PDA

View Full Version : Obama opposes ban on sex-selective abortions



Wibbins
05-31-2012, 02:00 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/31/obama-opposes-ban-on-sex-selective-abortions/


So evidently making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion because a baby is a certain gender, usually female, is over-reaching government? The government is basically saying that discriminating against a baby based on sex is ok because government shouldn't interfere with a woman's reproductive choices, or unreproductive choices since choice is synonymous with abortion, yet the GOP is the side that has a "war on women"



Sounds legit, and I'd like to say that China, as much of a human right's leading country that it is, had a lovely few years where parents could only have males and they could only have 1 child.




GOP HATES WOMEN BECAUSE WE DON"T WANT WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS PAID BY THE STATE NOR DO WE WANT TO PAY FOR THEIR BC, never mind the fact that Obama is basically saying he opposes making it illegal to discriminate against the sex of a baby in the womb lol


Wow, these liberals are so cracked out holy crackerjacks, dip me in syrup and call me glartek the confuzzled, I will be glad when we get these sexist, racists out of the White house.



p.s perhaps we'd have more women in politics or ceos if women weren't aborting the little girls... because they're girls!

Odysseus
05-31-2012, 04:44 PM
Obama cannot publicly accept any restriction on abortion, because to do so would alienate several of his core constituencies. Feminists and Planned Parenthood see abortion as a sacrament and a cash cow, respectively, while greens see population control as a necessity to prevent environmental damage (they buy off on the Malthusian idea that people are simply "useless eaters", rather than, well, people). Socialists and communists see abortion as a means to undermine family cohesion (pregnancy is a forcing function to marriage) and a promiscuous, hedonistic state is more receptive to their message than a stable, family-oriented one.

However, his refusal to even contemplate restricting abortion for something as petty as sex selection (which almost always favors boys over girls) renders him vulnerable to a number of political arguments. First, the whole war on women thing becomes harder to promote with a straight face when you favor aborting female babies for the crime of being female. Even the Taliban isn't that misogynistic. Second, the use of abortion for sex selection raises the specter of China's one-child policy, and their program of forced abortions and infanticide. At what point would Obama object to the killing of a baby for being female? First trimester? Second? Third? The Chinese have forced women to abort at every stage of pregnancy, and even killed babies shortly after. Here's one description from Stephen Mosher, who documented Chinese abortion practices during his doctoral candidacy at Stanford:

Mr. Mosher subsequently published his findings in the widely-acclaimed book Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029217202/theindepeende-20), and now serves a president of the Population Research Institute (http://www.pop.org/about/our-president-803). He describes his turn from being a vaguely pro-choice academic to pro-life activist, beginning with his witnessing the women undergoing forced abortions:

“They were crying, begging for mercy and praying for their dying children. It’s one thing to think about abortion in the abstract, but when you see a baby at seven-months gestation, it’s a baby — truly one of us.”

In hindsight, he says that visit to the Chinese abortion facility forced him to abandon his casual, untested adherence to moral relativism and embark on an uncharted spiritual pilgrimage.

“On a scale of evil from 1 to 10, this was a 10. And if there is absolute evil, I concluded that there also must be a counterbalancing absolute good — or the universe would be truly mad.”


This is ugly stuff, but it's stuff that the abortionists cannot allow to see the light of day, because ultimately, this is where their policies lead us. So, okay, Barry, when is it not okay to abort a baby?

Bailey
05-31-2012, 05:36 PM
Thats a good game plan, if the magic negro throws "Mitts waging a war on women" he should shoot back "at least I am not in favor of aborting them over boys" ITS A WINNER.

Apocalypse
05-31-2012, 05:59 PM
The bill died in the House. We had some traitors.

20 Dems supported it. My guess mostly Bluedogs looking to save their own skin.

Our traitors are.


Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Oddly enough. Ron Paul is there. Remember him preaching on the Pres. Trail that he is the most Pro-life candidate out there.

