PDA

View Full Version : Obama reverses the reversal of the reversal... Uh, yeah.



Steve
25th January 09, 01:12 AM
Regan started it, Clinton reversed it, Bush reversed Clinton, and now, well...

Obama reverses abortion-funding policy


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.

Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a "political wedge issue," adding that he had "no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."

The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.

"It is time we end the politicization of this issue," Obama said. "In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world."

Obama's memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester.

The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

The policy, referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was initially announced at a population conference in Mexico City.

Reversing the previous administrations' stance on the policy was one of Clinton's first acts as president in January 1993 and the very first executive order issued by Bush on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Critics, including Planned Parenthood, called Bush's move a "legislative ambush."

He defended his action, saying, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.

"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.

"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."

In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."

"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."

The president added that he looked forward to "working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund."

The Bush administration has repeatedly withheld funding authorized by Congress for the U.N. fund, saying the agency has funded a forced sterilization program in China. The fund has repeatedly denied that accusation.

"By signaling his intention to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, President Barack Obama is signaling his re-engagement with the international community on the critical challenge of improving reproductive health around the world," UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth said.

"For the past seven years, UNFPA funding has been a victim of false accusations and misinformation that had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with sound policy," he said.

"Approximately 180 industrialized and developing countries, including all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, contribute to UNFPA. The United States was the only country to withhold funding for political reasons."

-----------------------

Link. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/)

I meant to post this yesterday when I first heard about it, but oh well. Good on the Prez. Though I am curious about how Regan came up with this policy to begin with, you'd think more people would mean more aid would have to be dolled out (not to mention the problem of over population). Oh, wait, it's a cop out, right? Don't give aid to countries that aren't worth anything to the US strategically or financially...

I am over simplifying the situation, I know (and trying to think objectively by avoiding all religious mumbo jumbo).

WarPhalange
25th January 09, 03:15 AM
Reagan hates (EDIT: hated, lol) black people. He knew they'd be more inclined to use planned parenthood clinics (Whether abortion, or just getting condoms. He fell short of his goal of instating abstinence only sex ed in schools.), so he had to stop that, in order to make them have kids against their will and make their lives miserable. Don't believe me? Here's proof:

cJs0aqmvvyI

MrGalt
25th January 09, 05:47 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Poop Loops again.

Cullion
25th January 09, 09:25 AM
I didn't read it all, this is the summary I got from it:-

Obama is planning to help the world through it's economic troubles by using US tax dollars to reduce the population of black and brown people in a humane, liberal-friendly way. Yes?

Kein Haar
25th January 09, 09:43 AM
Cullion,

You can't just go around making statements with plain descriptions and an utter lack of unneccesary and implicitly flavoring qualifiers.

It makes things....tense.

Kein Haar
25th January 09, 09:45 AM
Poop needs to understand that the american hoodrat is typically very against abortion on christian principles...not unlike gun homicide.

Not that don't they participate in both in a proportion of 7:1 or anything.

kultist
25th January 09, 12:00 PM
I didn't read it all, this is the summary I got from it:-

Obama is planning to help the world through it's economic troubles by using US tax dollars to reduce the population of black and brown people in a humane, liberal-friendly way. Yes?

Maybe it will backfire and increase the population of black and brown people, since planned parenthood will be able to operate in those areas and provide things like condoms to prevent HIV.

Cullion
25th January 09, 12:03 PM
Planned parenthood already can operate in those areas. They just weren't allowed to fund abortions with US taxes previously. How do abortions fight AIDs?

Phrost
25th January 09, 12:07 PM
The only practical benefit of having abortion outlawed is to increase the number of available conscripts for future wars. Otherwise, crime and poverty increases dramatically when you force irresponsible people to care for unwanted children.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 12:10 PM
aids babies can't spread AIDS when they are dead

kultist
25th January 09, 12:29 PM
Planned parenthood already can operate in those areas. They just weren't allowed to fund abortions with US taxes previously. How do abortions fight AIDs?

I thought the GG rule prevented funding of any organisations that even mentioned abortion as an option, clearly not. In that case, I retract my statement and replace it with a statement saying it will prevent people from dying due to fistula and ectopic pregnancies.

