New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unity? - Page 3

post #61 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I find it somewhat comical that people can take one line from a joke ("unfortunately, many shelter dogs are mutts, like me"), mix well with a heavy dose of preconceived condemnation, and come to the conclusion that the dog will be bought from a puppy mill
How astute!
post #62 of 69
Question about unity.

I was reading about the likelihood of BO using executive orders to bring about immediate change in some areas.

"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama"

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.


It looks like this has been bounced back and forth every time the party in charge changes. So I guess my question is, isn't that kind of like jumping in there with both feet and saying screw you to a great number of people in this country who may have voted the way they did because of strong beliefs on that particular issue? And maybe I'm reading what that means all wrong. I'm sure someone will educate me if that is the case.

So, of all the things that foreign aid could be used for, food, medicine, education, health care, housing, etc... why would it be so important for an administration to deem making money we give to other nations available for abortion funding as a first priority? Are people dying overseas because Americans aren't funding their abortions?
post #63 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
It looks like this has been bounced back and forth every time the party in charge changes. So I guess my question is, isn't that kind of like jumping in there with both feet and saying screw you to a great number of people in this country who may have voted the way they did because of strong beliefs on that particular issue? And maybe I'm reading what that means all wrong. I'm sure someone will educate me if that is the case.

So, of all the things that foreign aid could be used for, food, medicine, education, health care, housing, etc... why would it be so important for an administration to deem making money we give to other nations available for abortion funding as a first priority? Are people dying overseas because Americans aren't funding their abortions?
It may be a great number, but the ticket they voted for lost, and there is no middle ground. Either you have the restrictions or you don't, I don't think there can be ifs ands or buts, maybes, etc.

It doesn't look to me like it is about making Federal funds available for financing abortions as it does removing restrictions which refuse funding to organizations which allow it. Here is an old story about Reagan instituting these restrictions.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1
post #64 of 69
Personally? I found the Nancy Reagan joke funny. If he had said it about a democratic first lady widow, everyone would have laughed. Said against the opposing side, its an insult. Put partisanship aside for a moment and think about it.
post #65 of 69
Thanks for the link, 2dogmom. It was an interesting article. I wonder if that means we will now fund forced sterilization???

When it comes to "they lost, there is no middle ground" I guess that is why I don't expect to see the unity people seem to think a new leader in this country can achieve. When it comes to abortion, I don't personally oppose it in certain instances, but I do as a method of birth control. So, when you say there is no middle ground, I don't actually agree. I think I am middle ground. I'm viewing this from the standpoint of Americans who feel much more strongly about the issue than I do. It reminds me of when someone whose name I can't recall at the moment said...you're either with us, or against us.

With that mindset, there will be no more unity in this administration than in the last.
post #66 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Personally? I found the Nancy Reagan joke funny. If he had said it about a democratic first lady widow, everyone would have laughed. Said against the opposing side, its an insult. Put partisanship aside for a moment and think about it.
If you put partisanship aside, it is still not funny and it is a lie. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. It was just Obama's feeble attempt to cover his butt after making the stupid statement of how he had spoken to all of the "living" former presidents.

And I would have thought it was insulting if he had said it about Lady Bird Johnson or Rosalyn Carter.
post #67 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
If you put partisanship aside, it is still not funny and it is a lie. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. It was just Obama's feeble attempt to cover his butt after making the stupid statement of how he had spoken to all of the "living" former presidents.

And I would have thought it was insulting if he had said it about Lady Bird Johnson or Rosalyn Carter.
I think he was looking to make a witty remark cause he realized he wasn't sure of all the living Presidents being included in his list he recited.
post #68 of 69
Nancy Reagan has exuded nothing but class, even if the comment was intended as a light hearted joke she didn't deserve the jab. I just thought it was in poor taste and appropriate that Obama apologized for it.
post #69 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
Are people dying overseas because Americans aren't funding their abortions?
I agree with you that maybe that shouldn't be a priority, but I don't think that 'funding abortion' is the priority. Women's health care in many places is completely dismal. In sub-Saharan Africa, the lifetime risk for dying during/within 42 days of pregnancy is 1 in 16. These women are dying of things that would be minor problems in countries with access to health care.

I can't open the link you cited in your first post, but restricting aid to programs that never provide abortions (even in the cases where it may save women who are dying or close to it) was probably severely restricting aid to any organization that provided women's health support. There was a special on about a town in Afghanistan where the maternal mortality is the highest in the world, one little area, where the men tried to carry a woman the days it took to go to the hospital but she died on the way.

If this aid were going just to set up abortion clinics, I wouldn't particularly like it either. But it's extremely doubtful that it is.

Aside from that, I'm very skeptical of a pro-life call for 'unity'. Trying to reverse Roe v Wade is not a movement that is unifying the country.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion