Thread: Obama opposes ban on sex-selective abortions

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    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.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    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.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,410
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    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.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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?
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Loss Prevention RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    14,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Wait a minute, going through the back door ......................
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •