Home > News > God & Country > Poll: Americans Oppose Obama Ending Ban on Funds to Overseas Groups Backing Abortion

Poll: Americans Oppose Obama Ending Ban on Funds to Overseas Groups Backing Abortion

Reader Comments
Back to blog

A Nazi reference in just eight posts. Outstanding.

Clap Claps of NY 12:16PM February 05, 2009

I cannot find when or why this policy of funding family planning and/or abortions in other countries got started, but it seems this money (which is miniscule in comparison with the billions of bail outmoney) could be better spent providing family planning, abortions, or medical care HERE in the U.S. And, this should not be a religious issue...you don't want an abortion, do not get one, but don't make someone else suffer because of your beliefs, they are not shared by all, and we have that right. At least, now that we have some of our freedoms being returned to us. Our funds would also be better spent on current Americans rather than allowing more and more immigrants to come in to further strain our resources, take jobs from Americans who are already living here and out of work, and we should therefore immediately ban all immigration to this country. The illegals from Mexico will leave when they can't find jobs....the legals from overseas will continue to get welfare, free this and that, and they do not deserve it.

Kitkat of MI 12:14PM February 05, 2009

Please look at your history. In the only vote that matters which is the electoral college Clinton got 370 and 379 to Obamas 365. The country has become more polarized as republican states vote more republican and democrat states vote more democrat. This time around Obama won the battleground states due to the Bush lottery.
Perach Choice, can you please finish your sentence. Perhaps you meant to say choosing life over choosing to end the life of a fetus (baby)? Ice cream flavor you want to eat is a choice. Who you want to marry is a choice. Whether or not someone exists is not a choice unless your name is Pots, Hitler, or Stalin.

Johnny of MI 3:25PM February 04, 2009

Choosing presupposes having more than one open alternative for action. A person cannot choose life, if there are no other things that person can do. If abortion is not an open alternative, one cannot follow the Biblical injunction to "choose life."
Fred is apparently incapable of recognizing a simple logical point and the argument that follows from it. Rather than enter into a reasoned discussion of the matter he resorts to insults.
Mary also misses the logical point. Emphasizing the value of choosing life is logically incompatible with denying the option of having an abortion. Recognizing the logical point is not to be confused with advocating killing fetuses or anything else!
Mary is also confused about the meaning of "respect." My respecting Mary's right to say her piece does not require my agreement with what she writes. Obama's respect for the views of articualte pro-lifers does not require his agreement with the actions they advocate, or the conclusions they reach.

Asinus Gravis of TX 2:13PM February 04, 2009

The issue with Obama's decision to eliminate the Mexico City policy is not about whether a person is ignorant of the existence of life or even about inhibiting one's ability to choose death, if that is what Asinus somehow thinks is scriptural. (Does he also want people to be able to choose to kill born children?) I would like to have the choice not to pay for that death, but the use of federal funds makes me a party to it.
I asked the Obama campaign prior to the election what he would do about this issue and my question was repeatedly ignored, giving only the answer that Obama, though differing, respected the views of pro-lifers. Making this choice, unpopular with most of the nation, a priority in his first few days seems to belie that respect.

Mary of IN 12:37PM February 04, 2009

AG of Texas is an idiot of great magnitude.

fred of DC 10:33PM February 03, 2009

The main concern for the world (regarding exec order from president) is to stop fbi/cia torture/killing spree here and 'over there'.
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/non-consensual.html
U.S.A. Human Rights Violations Continue - Illegal Human Experiments by U.S. Government Continue, As 2 U.S. Government Agencies delay Clinton's Policy Change to end such Wrongdoing No Protective laws yet made.
U.S. Government Agencies, U.S. Department of Justice (and, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), have not signed onto a Notice of Federal Policy Change, thereby delaying President Clinton's New Federal Policy to BAN Non-Consensual U.S. Classified Human Research/Experimentation. (U.S. "Classified Research" is research declared as secret, in the interest of U.S. national defense or foreign policy.) President Clinton publicly ordered the Policy Change by a March 27, 1997 Memorandum/ Administrative Order "Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research", 5/13/97 Federal Register. That Order ordered Government agencies to sign onto the Policy Change by March 27, 1998.

geral sosbee (956)371-5210 of TX 3:38PM February 03, 2009

Here is another instance of the irony of religious thought on abortion. FE doesn't want government involvement in family-planning to include any attention to abortion, i.e., to offer women an informed choice. That is in spite of the Biblical admonition to believers in God to "choose life."
How in the hell can one choose what one has not heard of, or what one is refused any choice about?
These religious fanatics want to deny exactly what their Scriptures advocate--choosing one alternative over another.

Asinus Gravis of TX 3:05PM February 03, 2009

The whole issue of abortion is not an issue that is the jurisdiction of government, and federal funds have no place in that arena. Abortion is a decision when made has serious ramifications of weak morals and government funds should not be given to people who want to practice this procedure. Clinton, Obama, and all the others are leaders who grant license to the immoral fiber of this nation.

Francis Elliott of TN 1:08PM February 03, 2009

"Though a majority of Democrats still approve of both"---from above
Yep, Democrats won. By quite a bit this time. Bigger than Clinton's election. Bigger than Bush's election.

Muser of NM 12:41PM February 03, 2009