My tax dollars now promote abortion…

“Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.

After less than a week in office, President Obama got rid of a policy that prevented US funds from going to international agencies that promote or provide abortions. Read CNN’s story here. No surprise, supporters of the president’s move include Planned Parenthood (the biggest abortion provider in the country) and groups in favor of population control.

Population control…what a scary idea. There’s not enough food, housing, and health care for all these poor people. The problem must be that there are too many people. Let’s keep the poor population down by preventing the poor people from reproducing. Let’s teach them not to have children, and if they do “inconveniently” conceive, we can fix that by killing their babies. It’s better that way. Every child a rich child…

Hey, I have an idea! While we’re at it, let’s require couples to take IQ tests. If their IQs are too low, we should require them to be sterilized. We don’t want to pass along stupid genes. Also, let’s do genetic testing in utero, and if there’s anything wrong with the baby- abort her. We don’t want a society filled with “defective” children and retards. As crazy as it is, this is the trend and growing mindset in today’s culture. It seems like I’ve heard some of these ideologies before…Oh right, Hitler.

Why are abortion and population control the solutions to women’s health care issues in developing countries? Why don’t we spend our money improving conditions so that these women have access to proper health care, facilities, food and clean water so that they can give birth to and care for healthy children? I realize it’s not so “simple,” but I refuse to embrace a culture of death as the solution.

I wish my tax dollars felt the same way.

Advertisements

About Nicole

Daughter of God, wife, mother, volunteer youth leader, substitute teacher, aspiring writer, rabbit owner, nature lover. These are some of my titles.
This entry was posted in News and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to My tax dollars now promote abortion…

  1. Really great post. I don’t understand the killing of the innocent either. You proposed better plans than what my tax money is currently paying for.

  2. dave says:

    Obama claims that this is his effort at bipartisan politics. “Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a “political wedge issue,” adding that he had “no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.””

    Regan initiated to policy in 84′ (a policy preventing your tax dollars from funding abortion overseas). This policy was reversed by Clinton in 93 and reinstated by Bush as his first executive order in 2001.

    Sounds exactly like he’s he’s making this a political issue if you ask me. And certainly is continuing some sort of debate. This kind of decision no longer surprises me anymore. it’s typical republican/democrat pissing contest. It seems to me like the higher you get in politics the more denumanized you become at the same time, become more ‘party oriented’. How many times do major political figures go directly against part policy to get things done?

    You wanna talk about bad Obama decisions? Don’t even get me started on Guantanamo or bailouts….

  3. Peter says:

    I agree that thinking of abortion as a form of population control is incorrect. The choice to have an abortion is not a matter for state involvement. The state should only involve itself in the regulation of abortion to help make it safer for women. The state should promote education and access to birth control to fight population growth.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think any government is actively taking part in population control. No one is going into people’s homes and saying sorry maam you can’t have this baby. However, it is true that nature does in some ways control the population. IQ and diet are directly related to fertility.

    I don’t like the way you’ve written this at all though. It’s way too emotional and self-righteous. You don’t give others the benefit of the doubt. I agree with what Dave said about the pissing contests, and it’s exactly our inability to give others the benefit of the doubt that is causing this situation.

    No one is Hitler here. Some people just don’t trust government intervention. Personally, I’m against abortion, but I’m really afraid what would happen if it were illegal. Would it be like prohibition? Would young women get hurt in “bootleg” abortions? The truth is some people make bad choices, and are left with consequences they can’t deal with. Is it a good thing? No, but it will happen, and the best thing a society can do is to help them safely deal with their poor decisions. It’s not reasonable to outlaw bad decisions. But that’s just the libertarian me.

    I have to admit though that I don’t equate a fetus to a baby, and so I don’t have the emotional connection to this issue that others might. If I thought that abortion was murder I’d probably be just as mad as you are.

    That brings me back to my original point: assume that people are decent, with no malicious intent before you write because you’ll get a more full understanding of the issue.