Lanie
05-31-2012, 09:52 PM
The idea sounds noble, but how do you suggest we stop sex selective abortions?

China stops them by not allowing patients to know the gender of the baby until birth. Okay. I don't think we're going to do that.

It's pretty much going to be based on hear say. I think a person could end up on charges just because some gossip said an abortion was performed for sex selective reasons.


The pro-life movement seriously needs to go through the front door. Stop trying to go through the back. I'm not saying not to work to end abortion. All I'm saying is go through the front door.

Apocalypse
05-31-2012, 09:57 PM
The idea sounds noble, but how do you suggest we stop sex selective abortions?

China stops them by not allowing patients to know the gender of the baby until birth. Okay. I don't think we're going to do that.

It's pretty much going to be based on hear say. I think a person could end up on charges just because some gossip said an abortion was performed for sex selective reasons.


The pro-life movement seriously needs to go through the front door. Stop trying to go through the back. I'm not saying not to work to end abortion. All I'm saying is go through the front door.

We did Lanie. In two undercover vids now showing PP advocating it

Rockntractor
05-31-2012, 10:00 PM
T
The pro-life movement seriously needs to go through the front door. Stop trying to go through the back. I'm not saying not to work to end abortion. All I'm saying is go through the front door.

Wait a minute, going through the back door ......................http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17428.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Apocalypse
05-31-2012, 10:09 PM
Wait a minute, going through the back door ......................http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17428.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

:evil-grin:

Great now I'm going to have that thought in my head. :livid:

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 12:26 AM
The idea sounds noble, but how do you suggest we stop sex selective abortions?

China stops them by not allowing patients to know the gender of the baby until birth. Okay. I don't think we're going to do that.

It's pretty much going to be based on hear say. I think a person could end up on charges just because some gossip said an abortion was performed for sex selective reasons.


The pro-life movement seriously needs to go through the front door. Stop trying to go through the back. I'm not saying not to work to end abortion. All I'm saying is go through the front door.

Or, we could just prohibit abortions after the sex of the fetus is known, unless there is a documented birth defect or threat to the life of the mother. After all, Planned Parenthood already objects to showing a woman any ultrasound images of her baby prior to an abortion, and even managed to obscure the fact that almost all surgical abortions require ultrasound so that the abortionist can see the fetus while he removes it. We're also constantly told that a fetus isn't a human being unless the mother chooses to treat it as such, so if a woman asks to know the gender of her baby, clearly she is no longer treating it as a mass of cells. This should satisfy the pro-abortion lobby's demand that women who solicit abortions be kept in the dark.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 09:32 AM
You're all assuming this was a valiant, noble effort to save the lives of bayyyyybeeeees. It wasn't. It was just a cynical show vote to try to make Dems look bad (since they would be voting against something that looked very apple pie). Trent Franks, who introduced the bill, said so himself - that it was a GOP "strategy". Even if it passed the House, it would never be touched by the Senate. It was intended to make the GOP look good in the eyes of those who are pro-life, and to demonize the Dems, without actually accomplishing anything. And.... voila! It didn't accomplish anything.

Bailey
06-01-2012, 10:49 AM
You're all assuming this was a valiant, noble effort to save the lives of bayyyyybeeeees. It wasn't. It was just a cynical show vote to try to make Dems look bad (since they would be voting against something that looked very apple pie). Trent Franks, who introduced the bill, said so himself - that it was a GOP "strategy". Even if it passed the House, it would never be touched by the Senate. It was intended to make the GOP look good in the eyes of those who are pro-life, and to demonize the Dems, without actually accomplishing anything. And.... voila! It didn't accomplish anything.

Trick or not its a worthy bill and proves yet again Democraps bow down to PP and since its been said most of the abortions preformed would be due to the sex being female it shows they dont really care about women in the end.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 11:03 AM
Trick or not its a worthy bill and proves yet again Democraps bow down to PP and since its been said most of the abortions preformed would be due to the sex being female it shows they dont really care about women in the end.

