Donald Trump reinstates global abortion funding ban - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14766930
Independent wrote:Activists have condemned as an “assault on women's health”, a decision by Donald Trump to block US funding for health clinics around the world that provide abortion services.

One of the three executive orders Mr Trump signed on his first Monday morning as president, was to reinstate the so-called Mexico City Policy, a rule originally introduced by Ronald Reagan.

The rule, which was revoked by Barack Obama, forces NGOs to agree to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations” as a prerequisite for federal funds. It does not matter if non-US funds are being used for the abortions.



Activists say the rule threatens to undermine the viability of countless groups that provide healthcare, including contraception and abortion services, to millions of women in the developing world. Campaigners had said ahead of Mr Trump’s inauguration, they feared he would reintroduce the policy as a gift to Vice President Mike Pence, known for his staunch opposition to abortion rights.

The rule, first introduced in 1984, was named for the location of the UN conference on population where it was announced.

Groups that support abortion rights have long opposed the policy and urged politicians not to back. Republican and Democratic presidents have taken turns to impose and rescind the rule.



Bill Clinton revoked it in January 1993 upon taking office, and George W Bush reinstated it when he assuaged the presidency eight years later. Barack Obama most recently rescinded it again in 2009.

Mr Clinton and Mr Bush signed their orders on 22 January, the anniversary of the 1973 landmark Roe v Wade decision.

Mr Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, told reporters: "The president has made clear he is a pro-life president. He wants to stand up for all Americans - including the unborn."

Independent
#14766951
The right to life right up until the point they drop out of the woman and then just leave em to their fate. Decent education? No way. Free health care? Commie treason. Safe warm home? Maybe they should pull themselves up but their own bootstraps (when they are old enough to wear them). Right wing people care about a "person's" right to life up until the point they actually are one and then could not give less of a shit about it. :roll:
#14766954
The tax payer is under no obligation to provide funding to private firms that engage in major medical acts. If they want an abortion they can still get one. I support the right to abortion, it is preferable in 99% cases because most of these people are degenerates and shouldn't contribute more degenerates. But it should be done on the books. Too much abuse potential surrounding these private clinics. Fetus parts are a major black market commodity.
#14766973
As I said in another thread this could easily be retaliation for the protests. The protesters need to realize their actions will push Trump to the right with the GOP helping him along. Actions have consequences. This may have happened anyway, but Trumps stance was to let the states decide abortion. This may be in danger if the protests continue.
#14766985
One Degree wrote:As I said in another thread this could easily be retaliation for the protests.


Probably not.

The protesters need to realize their actions will push Trump to the right with the GOP helping him along. Actions have consequences.


So Trump is just punishing the protesters for not liking him? If that is the case, Trump needs to put in his big boy pants.

This may have happened anyway, but Trumps stance was to let the states decide abortion. This may be in danger if the protests continue.


I would not be surprised to find that Trump has a whole slew of executive orders targeting women. He is openly sexist.
#14766986
So Trump is just punishing the protesters for not liking him? If that is the case, Trump needs to put in his big boy pants.


There obviously is a difference between expressing dislike for his policies and insulting him as a person. He is human and I doubt you or I could resist some pay back either if faced with what he is.
#14767047
Go, Donald, Go!
The Trump of God has done more good as President of the USA in a couple hours than Obama did in eight years. Just replacing the bust of Winston Churchill that Obama removed was better than anything I can't think of that Obama did for America. Well, Obama was rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize after about three months in office talking about peace with the Muslim terrorists. I don't see the peace. Obama should give that peace prize back.
#14767053
There was nothing unexpected in this. Obama was an idiot for a second reinstatement in the first place. Hopefully it remains gone this time. His uncalled for reinstatement of this policy infuriated Catholic Groups, and other religious groups and voters. Not only was abortion legal but he was making Catholic and Protestant taxpayers pay for it in violation of the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Abortion shouldn't be publically funded, it is an elective surgery, there are taxpayers who religiously do not believe in being forced to fund it(believing THAT creates a sinful situation for them) and therefore it should be private. Most of the time a woman won't die if they don't have one. It's not an essential surgery.

These protesting woman are more terrified of the fact we are closer than ever to a Republican dominated Supreme Court, and the possibility of the repeal of the 1973 decision being closer than ever. They should be scared. Probably won't happen, but it's pleasing to see them squirm.
#14767176
One Degree wrote:There obviously is a difference between expressing dislike for his policies and insulting him as a person. He is human and I doubt you or I could resist some pay back either if faced with what he is.


Now you seem to be arguing that all those protesters were insulting him as a person.

That, of course, is a bit insulting to all those protesters.

Again, Trump is going to have to learn to live with criticism if he wants to be POTUS.