Cullion
25th January 09, 12:55 PM
It's not about saving lives from pregnancy complications, lol.

HappyOldGuy
25th January 09, 01:05 PM
I didn't read it all, this is the summary I got from it:-

Obama is planning to help the world through it's economic troubles by using US tax dollars to reduce the population of black and brown people in a humane, liberal-friendly way. Yes?
Pretty much.

The good old fashioned ways favored by the pubs (disease and starvation) make bad television.

Also Cullion, you do have your facts wrong.


Q: WHAT IS THE MEXICO CITY POLICY/GLOBAL GAG RULE?
A: Under the rule, no U.S. government funding for family planning services can be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.

kultist
25th January 09, 01:08 PM
It's not about saving lives from pregnancy complications, lol.

Like how condoms aren't about preventing AIDS and are just a way to wipe out black people?

Cullion
25th January 09, 01:10 PM
No not really. Nobody's been stopped from giving out condoms in the third world. There was just a ban on giving out US taxpayer money to organisations which performed abortions. This really isn't that complicated. But of course you're a liberal, so you don't understand the difference between banning something, and simply refusing to fund it.

Cullion
25th January 09, 01:12 PM
Like how condoms aren't about preventing AIDS and are just a way to wipe out black people?

No. Like how the motivation really isn't anything to do with saving mothers from pregnancy complicatins. What proportion of terminated pregnancies have anything to do with medical complications?

Don't fall for this stupid feelgood shit plz. It's about Malthusian population control. Note: I didn't even say that was a bad thing. But the debate should be held in honest terms.

kultist
25th January 09, 01:16 PM
No not really. Nobody's been stopped from giving out condoms in the third world. There was just a ban on giving out US taxpayer money to organisations which performed abortions. This really isn't that complicated. But of course you're a liberal, so you don't understand the difference between banning something, and simply refusing to fund it.

The vast majority of what orgs like planned parenthood do is not related to abortion, but the other stuff cannot be funded because they still do some abortions. Hey, you know what Planned Parenthood does that prevents unplanned pregnancies and by extension abortions? They provide free or cheap condoms. By not funding them because they perform abortions, that means less contraception is available, which means more unplanned pregnancies, which means more abortions.

kultist
25th January 09, 01:29 PM
No. Like how the motivation really isn't anything to do with saving mothers from pregnancy complicatins. What proportion of terminated pregnancies have anything to do with medical complications?

Don't fall for this stupid feelgood shit plz. It's about Malthusian population control. Note: I didn't even say that was a bad thing. But the debate should be held in honest terms.

If this was a debate on population control we would be arguing about a global gag rule that prevented any organisation that offered contraception or sterilisation, as these are far more efficient methods of population control than abortion. I think you'll find the number of people who use contraception is somewhat higher than those who have had an abortion.

This debate is about people in poorer areas of the world being allowed as much access to reproductive health services as the people in the richer areas of the world.

Cullion
25th January 09, 01:30 PM
Planned parenthood are not the only organisation that provides condoms in the third world. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, but this is about abortion. Not condoms.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 01:32 PM
No not really. Nobody's been stopped from giving out condoms in the third world. There was just a ban on giving out US taxpayer money to organisations which performed abortions. This really isn't that complicated. But of course you're a liberal, so you don't understand the difference between banning something, and simply refusing to fund it.
You know that the money was instead given to "abstinence only" org who basically just told them to act like Catholics.

I approve of this (re)new gubbermentally funded baby-murder

kultist
25th January 09, 01:37 PM
Planned parenthood are not the only organisation that provides condoms in the third world. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, but this is about abortion. Not condoms.

I thought this was about population control?

Zendetta
25th January 09, 01:47 PM
No one has mentioned Planned Parenthood's roots in the Eugenics movement yet...

Cullion
25th January 09, 01:48 PM
I was waiting for the penny to drop.

Kein Haar
25th January 09, 01:49 PM
....when you force irresponsible people to care for unwanted children.

Laugh-and-a-half.

And here is where we can learn a little something from zen buddism. Paradoxes.