  5. Nicole says:

    Anonymous- I hope you’re right that there aren’t countries engaged in coercive population control (though I’m not sure if it’s true), but there is also persuasive population control, slightly less diabolical but a terrible idea and a slippery slope in my opinion.

    I’m sorry you don’t like my writing style. I don’t deny that it’s emotional- I go at this not as a politician or journalist, but as a human being. To me, there are some things that are worth getting worked up about.

    The argument of “bootleg” abortions doesn’t hold much water in my mind because I do believe that life begins at conception- and I think science backs me up on that one. The “blob of tissues” argument is pretty outdated. If you’ve ever seen a baby sucking his or her little thumb on an ultrasound, I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to tell me that’s not a living human. As technology continually improves, doctors are able to save premature babies at younger and younger ages. Does the definition of life vary with our technology’s ability to change the earliest date of independent viability? I can’t rationalize making it safer and more convenient for a woman to kill her child.

    I absolutely have sympathy for women and girls who become pregnant when they didn’t mean to. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not one of those people who thinks they “deserve it” or something like pregnancy is their just punishment. That’s ignorant on so many levels. But people do have to face all kinds of hardships brought about by their decisions, by other people’s decisions, and by the unchangeable circumstances of life. There are thousands of couples waiting to adopt children in this country. If a woman doesn’t want her baby, society should take more initiative to support and help her carry her baby to term while keeping a job or going to school if that’s what she wants, and then she can give the baby away. I know pregnancy is difficult, but 9 months of carrying a baby is a small price to pay to save the life of your child.

    I assume that individuals are decent- but I also believe that they can be malicious. Watch the news and tell me there aren’t people with malicious intent. I assume the majority of people in support of abortion are compassionate, well-meaning people. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being deceived by the lies and slick propaganda they are being fed. Of course, behind those lies are probably some malicious people.

    I do not want to be hateful to any person, but I have no problem being vehemently against certain ideas.

  6. Anonymous says:

    It’s not so much your emotion that bothers me. It’s the lack of you. I am perfectly ok with you taking a strong stance, but you have to realize that people don’t understand emotion if it’s disconnected from people.

    A lot of editorialist think their argument is stronger when they argue in the third person plural. I don’t agree. It makes people feel like ideas are being pushed on them. When you argue in the first person the reader can identify with you, and even if they don’t agree with what you have to say they can respect your openness and passion. It takes a strong person to say these are my believes, here’s why I believe them, and if you don’t feel the same way then that’s ok, but I’m committed to them.

    In keeping with that sentiment I’ve got to disagree with you on life beginning at conception, and I’ll admit my weakness. I don’t know when you can say a fetus is a baby. It’s a tough decision to make, and I can see why someone would want to take a rigid stance, so that there is no slippery middle area. I think your image of an ultrasound is a strong one, and I’ll admit that if I saw something like that I wouldn’t be able to abort.

    Abortion is a complicated issue. With issues like this I like to think what would I do if it effected my family. What would I do if my sister got pregnant? The truth is I’d want her to take it to term, and give it up for adoption. That’s because I feel like she doesn’t always plan ahead, and she needs to understand what you said about decisions. But here’s the thing, I’d be really mad if someone else made that decision for us. I know my sister, and I know what’s best for her. No one else does, and I wouldn’t want anyway to make this decision for her. It’s a decision that should be made with people that you love, and not the government.

    But I realize we’ve come full circle, and we’re not going to reach an agreement because rather or not you believe that life begins after contraception is a huge deal. If you truly believe it does, then you pretty much have to take your stance. If you don’t believe it does then you’ve got a whole other issue.

  7. Jon says:

    Anonymous said, “I don’t think any government is actively taking part in population control.” The facts say otherwise.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/10/china.onechild/index.html

    http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/familypanning/

  8. Nicole says:

    In case you’re too lazy to follow Jon’s link, here is a powerful excerpt from the first article he posted:

    “While the policy (of allowing only 1 child per couple) has helped curb population growth, it has also led to forced sterilizations in some parts of the country, the State Department said. Because of a traditional preference for male heirs, many Chinese have aborted female fetuses, according to human rights groups.