Okay, then the parties are tied on ineffective cynicism. Great way to spend time, Congress.

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 11:52 AM
You're all assuming this was a valiant, noble effort to save the lives of bayyyyybeeeees. It wasn't. It was just a cynical show vote to try to make Dems look bad (since they would be voting against something that looked very apple pie). Trent Franks, who introduced the bill, said so himself - that it was a GOP "strategy". Even if it passed the House, it would never be touched by the Senate. It was intended to make the GOP look good in the eyes of those who are pro-life, and to demonize the Dems, without actually accomplishing anything. And.... voila! It didn't accomplish anything.

The United Nations Family Planning Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation are actively involved in providing abortions in China. In 2001, we cut funding to UNFPA because it was complicit in China's One Child Policy, but Obama restored funding in 2009. The IPPF website states that "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government . . .". This means that US tax dollars are, in fact, funding sex-selective abortions, as well as coerced abortions, in China. So, yes, the bill had the potential to save "bayyyyybeeeees", not to mention protect the rights of women who are forced to abort by the Chinese government What part of that do you object to?

linda22003
06-01-2012, 12:22 PM
The United Nations Family Planning Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation are actively involved in providing abortions in China. In 2001, we cut funding to UNFPA because it was complicit in China's One Child Policy, but Obama restored funding in 2009. The IPPF website states that "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government . . .". This means that US tax dollars are, in fact, funding sex-selective abortions, as well as coerced abortions, in China. So, yes, the bill had the potential to save "bayyyyybeeeees", not to mention protect the rights of women who are forced to abort by the Chinese government What part of that do you object to?

I don't agree with forcing women to abort any more than I agree with forcing them NOT to. I've thought for some time that, especially in a financially pinched environment, Planned Parenthood should rely on donations rather than on government support. You'd have to ask various administrations why they fund it in the President's budget request. George W. Bush, for example, increased the funding request every year of this eight year administration.

AmPat
06-01-2012, 12:52 PM
I don't agree with forcing women to abort any more than I agree with forcing them NOT to. I've thought for some time that, especially in a financially pinched environment, Planned Parenthood should rely on donations rather than on government support. You'd have to ask various administrations why they fund it in the President's budget request. George W. Bush, for example, increased the funding request every year of this eight year administration.
Nice Bush bash there. Do you plan those or are they instinctive with you closet liberals? I believe a better question would be to ask the PRESENT administration those questions as asking "various" administrations is an exercise in futility. The PRESENT administration can actually decide NOT to fund baby killing.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 12:58 PM
Nice Bush bash there. Do you plan those or are they instinctive with you closet liberals? I believe a better question would be to ask the PRESENT administration those questions as asking "various" administrations is an exercise in futility. The PRESENT administration can actually decide NOT to fund baby killing.

I wasn't bashing. There's a tendency to think the Republicans are all saintly and the Democrats are all Eeeeevil on this issue, and it simply isn't true. The Bush family has always been in favor of contraception efforts, at least (George H.W. had the nickname "Rubbers" in Congress during his time there). It used to be a mainstream Republican cause; Peggy Goldwater was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.

Madisonian
06-01-2012, 01:21 PM
Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).


Justin Amash did not vote against the bill because he opposed the ban, he voted against it because in his mind this is not a function of the Federal government as defined by the Constitution.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 01:27 PM
Justin Amash did not vote against the bill because he opposed the ban, he voted against it because in his mind this is not a function of the Federal government as defined by the Constitution.

I would assume that would describe Ron Paul's vote against it, too.

AmPat
06-01-2012, 01:37 PM
I wasn't bashing. There's a tendency to think the Republicans are all saintly and the Democrats are all Eeeeevil on this issue, and it simply isn't true. The Bush family has always been in favor of contraception efforts, at least (George H.W. had the nickname "Rubbers" in Congress during his time there). It used to be a mainstream Republican cause; Peggy Goldwater was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.