If you're even thinking about what's best for the kid and yourself and situation, and decide to abort it, I gaurantee you'd be a better parent (had you kept the kid) than a lot who decide to keep it. After all, abortion can be hard decision. Scumbags just kinda hope things will somehow work out if they just ignore shit. "Hard" isn't fun. Weed, however. That's fun shit.

kultist
25th January 09, 01:57 PM
I was waiting for the penny to drop.

Also, Lincoln was a republican and Democrats are the REAL party of racism. Speaking of eugenics, did you see the story about the Louisianna congressman trying to get a policy where (poor) women would be paid 1000 to get their tubes tied? You know which other medical procedure related to reproduction he really DOESN'T like?

HappyOldGuy
25th January 09, 02:01 PM
If this was a debate on population control we would be arguing about a global gag rule that prevented any organisation that offered contraception or sterilisation, as these are far more efficient methods of population control than abortion.

But then Cullion can't go on a riff about how Obama wants there to be fewer black and brown people.

Pesky facts.

Cullion
25th January 09, 02:14 PM
So Obama is stopping US tax dollars from funding contraception and sterlisation? or not? I think not. He just authorised US tax dollars to go to them. I don't know wtf you're talking about with 'global gag orders', as there's no global government.

Your point is confused.

kultist
25th January 09, 02:21 PM
So Obama is stopping US tax dollars from funding contraception and sterlisation? or not? I think not. He just authorised US tax dollars to go to them. I don't know wtf you're talking about with 'global gag orders', as there's no global government.

Your point is confused.

No, I'll try write the point out that I was trying to make in a more simple way:

If this debate was about population control as opposed to abortion access

then the global gag rule (which doesn't mean a rule put out by a global government, it would be a rule put out by the US government banning government funding of organisations that mentioned abortion globally) would have prevented funding of any organisation that provided contraception and sterilisation as opposed to preventing funding of any organisation that provided abortion

As those are far better methods of population control than abortion.

Because abortion is not an efficient method of population control

This debate is unlikely to be about population control

Cullion
25th January 09, 02:30 PM
But weren't you just complaining about how the organisations offering these services couldn't be funded because they offered abortion too?

Well now they can.

'But Cullion, that's like you're saying that politics isn't always like an open debate of philosophies and opponents of malthusian population control might have latched onto something they could get the broad mass of the Christian right to support as a means of prevent the US govt. from funding such activities... bu.. but.. that's dishonest!'

Scrapper
25th January 09, 02:34 PM
When I agree with Cullion, it is the seventh sign of the apocalypse. This is a play to his liberal base, and a jump start on controlling what will potentially be a crisis later on. He will wrap it up in a pretty package, but it is what it is.

It's like the whole thing is more complicated than the absolutes of right and wrong! How is that possible!

It's not fair that I have to consider ALL the factors before making a judgment!

kultist
25th January 09, 02:43 PM
But weren't you just complaining about how the organisations offering these services couldn't be funded because they offered abortion too?

Well now they can.

'But Cullion, that's like you're saying that politics isn't always like an open debate of philosophies and opponents of malthusian population control might have latched onto something they could get the broad mass of the Christian right to support as a means of prevent the US govt. from funding such activities... bu.. but.. that's dishonest!'

No, because use of contraception is a choice. If planned parenthood was coercing people into getting sterilised, yes, I would have a problem with that. However, the people nowadays who support coerced sterilisation / bribing people to be sterilised / secretly sterilising people tend not to be supporters of either planned parenthood or abortion in general. They do tend to dislike single mothers and support traditional marriage.

'But kultist, that's like you're saying that politics isn't always controlled by obscure yet powerful ideologies nefariously controlling other political organisations to achieve their ends and opponents of abortion, contraception and non traditional marriage might be motivated by base feelings of hatred towards women's autonomy so organisations that share these feelings (christian right, muslim right, you know the types) support the same kind of policies... bu.. but.. that's boring'

Cullion
25th January 09, 02:47 PM
The net effect of this increased funding will be to (very modestly) reduce population growth in the third world, and that was the goal.

