Too bad Harry Browne didn't win the election. Bush isn't much better, but at least it isn't Al "I'm a liar just as much as Bill" Gore.

Ahhh, the lesser of two evils.

Now we get 4 years to pick the lame duck apart. He better hope everyone one he appointed.. from white office boy to secretary of state is on their best behavior. I give it 1 month before the first scandal begins.

quote:

---

EU chief attacks Bush on abortion cash

January 23, 2001
Web posted at: 1:43 PM EST (1843 GMT)

STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Plans by new U.S. President George W. Bush to ban funding for international family planning groups that support abortion have been criticised by a European Union chief.

After Bush reinstated the policy in one of the first acts of his presidency, Anna Diamantopoulou, EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, said she was disappointed by the move and feared it "may be a signal of things to come."

"Why is it so easy at a single stroke to put back the achievements in the area of equality of 20 years?" she said, speaking at a meeting in Sweden of EU ministers for gender equality.

Diamantopoulou urged Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson to raise the issue at a meeting with Bush planned for June. Sweden currently holds the EU presidency.

But Persson played down the issue, arguing that Bush's abortion policy was a domestic U.S. issue.

"I don't think it is going to affect relations between the United States and Europe," he said.

Population expert Professor John Hobcraft of the London School of Economics (LSE), said: "To anyone outside the United States it is an extremely strange and bullying policy because it is not about not funding abortion.

"It is not about protecting federal money from abortion. It is really about being completely anti-abortion and trying to do everything you can to sabotage any organisation that is in any way promoting abortion."

The 'Mexico City Policy' that Bush is reinstating was introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when it was known as the "global gag rule," and rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

It bans financial support for organisations if any of their funding, even if it does not come from the U.S., is spent on abortion.

This means organisations that also provide other services, including family planning, education and health facilities, will be affected by Bush's action.

Bush said he believed "taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad."

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) predicted programmes to prevent unplanned pregnancies will suffer the most from the move -- not abortion services which have been ineligible for U.S. funds for decades.

"To place restrictions on family planning choices disempowers women and men and undermines their efforts to extricate themselves from poverty," IPPF Director General Ingar Brueggemann said in a statement.

"The Mexico City policy has cost many lives and actually increased to a large degree the number of unintended pregnancies and illegal, unsafe abortions causing death and disability."

The policy will not apply to U.S. groups because they are protected by constitutional free speech provisions.

Dr Sheilagh Ogilvie, an economist at Cambridge University, described the move as ethically questionable and said Bush's decision further separates women in poor and rich nations.

"Because abortion is legal for American women it is a little bit inconsistent that the American government is, in a sense, forbidding women in poor countries something which women in the United States are allowed to do," she said.

But LIFE, a pro-life group in Britain, described Bush's decision as an excellent way to begin his presidency.

It urged British Prime Minister Tony Blair to follow the U.S. example.

"IPPF and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) have promoted wicked sterilisation and abortion programmes throughout the Third World and have condoned the brutal one-child policy on China," said Nuala Scarisbrick, a LIFE trustee.

---

------------------
[img]http://www.cacophonous.com/cacoimgs/penta.gif[/img]

Coming from Alberta, the last I heard was that abortions were PARTIALLY covered. Even that I do not agree with because that takes money away from essential services and to maintain those services our taxes/rates go up. Unless a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the woman, it should NOT be paid for by the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rivendell:
Heh...I think I want to stay out of this discussion this time...

---

Ditto, had just about enough with the election process.

quote:

---

As a taxpayer, I don't like my healthcare tax dollars going towards aborting a baby

---

Snag - I understand your point but don't think you would have to pay even more taxes for welfare or health care to raise some unwanted child. Possible crack baby, etc?

I really don't have a position on abortions. Don't really like to get into conversations about them either, because they have a tendency become quite heated...

They aren't allowed to grow beyond 14 days, but it's still cloning humans.

But everytime I hear somebody say "Killing babies" I want to tell them to go adopt a child or become a foster parent or join a Big Brothers/Sisters program or donate to programs that help welfare mothers get GOOD respectable jobs or help find fathers who are missing child support payments.

BTW, study after study supports that only 15% of American want to outlaw abortions. So Bush is just throwing a bone to the fringe of America.

I just farted and it smells in my office. Damn permaseal windows!!!!

The pro-life crowd believes that a concieved fetus IS as much a human being as that 1 week old baby. THAT is the heart of the matter. Some people believe a fetus is human. Some don't. Some think that you can pick a 'time' in a pregnancy when a fetus becomes human. Some don't.

Pro-choicers don't believe killing a human being should be allowed. Neither do pro-lifers.

quote:

---

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) predicted programmes to prevent unplanned pregnancies will suffer the most from the move -- not abortion services which have been ineligible for U.S. funds for decades.

Also

Population expert Professor John Hobcraft of the London School of Economics (LSE), said: "To anyone outside the United States it is an extremely strange and bullying policy because it is not about not funding abortion.

---

ANYWAY!! As far as my tax dollars going to support some welfare case...I do not believe a person should raise a child in squallor. Therefore, if you cannot support a child without assistance, you should not have that child. Simple as that. Cruel it may be, but children deserve the best chance they can to succeed in life. Just because someone is a bum or they got a few hard knocks in life, doesn't give them the right to drag another human down with them in the process. There are many many many odoptive and foster parents out there who love taking in children. Many who just love doing it, and many who just can't have children of their own. Abortion has become a crutch if you will, for people making poor choices. If I speed and get a ticket, that was a poor choice...why should YOU pay for my bad judgement?? And it is becoming a form of birth control for many. 40 percent of women who have abortions have more then one. So does this seem right? They didn't learn the first time to use a rubber or pop a pill??
I just cannot stand having to pay for others mistakes. I know this is an American issue....but it as just an issue here.

ALSO, wtf. All those other countries should get a grip. Why should the US, Canada or any other G7 country have to provide abortions for other countries. I mean, sure, they are poor bla bla bla...but as our national debts rack up we keep giving these countries more money without ever expecting to get it back. I don't mind charity etc...I give often (usually childrens and battered women's charities) but once that is EXPECTED and someone is CONDEMNED for not providing....that is WRONG!! Am I pro-life...I cannot say.

For the record... I don't think getting pregnant is quite like getting a speeding ticket. I haven't done either so I can't really speak from experience, but I'd think if you get a speeding ticket, you pay for it, and you forget about it. Getting pregnant is something else. You live with the 'mistake' the whole of your life.

For the record I was a 'mistake'... my parents were gonna have a third child but they didn't plan on having one so soon. But here I am.

This is not the States we're talking about... this is the world, 3rd world countries included.

There are so many kids living in orphanages... if for some reason the kid gets past babyhood without being adopted hardly anyone would want to adopt them.

As for people paying for their own abortions... some just can't afford it. What about the girl who gets dumped by her boyfriend when they find out they're pregnant? Or the couple with 9 kids living in a shanty town outside New Mexico?

quote:

---

Or the couple with 9 kids living in a shanty town outside New Mexico?

---

"Come the millennium, month 12. In the home of greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be acclaimed the leader." -- Nostradamus

Do you believe everything you hear/read RL or do you view the facts then form your own personal opinion?

Just wondering/provoking.

RELIGION IS NOT THE VILLAIN!!! WE ARE THE ASSHOLES!!! NOT RELIGION!!!

Furthermore, if you hire (elect) a highly religious person to govern over you, expect those beliefs to be reflected in the way in which he governs. Atheists are the worst of all religious people (AND ATHEISM IS RECOGNIZED AS A RELIGION!!) They are worse than even Jahova's Witnesses because rather than trying to get people to see their point through rationalization etc... they criticize and bitch and whine and belittle and berate...

Also Wolfie, what right do foreign countries have to get upset over how another country spends their money? Aid is great. Charity? If ya got it give it. But to expect it, and get pissed off when it is no longer there is not right. Especially when the provider is not even obligated.

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.

Oh! And if you ever visit Quebec city, pay close attention to what the signs say on your drive in... "Quebec - La Capital Nationale" The National Capital?! WHAT THE FUCK?! What fucking racist nation are these separatist bastards talking about?!

Cy- firstly, I never said I believe in the Bible code. It was just a point I made. Secondly, I don't know if you belive Nostradamus' predictions, but if you do, then why not believe in God, too? Surely people would have an easier time believing in a power which could have created every single thing you see, a power which so many people believe in and a power which has so much evidence going for it, than believing a guy who hundreds of years ago predicted that something would happen.

I can't make up my mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:
Also Wolfie, what right do foreign countries have to get upset over how another country spends their money? Aid is great. Charity? If ya got it give it. But to expect it, and get pissed off when it is no longer there is not right. Especially when the provider is not even obligated.

---

Answer:

quote:

---

It bans financial support for organisations if any of their funding, even if it does not come from the U.S., is spent on abortion.

---

Hell, I think last night I pissed of some chick lol. I was drunk and we were getting in the designated drivers car. and i had shotgun called. And one of my buddies was getting in slow so I said "Hurry up and get in the car you fucking slut!" ya know....the way guys talk to each other. WELL, I look over and there is this chick just getting into the ex-bf of one of my friends' car. And she glared at me as though I said that to her. OOOPS!! LOL

That is my story from last night