    Even within the country, there have been growing calls in recent years for the law to be overhauled, the China Daily said. Some Chinese worry that the law has led to a gender imbalance. They also worry about China’s aging population. Those 60 years of age and older are expected to make up more than 200 million in the next seven years, according to government figures.”

    And that’s from CNN, so I don’t suppose anyone will complain about a conservative bias or hidden religious agenda in the story.

  9. Anonymous says:

    There is no reason to call me lazy. I work as hard as anyone, and I’m open to new information.

    Yes China partakes in population control. But what goes on in China is in no way related to what goes in America because China’s an authoritarian state with tons of documented human rights violations. It’s infuriating, but the simple truth is there is nothing we can do about it because they’re bigger and more vicious than us.

    But our discussion is about how abortion fits into the West, and democratic societies, and not China. And I think we were making some progress. It’s true we weren’t reaching an agreement, but we were beginning to understand why we couldn’t reach an agreement.

    Someone earlier said that politicians become more dehumanized the further they advance, and I think that’s true. Inevitably, the more you invest in ideas the less you invest in people. That’s why I quit philosophy, and became a journalist.

    I don’t trust distant entities to make decisions because I don’t feel like they understand the nuances of the situation. You on the other hand, don’t care for nuances because you’re afraid where they might lead. You truly believe abortion is murder, and so you can’t take any other stance then the one you take. I don’t believe that, so this issues a little bit more confusing for me. You’re trying to prove you’re right, and I’m just trying to understand.

    I’m willing to continue this discussion, but I don’t want any name calling or I gotcha lines. No one here is a bad person. We just have different ideas.

  10. Nicole says:

    Sure. I wasn’t going for name calling. The “In case you’re too lazy” comment wasn’t directed specifically at you- how can I call an anonymous person lazy? I was intending that to be a general “you,” addressing anyone who happens upon my blog and might only be skimming the comments. I know if I’m just skimming something I might not care to follow all the links. I suppose lazy was too loaded a word to toss out, so sorry about that.

    The story I was originally blogging about mentioned that Obama “looked forward to ‘working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund.’ ” The Bush administration withheld funds from the agency, saying that it helped fund forced sterilizations in China. The agency always denied that, so it gets into your typical political argument of who to believe, but that’s why China and population control came into this discussion. I agree we can’t do anything about China’s policies by force (nor should we) but we should be very careful what our money is supporting. Money is power, and backing something financially transfers the guilt of what is taking place there at least partially to us.

    I realize that we probably won’t be coming to a consensus on abortion, and let me say that I respect you for having an opinion that you’re willing to discuss. So many people just don’t want to think about it at all or be bothered with it.

    I understand why it would be a difficult decision if you are not sure when life begins. I refer back to my previous comments backing my belief that it begins at conception. I could also give you a list of Biblical backings for my view, but I don’t know if that would hold any weight in your mind. Here’s my question for you. If you are not sure when life begins, or when a baby becomes a person, wouldn’t you rather err on the side of caution? If there’s any chance that abortion MIGHT be killing around 1,290,000 children every year, I would think the responsible thing to do would be to stop it immediately even without being 100% positive. What do you think?

    Someone at a conference I went to once illustrated this idea as the following:
    You have a son, and he comes up behind you and says, “hey, can I destroy this?” Don’t you want to know what it is before you give him permission to destroy it? If you’re not sure what he has, don’t you want to spend the time figuring it out before you give him the go-ahead? If you’re not sure if a fetus is a baby, or if a baby is person, or however you want to word it, shouldn’t you make sure before you decide abortion is ok?

    I’m not going for a “gotcha.” I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. Anyone else who has input, feel free to jump into the convo at any time. This should be a free discussion.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’ll get back to abortion, but first I’ve got to tell you I’m really afraid of making any nation wide decision, especially, at this time in America.