The religious rightists you're worried about hating Women's autonomy is a mirror-image conspiracy theory, you realise? It's just one that would find support in liberal academe and media agencies.

You've missed the point that I don't necessarily care if we kill/abort a few million more third world babies. I just think the debate should be conducted in honest terms. This is about population control, and we should discuss it openly instead of comforting ourselves with 'womens rights' and 'pregnancy complications'.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 02:58 PM
after reading the article and reading around abit.

This doesn't seem to be as big a blow to the "abstinence only" programs. In fact, it has little to do with it.
=(

As for population control. This seems like one of the more non-invasive methods, especially compared with other methods/consequences

kultist
25th January 09, 03:05 PM
The net effect of this increased funding will be to (very modestly) reduce population growth in the third world, and that was the goal.

The religious rightists you're worried about hating Women's autonomy is a mirror-image conspiracy theory, you realise? It's just one that would find support in liberal academe and media agencies.

You've missed the point that I don't necessarily care if we kill abort a few million more third world babies. I just think the debate should be conducted in honest terms. This is about population control, and we should discuss it openly instead of comforting ourselves with 'womens rights' and 'pregnancy complications'.

Cullion, riddle me this:

You say that anti population control organisations are the guys who have motivated things like the religious right to be anti abortion, right? I assume that's what you mean when you state "opponents of malthusian population control might have latched onto something they could get the broad mass of the Christian right to support as a means of prevent the US govt. from funding such activities"?

So why are these organisations attempting to promote abstinence rather than rampant promiscuity if they want to increase the birth rate?

Cullion
25th January 09, 03:11 PM
First of all, the religious right != anti-malthusians/eugencists
The religious right is a large voting block of people, who can be gotten to support things by appealing to their religion. It doesn't mean that by harnessing their religious ideals, you hold exactly the same ideals.
Real politics is much less about open philosophical discussion than it is about achieving a desired outcome. And I think that's a shame.

Secondly, being opposed to malthusianism or eugenics isn't the same as wanting to promote wanton population growth by wild promiscuity.

You seem to have a very polarized view of these arguments.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 03:25 PM
So war and famine isn't enough for the malthusians?

Wounded Ronin
25th January 09, 03:35 PM
I hate anti-abortion people in the US with a passion when it comes to the "global gag rule". The petty moralities of conservatives living in the US become totally meaningless and perverse when unthinkingly applied to the world as a whole where people may be living in totally different societies and settings.

Cullion
25th January 09, 03:37 PM
So war and famine isn't enough for the malthusians?

You see, if we talked about it in these terms it would be an honest debate.

Wounded Ronin
25th January 09, 03:38 PM
I thought the GG rule prevented funding of any organisations that even mentioned abortion as an option

Actually, I believe this is correct. As in they couldn't mention it, refer people, or anything.

HappyOldGuy
25th January 09, 03:39 PM
When I agree with Cullion, it is the seventh sign of the apocalypse. This is a play to his liberal base, and a jump start on controlling what will potentially be a crisis later on. He will wrap it up in a pretty package, but it is what it is.

It's like the whole thing is more complicated than the absolutes of right and wrong! How is that possible!

It's not fair that I have to consider ALL the factors before making a judgment!
Of course this is a play to his liberal base. Any time the word abortion is mentioned in US politics, somebody is blowing their base. That said, the rule itself is mildly retarded. The only effect it has in reality is to mandate duplicate health service agencies in third world countries and therefore make delivery of those services less efficient..

Cullion
25th January 09, 03:53 PM
The other effect it has is so that american workers don't have to fund foreigner's birth control programmes.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 03:57 PM
You see, if we talked about it in these terms it would be an honest debate.
I'm saying you're overstating the case of the malthusianswhile downplaying the importance and influence of the religious right amongst the Republicans.

HappyOldGuy
25th January 09, 03:59 PM
The other effect it has is so that american workers don't have to fund foreigner's birth control programmes.
Wrong. We still spend billions. We just spend alot of it on shitty abstinence only programs, and on making sure that "our" condoms never wind up in any clinic where doctor have not signed a pledge to never discuss abortion with any patient under any circumstances.

