only start when VP Pence and other stalwarts start wanting to apply their theological beliefs in the US as well. And we know they will.
recedite wrote: » NY Times.
volchitsa wrote: » What on earth makes you think that its proponents would be satisfied with a ban on abortion only?
Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to the United Nations, Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, made clear in her confirmation hearing last week that she opposed abortion, but said she supported funding for contraceptive services in foreign aid programs.
recedite wrote: » While I agree the above is true, I'd suggest that the undesirable outcome is because the policy has been used as a political football, and not necessarily because it is flawed. In other words, if the democrats had not kept unravelling it, it might be working by now. The policy requires non-governmental organisations receiving federal funding to agree to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". But it would take a couple of years for NGO's to evolve, or new ones to emerge, which would replace those on the ground who do not comply with the policy. In the meantime, those who are active on the ground supplying both contraception and abortion find their funding has been cut, hence more unwanted pregnancies occur.
The policy originally enacted from 1984-1993 spoke to abortion only, not family planning in general. However, in 2001, the policy was re-implemented and expanded to cover all voluntary family planning activities, and critics began to refer to it as the "global gag rule." These critics argue that the policy not only reduces the overall funding provided to particular NGOs, it closes off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception. This, they argue, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downturn in contraceptive use and from there to an increase in the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion. A study of nations in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that unintended pregnancies increased and abortions approximately doubled while the policy was in effect.
seamus wrote: » Because this is used as a football by U.S. politicians, we've had a pretty unique opportunity to directly observe the effects of banning and unbanning (and banning) this funding. The data has shown that this ban results in more women seeking abortions. This is because the NGOs affected aren't just abortion clinics. Like 99.9999% of organisations which provide abortions, the bulk of their services involve family planning and crisis pregnancy services. When you cut funding to these services, more women have unwanted pregnancies and choose abortion for those pregnancies. When you fund these organisations, less women have unwanted pregnancies and those that do are less likely to choose abortion. Well done Republicans, you've just increased the number of abortions that will occur in the US. Jesus would be proud.
oldrnwisr wrote: » Just to add to this point, this ban is not only likely to more women seeking abortions but those abortions themselves are more likely to be performed in backstreet clinics and in unsafe conditions, thus putting women and the foetuses they carry in more danger. We know, from studies carried out by the WHO, that unsafe abortions are a significant cause of maternal death accounting for approximately 13% of maternal deaths.Guttmacher Institute - Facts on Induced abortion worldwide Further, since DJT seems to regard himself as a shrewd businessman he ought to have thought twice about this ban since it is likely to cost the US government an extra $500 million dollars in treating women for the consequences of unsafe abortion.
seamus wrote: » Because this is used as a football by U.S. politicians, we've had a pretty unique opportunity to directly observe the effects of banning and unbanning (and banning) this funding.The data has shown that this ban results in more women seeking abortions. This is because the NGOs affected aren't just abortion clinics. Like 99.9999% of organisations which provide abortions, the bulk of their services involve family planning and crisis pregnancy services. When you cut funding to these services, more women have unwanted pregnancies and choose abortion for those pregnancies. When you fund these organisations, less women have unwanted pregnancies and those that do are less likely to choose abortion. Well done Republicans, you've just increased the number of abortions that will occur in the US. Jesus would be proud.
frag420 wrote: » You do realise this will do more harm to women's health globally! But hey dont let women's health get in the way of your agenda!?
frostyjacks wrote: » This is excellent news for women and babies around the globe. The push-back against the Soros-funded abortion lobby begins.
robindch wrote: » DJT has resurrected a Reagan-era ban on the US government providing any funding any national or international organization which either performs abortion or provides information on abortion:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364 In previous years, DJT stated that he was in favour of abortion. These days, he's against it. Hardly worth pointing out that the there were no women in the Oval Office when the order was signed. Some of the white males seem pleased.
aloyisious wrote: » then got to realising that not all Irish citizens able or likely to vote in a referendum on a choice for or against the 8th and abortion here would be Irish born
aloyisious wrote: » Todays meeting of the peoples assembly should be interesting as the abortion issue is for debate there. On the issue of identifying by name or descriptive term what a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb, according to RTE radio news both the RC church and the anti-abortion side are objecting to the use of the word feotus by the assembly to describe what's in the woman's womb. I have no doubt that others would prefer another word, like person, be used instead of feotus.
aloyisious wrote: » As for what the people dictate about generally not killing another person (the wording used by Absolam, presumably in reference to the 8th amendment and the bar on abortion), given that that was freely decided and chosen by referendum, I have no problem with the people making another decision on the same issue which, POSSIBLY, might reverse that original decision by and of the people. That is what the debate both here and later today, in the assembly, is all about.
222233 wrote: » Again, I apologise that my beliefs are not original enough for you. I am going to unfollow this thread, I believe in freedom of speech, I don't care how many times it's been said - Listen to the people... it's an abortion debate.
222233 wrote: » Self indulgent, really. As a woman I find it "self indulgent" that nobody seems to really care what I think about my body.
222233 wrote: » I have no idea what any of that means, sorry that my "argument" or my opinion is not authentic enough for you. Perhaps the similarity should suggest to you that many people want change.
222233 wrote: » Difficult to show anyone is saying that? If I were in that very horrific position, THIS country and THIS COUNTRY'S law would force me to continue with that pregnancy UNLESS.. there was a real risk to my life, which if it were suicide would require me to be at the point of needing three professionals to verify that I'm suicidal. That speaks louder than anything in this thread to me.
222233 wrote: » I advise you ignore my posts if you feel they are reciprocal of posts you have already read.