    A nation wide decision is a big deal. It means you’re making decisions for families. These sorts of decisions should take a long time to make, but there are some things in play that make this difficult.

    First, there’s the internet. Everyone feels like they’re more informed then ever, but internet information misses so much of the little details that are important. I feel like we’re less involved, and actually go out and do less because we feel like we can do everything on the internet. My point is there’s a hole in our information.

    Second, party politics makes politics a competition. It’s become more about winning and losing then understanding and reaching a common ground.

    Finally, journalist are cowards. Everyone likes to say journalism is liberal, but I think they’re all too afraid to be liberal. 50 years ago I could write about the death of a kid at war. Now I’d be chastised. But I believe if you’re going to make a nation wide decision to go to war then you need to see and understand that good children will die, and you need to understand what there is to be gained. You have to present everything and let the people decide.

    Here’s how this applies to abortion. Today we decide to place a national ban on abortion. What’s next?

    Journalist put no checks on political parties. Political parties take turns dominating, and they both use the internet to manipulate the minds of citizens. The Democratic party could push through almost any legislation they want at this point in time.

    For me this decision is about more than abortion. It’s about the strength of the Federal government. I believe that the more you localize things the better you can understand them, so I’d be more comfortable if this was a state decision. Personally, I’d prefer for the national government to have almost no power. But let’s get back to abortion.

    I think you’ve made some good points. It does make sense to err on the side of caution, but the truth is after thinking a bit I’ve decided I don’t believe a first trimester fetus is a baby. It’s a tough decision to make, but you have to decide when a fetus becomes a human being, and I believe that occurs when cognitive abilities occur. A heart beat constitutes somethings living, but it does not make it human. I know it sounds like a mean thing to say, but I don’t believe you can say potential to be human constitutes humanity because then you have to ask is it wrong for people to wear protection?

  12. Jon says:

    Here’s another fact that could be added to this discussion. (This story was coincidentally posted just yesterday.) We tend unthinkingly to assume that the “population explosion” is a dire threat for humanity and that every government must as a matter of course be seeking ways to reduce its population, but the fact is that many western-influenced nations are actually facing the prospect of population decline. Notice how Japan’s family planning policy is entirely the reverse of China’s. Those who tout birth control and abortion as solutions to our economic problems should be wary lest their wish comes too true.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html

  13. John says:

    I have to agree with anonymous that the making of nation wide decisions is counter productive. I believe the will of the people is diminished when decisions are made on a national level. It becomes more of a government of the people when laws are made on the state and local levels. As a political conservative I agree with Ronald Regan when he said “Government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.” As such in purely a political decision I believe that Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned. If it is overturned it will not ban abortion (as most people believe) but it will give each state the right to decide if abortion should be level in their state. The closer you bring the decisions to the local level the better the will of the people is served.

    Where I have to disagree with anonymous is in his/her rational as to when a fetus become a human life. If we examine your logic it falls apart under scrutiny. I concur with you that a heartbeat constitutes a living thing. It would be hard to ague otherwise. (The Mayo clinic says a heartbeat starts 4 weeks after conception). You state that something is living if it has a heartbeat but it is not human until the point when cognitive abilities occur. You logic hear is faulty. Is it possible for a fetus developing within a human body to develop into anything other than human? Is it possible the developing fetus could develop into a dog or cat? Of course not, only a human. So according to your own logic if it has a beating heart and is being developed inside a human body it has to be a human.

    So anonymous would you agree that you would be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade?

    I personally believe that life begins at conception (For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Psalms 139:13-14) Almost 3000 American lost their life on 9/11 and our country rallied with national resolve unseen since WWII. 3400 children lose their life each and every single day of the year, 365 days, year in and year out due to abortion and we willingly fund this tragedy. If there were any other scourge on our country taking American lives at even 10 per day it would be priority 1 to eradicate that problem.