NoMan
25th January 09, 04:00 PM
Of course this is a play to his liberal base. Any time the word abortion is mentioned in US politics, somebody is blowing their base. That said, the rule itself is mildly retarded. The only effect it has in reality is to mandate duplicate health service agencies in third world countries and therefore make delivery of those services less efficient..

The most effective means of preventing HIV to date has been rather simple. A group of sociologists infiltrated the world of prostitution in India. They learned the subculture and that Indian prostitutes, while used prominently by all sides of the political spectrum and by many "good" Indians and Muslims, were viewed as outcasts. They had their own independent hierarchy reminiscent of the prostitution leadership in "Sin City".

After all this, the sociologists gave the high ranking madams a "how to" section on preventing sexually transmitted diseases and using condoms. Voila! Instant reduction in the number of deaths from STDs in India. Same thing repeated in Thailand, although HPV and Herpes are still prominent because condoms don't stop skin-on-skin contact in the pubic region.

Concerning the gag issue, it's an economic waste because it makes redundant services. Like many other wedge issues in America, it's a means of keeping money funded to religious groups. Funding for Alcoholics Anonymous is just funding for right-wing evangelicism. Funding for abstinence-only is funding for religious right-wingers. Abstinence only education hasn't shown any rates at birth reduction, but has shown that females who attend it engage in sodomy much more frequently than their counterparts who take real sex education, and have a higher teen pregnancy rate. Hence, it is a supremely ironic form of education.

Concerning Malthusian dilemmas, the overall birth rate of most countries is rapidly dropping. "Old Europe" is old indeed and will soon have to deal with the problems of having a geriatric, sterile population base that is supported by government programs that require a larger young population to fund them will result in a collapse of those governments and a saggy, old Cullion who will be funded by government programs will cackle evilly and say, "I told you so!" while drawing his government retirement and pensions and petitioning his leaders not to stop funding. Much the same as I imagine the leaders of most US banks and automobile industries rallied against the evils of taxation and voted conservatively, but now find themselves begging for those tax dollars and sucking up to the liberal base. Necessity changes which side of the field you play on.

The use of condoms, birth-control pills, and abortion didn't stop birth rates in most countries because it ignored the economic realities of why high birth rates exist in shitty countries. Most places have low rates of investment in children in terms of the cost of raising them, and once they are 10, they are econonomically self-sufficient. After that age, the children bring in more money. With the absense of any social system in place, the children support their parents, and with the absense of legal landownership and corrupt governments, your children often have to defend your "land" by brute physical force. Hence, the economic incentive is to have as many children as you can possibly muster forth. This was the system that Hernando de Soto described in Peru and many other economists and anthropologists have described in other third-world civilizations.

Hence, I doubt it will even put a dent in the overall birth rate. If our leaders were worried about Malthusian dilemmas, it would be less over which countries were having high birth rates than which countries would be sending their surplus population to their shores and bringing with them all the problems of a hostile foreign population that roots itself in a new country's borders.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 04:03 PM
Wrong. We still spend billions.
are you talking about the PEPFAR?

HappyOldGuy
25th January 09, 04:06 PM
are you talking about the PEPFAR?

I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but yes, PEPFAR, US AID, etc.

EuropIan
25th January 09, 04:11 PM
I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but yes, PEPFAR, US AID, etc.
About a third of that prevention money is spent on (or something related to) churches.

Dark Helmet
25th January 09, 04:14 PM
The most effective means of preventing HIV to date has been rather simple. A group of sociologists infiltrated the world of prostitution in India. They learned the subculture and that Indian prostitutes, while used prominently by all sides of the political spectrum and by many "good" Indians and Muslims, were viewed as outcasts. They had their own independent hierarchy reminiscent of the prostitution leadership in "Sin City".

After all this, the sociologists gave the high ranking madams a "how to" section on preventing sexually transmitted diseases and using condoms. Voila! Instant reduction in the number of deaths from STDs in India. Same thing repeated in Thailand, although HPV and Herpes are still prominent because condoms don't stop skin-on-skin contact in the pubic region.