---------

colliric wrote:There was nothing unexpected in this. Obama was an idiot for a second reinstatement in the first place. Hopefully it remains gone this time. His uncalled for reinstatement of this policy infuriated Catholic Groups, and other religious groups and voters. Not only was abortion legal but he was making Catholic and Protestant taxpayers pay for it in violation of the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Abortion shouldn't be publically funded, it is an elective surgery, there are taxpayers who religiously do not believe in being forced to fund it(believing THAT creates a sinful situation for them) and therefore it should be private. Most of the time a woman won't die if they don't have one. It's not an essential surgery.

These protesting woman are more terrified of the fact we are closer than ever to a Republican dominated Supreme Court, and the possibility of the repeal of the 1973 decision being closer than ever. They should be scared. Probably won't happen, but it's pleasing to see them squirm.


Abortion, like any other medical treatment, should be 100% taxpayer funded, and it should be available to women at any time during their pregnancy.

As to funding it overseas, this imposes the religious anti-abortion view on those US citizens who otherwise believe in the bodily autonomy of women.
#14767181
Abortion, like any other medical treatment, should be 100% taxpayer funded, and it should be available to women at any time during their pregnancy.


Agreed. If there is a danger to the life of the mother, or a defect of the child. If it's just because neither of the expecting parents used contraception, or because a child doesn't fit into their career or other plans, it's not a necessary medical intervention and I see no reason why the rest of the community should pay with their tax money for an individual's lifestyle choices, especially since they can give the child up for adoption once it's born. Nobody is being forced to raise a child they don't want, and nobody dies. Win-win.

At any time during their pregnancy? Care to explain why they should be free to kill a child two weeks before it's born, but not two weeks after?
#14767231
Frollein wrote:Agreed. If there is a danger to the life of the mother, or a defect of the child. If it's just because neither of the expecting parents used contraception, or because a child doesn't fit into their career or other plans, it's not a necessary medical intervention and I see no reason why the rest of the community should pay with their tax money for an individual's lifestyle choices, especially since they can give the child up for adoption once it's born. Nobody is being forced to raise a child they don't want, and nobody dies. Win-win.

At any time during their pregnancy? Care to explain why they should be free to kill a child two weeks before it's born, but not two weeks after?


I will leave it up to the doctors and the women to decide if it is a medical treatment or not. Our opinions concerning responsibility and lifestyle choices are not relevant to a discussion about medical treatments.

If we believe that women have the right to determine what their body is used for (and this right is consistent with liberal democracy) , then the logical conclusion is that women get to decide if their body is used to bring children to term. This right is not suspended because of the length of pregnancy.

I am in disagreement with Rei Murasame about the obligations towards a viable fetus. I think it is consistent with public health care policies and egalitarianism to keep the child alive. Rei always disagreed.
#14767263
You already decided that every abortion is a medical treatment in your previous post. And you still haven't answered the question - since, according to you, abortion must be an option at every stage of pregnancy - how it is ok to kill a baby two weeks before birth, but not two weeks after. Hell, if we go by your claim, "abortion" would still be ok one day before birth. But, obviously, not one day after birth. Care to adress that conundrum?
#14767277
How many women request abortions two weeks before their predicted delivery date that aren't a medical necessity?


This statement is an insult to what many women go through in making this decision. It is not something most women will decide and not have many second thoughts. There are a lot of reasons for deciding to have an abortion or not. It is very easy to be on one side or the other when it is not you.

Edit: Even though I support a woman's right to choose, I don't believe we are doing them any favors by placing such a monstrous decision upon them, but that is the fairest place for it to be.
#14767284
Pants-of-dog wrote:Abortion, like any other medical treatment, should be 100% taxpayer funded, and it should be available to women at any time during their pregnancy.

As to funding it overseas, this imposes the religious anti-abortion view on those US citizens who otherwise believe in the bodily autonomy of women.


I suppose you believe Catholic and Protestant healthcare services should be forced to perform the service and/or reffer to another service.

Both are a direct violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion(and it's a worse violation than the gay marriage cakebaking incident). As is forcing religious taxpayers to fund Abortion.
#14767291
Oh dear.... asking for statistics to determine whether or not a problem exists is now an insult. Deary me. :roll: I don't think so, Sweetie, but keep trying :excited:


Yes, because abortion is not something that should be decided by statistics. I get upset when people turn real human issues into political issues and totally forget they are talking about real people. This applies to abortion, it applies to race relations, and almost everything else we debate. I have made my feelings clear lots of times about how I feel about treating people as groups. It dehumanizes the discussion so it is a suitable political tool. Individuals are only brought into it as extreme examples to support a political view. So yes, I will make my objections to dehumanizing a very human experience. I see why statistics will be brought up in a debate forum, but I also see a reason to remind debaters we are talking about individual humans. So now you can ignore me and continue your debate, since I have said my piece.
#14767299
Stormsmith wrote:How many women request abortions two weeks before their predicted delivery date that aren't a medical necessity?


That wasn't the point of the question. But since you think that killing a defective child two weeks prior to delivery is justified, do you also think it is ok to kill babies if the defect is only discovered after birth? Wouldn't that also be a "medical necessity"? Should we close the ICUs for these children now?
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]