    If you need something to help you decide, take 30 second to watch this:

    http://www.catholicvote.com/

  14. Anonymous says:

    My point was that just because something will become human does not make it human. A caterpiller will be a butterfly, but it is not a butterfly. The early stages of mammalian development are similar across species.

    I’ll admit that it’s a complicated issue, and I’d really like to be involved with a family that’s suffering through this decision. I feel like I need that understanding before I can come to any decision. I understand why someone who believed that abortion was murder would want to move as quickly as possible, but I’m just not there, so I’d like to be as thorough as possible before any decision gets made.

  15. Nicole says:

    Anonymous- I think your definition of human seems kinda arbitrary, and my reason would be pretty much the same as John’s. To me, it seems like your decision is not about when a baby becomes human, but when a baby becomes valuable.

    Lawmakers have toyed with this distinction as well- in some states killing a pregnant woman constitutes a double homicide, even if aborting a baby at that same stage of development is legal. Why is it ok to kill the one baby and not the other? These standards are based on the value placed on the baby. The mother who chooses to abort does not value her baby, so society doesn’t value the baby either and sees no loss. But if the woman wants her baby, and someone else causes the child to die, it is considered a horrific crime. I don’t think it makes sense in this situation to say that the aborted baby was not yet human, while the wanted baby who was killed at the same stage was a human.

    On that note, there are lots of American couples waiting to adopt. So in my opinion every baby is valued, even if not by the birth mother. So I understand your perspective on seeking a way to define when a baby gets “human status,” but this is just part of my personal reasoning for why I can’t share your view.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I wouldn’t say it’s an arbitrary definition. Intelligence is the main thing that separates us from other primates.

    But I will admit that what you’ve said about double-homicides stumped me a bit. I’d say that everything you’ve said is true. I would be in favor of two charges in that situation, but at the same time I don’t believe abortion is murder. Somehow the value of the baby does make a difference I guess. Or maybe I’m against the practice of abortion, but not enough to necessitate government intervention.

    You’re wrong about adoption though. I’ve worked with people in the fertility industry, and I can tell you as technology improves less and less people are willing to adopt. Most people want to continue their genetic line, and are willing to pay upwards of $10,000 to do so. And those who do adopt want to adopt from parents with strong genetics or children from broken homes. If we illegalize abortion we are going to have children with no place to go. I feel like if we choose to illegalize abortion we need to realize that as a fact first.

  17. Jon says:

    Regarding adoption, a quote from Jeff Katz’s November 8, 2008 Washington Post article:

    Last month, the National Center for Health Statistics held a research conference on its National Survey of Family Growth. The survey, based on more than 12,000 interviews, is the most comprehensive measure available of the demand for adoption in the United States. The latest study, released in August, found that nearly 600,000 women are seeking to adopt children they do not know. Put another way, imagine that every woman in Chicago between the ages of 18 and 44 wanted to adopt. Are there enough American children to meet this demand? Not even close.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702807.html

  18. Anonymous says:

    The people I talked to said different things. But how about this: What if we allowed states to pass their own decisions, and then after 5 years we evaluated the positives and negatives of what’s going on. One of the real pluses to state decisions is you get to experiment before you pass anything nationally.

  19. Nicole says:

    I’m sure you did good journalism, but the Washington Post and the National Center for Health Statistics probably have better access to much more extensively researched statistics than what you have been able to do so far. Also, was your information from people within the fertility industry? Is it possible that they have a bias because they want people to pay them to try to get pregnant instead of looking into adoption? There are increasing options out there, and I’m sure lots of people are searching for any way possible to get children.

    Your idea about giving the decision to states is not a bad one. Many of the people wanting to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision are opposed to the idea of federal laws regulating abortion (either in support of it or against it.) So we’ve found some common ground.

    I won’t pretend that I wouldn’t be in favor of federal laws prohibiting or limiting abortion- as you’ve recognized, I believe it’s murder and think that if the federal government has to exist, it should be for basic laws the keep society civilized (such as making murder illegal across the board). The federal government is also a necessary evil for interstate and international matters…but that’s another tangent. But in the meantime, giving the decisions to states is a sound plan that would probably satisfy the largest number of people and would be a step closer to a true democratic system.