I actually remember this vividly.The sociologist (westerners)were accused by indian groups that they were introducing population control onto the indian population.I think it was a 60 minutes report.

elipson
25th January 09, 04:15 PM
I love how Cullion can frame every single issue in terms of Classical economics.

Because the world really is just that simple.

Cullion
25th January 09, 04:24 PM
Yes, it really is.

Robot Jesus
25th January 09, 04:45 PM
I would simply like to add that i support any eugenics program that is volontary in nature.

elipson
25th January 09, 07:10 PM
Cullion I should thank you. You really are the living embodiment of all my critisisms of classical economics.

You really do provide an excellent sounding board to all my thoughts and rebuttals. One day when I re-write global economic thought, there will be a special acknowledgement for you in the back of the book. Or maybe the beginning.

Cullion
25th January 09, 07:15 PM
Good luck to you. I'm not sure what complexities you've identified which help you predict economic movements better, but I'm sure that won't matter.

Arhetton
25th January 09, 10:20 PM
perhaps that prices are never in equilibrium. That would be a start.

elipson
26th January 09, 12:47 AM
Or that persons never have perfect information. Or that transaction costs distort things like labour mobility. Or that uneconomic things have deep impacts on economic factors, things like gender/ethnicity/prejudices/or being born to poor families. Or that power/wealth/influence accumulation end up distorting economic systems and inhibit true market movements and tendencies.


But this is all besides the point of this thread. The whole no international abortion thing was just a way to project religious influence to outside the US because doing it inside the US brought too muchpublic controversy. The fight at home was too hot so they took the fight to NGO's on a battlefield far away from America.

WarPhalange
26th January 09, 01:37 AM
Or that persons never have perfect information. Or that transaction costs distort things like labour mobility. Or that uneconomic things have deep impacts on economic factors, things like gender/ethnicity/prejudices/or being born to poor families. Or that power/wealth/influence accumulation end up distorting economic systems and inhibit true market movements and tendencies.

You're forgetting the most important one: People aren't all smart, and the bigger the group, the dumber it gets. That's why the free market in general doesn't work. Your neighbor fucks up and you have to pay for it as well A company has really shitty business practices that rape the customer, but the customer doesn't move away from them to a different company because said company is forcing small competitors out of the picture + it takes a shit load of money to try and fight an empire.

elipson
26th January 09, 01:41 AM
Well lets not get crazy here. Markets do a pretty good job of keeping the planet running. Notice I didn't say "free" though.

Economists have an annoying habit of prefacing all there ideas with a few interesting sayings which they conveniently never come back to explain.

Arhetton
26th January 09, 08:29 PM
information asymmetry is a massive one I agree. I think its why prices are never in equilibrium.

FriendlyFire
28th January 09, 07:03 PM
It is not just the religious right who are anti-abortion. I know a guy who is very intelligent, atheist, and not radical towards one side of politics. But he goes OFF on girls who talk about abortion being about women's choice. Essentially, he claims that women should not be allowed to kill children because they are stupid whores. He tells that to girls faces too (Which is very amusing). There are some people who are even atheist and can see how killing a fetus can be morally questionable. I can see the point as well. If killing people for the good of the population is acceptable, why stop at babies? Homeless, repeat criminals, ext. They even had some control over there position, the baby had none.

On the other hand, many of the people who get an abortion I hate to see have children anyway. So that leaves me torn.

EuropIan
28th January 09, 07:09 PM
Who has more lobby money?

Big Church, or Big Atheism?

Not saying atheists can't be against abortion.

Robot Jesus
28th January 09, 07:14 PM
I think we should make abortion a sport

Aphid Jones
28th January 09, 07:21 PM
Fetus+still has umbilical cord= flail.

Kid-friendly gladiatorial combat.

f4n4n
28th January 09, 07:46 PM
I think we should make getting women pregnant a sport...

f4n4n
28th January 09, 07:49 PM
I don't know that kind of shop but I guess, what ever makes you hot and come...

Wounded Ronin
28th January 09, 10:30 PM
You mean, like a pregnant woman gladiator style hanger fight?

No, give them American Gladiator style q-tips and have them bash each other in the abdomen.