Obama lifts ban on abortion funds

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by asmeone2

 

No doubt. The president can't do anything about the crisis. It is the American people's fault for spending money they didn't have.

The only thing the president can do is try to control Congress from doing the same.

very true. I don't think I've ever seen it put more succinctly.


I'm glad the funding is back. It will help cut down on teen pregnancies. Maybe some of them will make something of themselves instead of being baby factories.

Originally posted by amatrine
Well I do not like the fact that my tax dollars will now hep fund abortion.
It do NOT believe in it, yet my money helps pay for it? This sickens me

Yeah well I don't believe my tax dollars should go to fund faith-based organizations either...

Wanna trade?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Yes I will trade, because faith based organizations that offer grant money are not killing anyone.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick


But let's not shed a tear for the unborn babies murdered for this research that you hold so dearly. Murder one to help save another,,,, doesn't add up to me.

reply to post by HunkaHunka



That was an ignorant response. How can you possibly compare the two? One is murder, and the other is religion. Think buckwheat!!!

reply to post by Christian Voice


Well, actually, it isn't murder. Perhaps by your definition, but who are you?

Hey, if you want to have sex you should accept the possible consequences. Abortion is not birth control and too many people use it like that.

What is wrong with teaching teenagers tp simply not have sex until they are ready to deal with the possible outcome? What happens when they are given a condom by their school and it doesn't work and they end up pregnant?

Handing out condoms to teenagers is just saying "hey, go have sex and when the guy misuses it or it breaks, or hey, even if it simply just doesn't work, there is always that abortion thing for ya!"

Let's see: Pro-life is better than anti-life. I do not agree with partial abortion especially when the fetus looks like a human and survives outside the womb prematurely. Which means, I agree with stem cell research. Also, the health of both the mother and child is important.

Which brings me to this conclusion: After seeing how people are merely animals with reproductive rights and have a difficult time controlling their urges, I suppose this move by Obama of lifting ban on abortion funds is good timing.

I mean people already have access to drugs, alcohol and smoking. So why not make people more aware of their responsibility to control themselves 'better' and protect their health and ultimately the lives of future generation?

Furthermore, I've already read horror stories about how adoption and abuse goes on with the bad placement of children in foster homes. Once again, this is CHANGE, whereby religious dogmas must be eliminated with but a simple stroke of Obama's almighty pen.

The technology to intervene on behalf of mother and child is already here anyway! So there is no excuse to think this form of anti-life is 'bad'.

(Disclaimer: The paragraphs above were but my very quick summary of my rambling opinions only. Thank you.)

reply to post by leisuredrummer


Teaching abstinence works about as well as torturing to get facts - it doesn't. You can teach abstinence as a method, but you better incorporate real safe-sex tips in or else you'll have more pregnancies and more STDs.

Originally posted by bodrul


this should rattle some feathers in the US with the anti abortion camp, Bush must really be peed off seeing almost everything he has put in place slowly being taken out

this should be intresting to see what people think of this

I find it sickening that the murder of more thousands of innocent children is being cheered as "getting back at bush".

It just shows the depth of ignorance that blind hate can create.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by leisuredrummer

 

Teaching abstinence works about as well as torturing to get facts - it doesn't. You can teach abstinence as a method, but you better incorporate real safe-sex tips in or else you'll have more pregnancies and more STDs.

More brillaince....."sex-ed" has been crammed down the worlds throat for 40 years...........guess what hasn't worked.........please show me data where this stupid idea has done anything to reduce unwanted pregnancy? How about the increase in STD's?.....

reply to post by heliosprime


Have you ever really even looked it up? Honestly, don't respond to me, but think to yourself, have you ever researched this topic?

Abstinence vs Comprehensive Sex Ed

An assessment of the peer-reviewed, published research reveals no evidence that abstinenceonly programs delay sexual initiation or reduce STIs or pregnancy. By contrast, credible research clearly demonstrates that some comprehensive sex education, or “abstinence-plus,”programs can achieve positive behavioral changes among young people and reduce STIs, and that these programs do not encourage young people to initiate sexual activity earlier or have more sexual partners.

For years, the YRBS has been reporting a gradual decline in the percentage of young people reporting any sexual activity. According to the CDC surveys, the percentage of high school-aged youth (freshman through seniors) reporting they have ever had sexual intercourse fell from 53% in 1993 to 50% in 1999.1, 2

The real point is, it is a boys will be boys situation. Effective teaching can and does lower the amount of sexual activity, but only to a certain extent. If you start to teach abstinence only, you'll still have a lot of sexual activity, but with less protection.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

That was an ignorant response. How can you possibly compare the two? One is murder, and the other is religion. Think buckwheat!!!

I would hate to add up all of the deaths
that are caused in the name of religion.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
But let's not shed a tear for the unborn babies murdered for this research that you hold so dearly. Murder one to help save another,,,, doesn't add up to me.

You mean the babies that are already being aborted are going to help other people who are severely ill? You make is sound as though women are going to be forced to have abortions just for the harvesting of babies. Plus, it's not murder, look at the definition: (emphasis mine)

Murder n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows.

Clearly, murder, is an illegal act. Abortion is not illegal and, thus, is not murder.

Originally posted by leisuredrummer
What is wrong with teaching teenagers tp simply not have sex until they are ready to deal with the possible outcome? What happens when they are given a condom by their school and it doesn't work and they end up pregnant?

You can teach teenagers not to have sex all you like, that's never EVER going to stop them. It's much better to teach them what the implications ARE, telling them how to protect themselves, and making that protection readily available to them. I went to two high schools, the first one handed out condoms and we didn't have any pregnant students. The second one taught the kind of stuff you're talking about and we had pregnant FRESHMAN. Abstinence doesn't work.

Originally posted by heliosprime
I find it sickening that the murder of more thousands of innocent children is being cheered as "getting back at bush".

Who's being murdered here? Nobody's going around killing kindergartners to "get back" at anyone.

Sex-ed HAS worked. The only flaws in the system lie in the part where the whole curriculum in each district can be written by a group of teachers, parents and "community leaders". They're allowed to make it so that condoms aren't even mentioned as a part of the curriculum and they make same-sex relationships look like something unheard of. I've seen this very action take place.

Duplicate thread...