Ok, noted. Now that we have that out of the way, you then proceed to note yet more EVIL Republicans that did stupid liberal tricks.

Now can we get back to the legislation and the purpose? The purpose may have been to expose the Left and political Kabuki Theater, but it is theater directed at the CURRENT administration and therefore valid. Excusing your bad behavior by pointing to similar bad behavior of others isn't very effective.

Would you argue in court that your client did indeed steal from Mr Jones, but others have stolen too?

RobJohnson
06-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Wait a minute, going through the back door ......................http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17428.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

:evil-grin:

linda22003
06-01-2012, 02:02 PM
The purpose may have been to expose the Left and political Kabuki Theater, but it is theater directed at the CURRENT administration and therefore valid.

Oh! So that makes Congress wasting time okay. I didn't realize those were the parameters.

Odysseus
06-01-2012, 02:41 PM
Oh! So that makes Congress wasting time okay. I didn't realize those were the parameters.

Better that they waste time than money.

Besides, it wasn't a waste of time. It served a purpose, which was to highlight the current policy and force the Democrats to take a stand, one way or another. They took the wrong one, of course, but what would you expect?

AmPat
06-01-2012, 02:49 PM
Oh! So that makes Congress wasting time okay. I didn't realize those were the parameters.
Apparently, there is much you don't know. Congress can do many things simultaneously. You do realize that is why they organize into committees and there are 435 of them? If the "waste of time" actually has an impact, can it rightly be called a waste of time? Also, if time was wasted, what did they fail to get done during that same time? As for waste of time, I suggest that you look at the DIMoturd controlled, Harry Reed Senate that has failed to do their job for 3 years and counting. They have proven to be a monumental waste of time and their lack of production is the evidence.

Better that they waste time than money.

Besides, it wasn't a waste of time. It served a purpose, which was to highlight the current policy and force the Democrats to take a stand, one way or another. They took the wrong one, of course, but what would you expect?She apparently cannot contain her reflex defense of liberal idiocy or anything Republican that attacks the liberal narrative. I suspect she is a closet liberal and just cannot bring herself to admit it.

linda22003
06-01-2012, 03:26 PM
I'm guessing I spend more time in hearing rooms on the Hill than you do, so I'm aware that Congress has committees. I'm probably "liberal" on some issues and more on the "conservative" side on others; I'm not one-dimensional. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat (and I'm happy to be in a state where we don't register by party). Don't you decide on issues individually, or do you just accept a Party Line verbatim?

Gina
06-01-2012, 05:28 PM
I was shocked when I read that Justin Amash voted nay on this so I went to his facebook page for answers. This is what he said:


When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby's gender but not okay if they have to do with a person's skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they're okay if it's an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn't care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the "wrong" reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the "abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child."

The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don't "report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities." Free societies do not criminalize inaction.

I'm pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won't stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored.
I have to agree. Not one abortion would be stopped if this had passed. "Thought Crime" legislation isn't something conservatives should support. He made the right decision.

I wish abortion wasn't legal but it is. That's where we are.

Rockntractor
06-01-2012, 05:37 PM
I was shocked when I read that Justin Amash voted nay on this so I went to his facebook page for answers. This is what he said:


I have to agree. Not one abortion would be stopped if this had passed. "Thought Crime" legislation isn't something conservatives should support. He made the right decision.

I wish abortion wasn't legal but it is. That's where we are.



I also have to agree, I'm sure my opinion won't be very popular.

Gina
06-01-2012, 05:44 PM
I also have to agree, I'm sure my opinion won't be very popular.

We'll jump thru the burning hoop together. :friendly_wink:

Rockntractor
06-01-2012, 05:50 PM
We'll jump thru the burning hoop together. :friendly_wink:

I said this to my wife yesterday before I heard any of these comments and my wife about bit my head off.

Gina
06-01-2012, 06:02 PM
I said this to my wife yesterday before I heard any of these comments and my wife about bit my head off.

I watch Fox, I usually agree with what the opinion shows say but not always. I watch O'Reilly most frequently, Greta sometimes and Hannity rarely (he bugs me for some reason, not sure why). I got caught up in the idea that somehow we could stop abortion, if only in this one way. It was a glimmer of hope I thought. But I realize that Justin Amash, who I respect a lot and proudly voted for, was absolutely right in his refusal to go along. Got me down off the ceiling, as it were.

Rockntractor
06-01-2012, 06:15 PM
I watch Fox, I usually agree with what the opinion shows say but not always. I watch O'Reilly most frequently, Greta sometimes and Hannity rarely (he bugs me for some reason, not sure why). I got caught up in the idea that somehow we could stop abortion, if only in this one way. It was a glimmer of hope I thought. But I realize that Justin Amash, who I respect a lot and proudly voted for, was absolutely right in his refusal to go along. Got me down off the ceiling, as it were.

It just hit me wrong, like a deal with the devil. Somehow we needed to offer sacrifices fairly from both sexes, what the hell!

Lanie
06-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Or, we could just prohibit abortions after the sex of the fetus is known, unless there is a documented birth defect or threat to the life of the mother.

Okay, that could work. What other ideas are there to enforce this law?

I'm serious. I'm not saying this stuff just to be a pain in the butt. If we're going to have a law like this, then there needs to be a valid way of enforcing it. A video or two proving that one or two people aborted for gender reasons does not prove that somebody else did it later.

Lanie
06-01-2012, 08:45 PM
You're all assuming this was a valiant, noble effort to save the lives of bayyyyybeeeees. It wasn't. It was just a cynical show vote to try to make Dems look bad (since they would be voting against something that looked very apple pie). Trent Franks, who introduced the bill, said so himself - that it was a GOP "strategy". Even if it passed the House, it would never be touched by the Senate. It was intended to make the GOP look good in the eyes of those who are pro-life, and to demonize the Dems, without actually accomplishing anything. And.... voila! It didn't accomplish anything.

Somebody gets it.

AmPat
06-01-2012, 08:56 PM
Okay, that could work. What other ideas are there to enforce this law?

I'm serious. I'm not saying this stuff just to be a pain in the butt. If we're going to have a law like this, then there needs to be a valid way of enforcing it. A video or two proving that one or two people aborted for gender reasons does not prove that somebody else did it later.


Somebody gets it.Hey Lanie (and other liberals),

If it's ok by you to abort babies based on sex, does that mean we can abort them based on ethnicity? I can just imagine how principled you liberals would be with your support of aborting only Black babies. Start making those signs now, and march proudly. May I suggest you start in Harlem or Watts???

Lanie
06-01-2012, 09:08 PM
Hey Lanie (and other liberals),

If it's ok by you to abort babies based on sex, does that mean we can abort them based on ethnicity? I can just imagine how principled you liberals would be with your support of aborting only Black babies. Start making those signs now, and march proudly. May I suggest you start in Harlem or Watts???


Hey Ampat,

Learn how to read. Just because I don't see a real way to enforce this law doesn't mean I'm for abortion, much less sex selective ones.

It's like having a law saying you can't wear brown underwear. There's no possible way to enforce the law in 99% of cases.

Stop thinking with your emotions.

Rockntractor
06-01-2012, 09:15 PM
Hey Ampat,

Learn how to read. Just because I don't see a real way to enforce this law doesn't mean I'm for abortion, much less sex selective ones.

It's like having a law saying you can't wear brown underwear. There's no possible way to enforce the law in 99% of cases.

Stop thinking with your emotions.

If people would give babies more importance than a pair of underwear this would not be an issue.