    I think we’ve come to the point where we’ve identified the things we can’t convince each other of, and have discovered the common ground where we can both agree on some ideas. What do you think?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Ya, I think we’re reaching a closing point, but I feel the need to defend myself. I’m a micro-journalist, not a macro-journalist. While the Washington Post may have more statistics then me; I don’t believe they know people better.

    I’ve talked to men who were having fertility problems, and I’ve talked to an andrologist–sperm doctor, and I’m a masculine man in my own right, so I know how hard it is for a man to recognize he’s infertile.

    An andrologist told me that “male patients diagnosed with cancer are just as upset about the cancer treatment–chemotherapy, radiation treatment, surgery– causing infertility as they are that the cancer will reduce their length of life.”

    She kept telling me how men freak out, and she kept telling me it’s not a big deal, and then she joked that after all my research, if it happened to me I’d be able to deal with it. I would not. I’d feel unintelligent, weak; basically, worthless in everyway. Besides my own self worth taking a hit, I’d also lose any chance of a legacy. I know it sounds crazy, but it’s a really big deal. I’d do anything I could to be fertile. Admittedly, not everyone is the same as me. A lot of infertility is caused by bad habits and laziness.

    I truly believe that when in vitro fertilization and in utero insemination become cheaper and more effective more people will go that route then choose to adopt, and I base that decision on people rather than numbers.

    I am willing to try illegalizing abortion on a state level. I would never agree to a federal ban because I see this as an issue with alot of unforeseeable consequences. At the same time we won’t know until we try.

  21. Jon says:

    Anonymous makes a really good observation about anxiety over fertility in his most recent post. Most of this discussion has been about the anxiety our society experiences over preventing the birth of unwanted children, but there is an equal and opposite anxiety experienced by those who desperately want children but are unable to have them. There is pain on both ends, and it seems difficult to find contentment by getting exactly what we want. To put it in economic terms, there is a specific demand in our society for the product we call “life”, yet the supply to meet that demand always seems too great or too small.

    What is the solution to this dilemma? I’d suggest thinking of life less as a “product”, where we seek to force the supply to meet our demand, and instead revisiting the ancient Christian concept of life as a “gift”. It is awkward to demand a gift; it is awkward to refuse a gift; but it is pure delight simply to be thankful for a gift.

  22. Nicole says:

    Yeah, I’ve had some medical issues recently that have made me seriously consider what it would be like if I am unable to conceive. I can’t imagine what I will do if that happens. I would be devastated. But I still trust that there’s a greater plan for my life. Men aren’t the only ones who can be infertile, and if a woman can’t carry a child, I think adoption is a wonderful blessing. So yeah, I’ve considered these things on a very personal level and not just as some obscure statistics or rules.

    Also, ditto on Jon’s last comment.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I was sifting through the African news over at the BBC (Everyone should read the Cholera diaries), and I found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7866915.stm

    Stories like this really worry me. I can definately see a scared girl turning to abortion, and then getting hurt in a bad procedure.

  24. Nicole says:

    That is certainly a legitimate concern. I don’t know how anyone could read that story and not feel horrible for the girl. You’ve given me something to think about- she certainly makes a strong case that at least good information/counseling about abortion and contraceptives should be available. Of course, in my opinion good information and counseling would always advise against abortion- I won’t deny my bias there.

    I still wouldn’t want to legalize abortion because I believe that you should never have one, so making it safer doesn’t seem like a good solution to me. Instead, there should be better counseling, education, and support systems for the mother to be able to carry her baby to term and to help her after the baby is born.

    Good article. I hope some of the funding Obama approved will provide better counseling to warn women about the risks and dangers of abortion (legal abortions also come with a lot of risks and potential complications, including becoming infertile).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s