Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Should USAID fund abortions worldwide? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Prior to Reagan's instituting the "Mexico City Policy" in 1984, NGO's receiving funding from USAID could freely provide abortion services and counseling. The new policy placed restrictions on the government money--that it couldn't be used to fund abortions, or abortion research, for example. To greatly oversimplify history, this policy was subsequently eliminated under Clinton, re-enacted under George W., and cancelled again 2 days after Obama took office. With these restrictions put aside, there is really no debate that foreign-aid NGO's today use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas.

From Obama's statement:
Quote:
“In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries,” said President Obama.


The UNFPA, which taps USA tax dollars not unlike any other sham UN initiative, in turn proudly supports funding "safe" abortions and "family planning" worldwide.

Two questions:

Are you an advocate for foreign aid in general? and
Is this a good practice or use of foreign aid?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:

Are you an advocate for foreign aid in general?

Yes. Helping other people is what good people do.

Quote:

Is this a good practice or use of foreign aid?

Yes. The risks to a woman giving birth skyrocket in poorer countries, and preventing/aborting unwanted pregnancies is the best way to mitigate this risk.
12 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
looleypalooley wrote:
The UNFPA, which taps USA tax dollars not unlike any other sham UN initiative, in turn proudly supports funding "safe" abortions and "family planning" worldwide.


Let's see what UNFPA actually says about abortion, shall we?

Quote:
Does UNFPA promote abortion?

No. Guided by paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action, UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning. It accords the highest priority and support to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies so as to eliminate recourse to abortion. UNFPA supports governments to strengthen their national health systems to deal effectively with complications of unsafe abortions, thereby saving women’s lives (every year, an estimated 13 per cent of maternal deaths result from unsafe abortions).


Oh, and that "paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action"? Here's what that says (scroll down a bit):

Quote:
8.25. In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All Governments and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women's health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion(20) as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe. In all cases, women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post-abortion counselling, education and family-planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.


So on what basis do you conclude that (a) UNFPA is a sham and (b) that UNFPA "proudly" supports funding abortions?

Quote:
Two questions:

Are you an advocate for foreign aid in general? and
Is this a good practice or use of foreign aid?


Am I an "advocate"? Not as such, but I generally approve of foreign aid. As others have said, helping others is a good thing.

Is this a good practice or use? Absolutely. The goals - whether they are met in practice or not - are laudable and important.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
looleypalooley wrote:
The UNFPA, which taps USA tax dollars not unlike any other sham UN initiative, in turn proudly supports funding "safe" abortions and "family planning" worldwide.


Let's see what UNFPA actually says about abortion, shall we?

Quote:
Does UNFPA promote abortion?

No. Guided by paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action, UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning. It accords the highest priority and support to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies so as to eliminate recourse to abortion. UNFPA supports governments to strengthen their national health systems to deal effectively with complications of unsafe abortions, thereby saving women’s lives (every year, an estimated 13 per cent of maternal deaths result from unsafe abortions).


Oh, and that "paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action"? Here's what that says (scroll down a bit):

Quote:
8.25. In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All Governments and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women's health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion(20) as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe. In all cases, women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post-abortion counselling, education and family-planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.


So on what basis do you conclude that (a) UNFPA is a sham and (b) that UNFPA "proudly" supports funding abortions?

Quote:
Two questions:

Are you an advocate for foreign aid in general? and
Is this a good practice or use of foreign aid?


Am I an "advocate"? Not as such, but I generally approve of foreign aid. As others have said, helping others is a good thing.

Is this a good practice or use? Absolutely. The goals - whether they are met in practice or not - are laudable and important.


Sorry, my bad. I mistakenly indicated that UNFPA "proudly" supports abortion services (a la IPAS). Although a dark cloud still hangs over this organization w.r.t. the accusations leveled re: forced sterilization, and approving of the forcibly enacted one-child policy in China.

If you trust "official" organization web pages to the extent you seem to, I urge you to study some of the research done by www.pop.org regarding the practices (vs. the official policies of) the UNFPA.

I think most rational people ought to be able to connect the dots here. The UNFPA is a pro-abortion agency (not necessarily the provider like IPAS), among other things, but for political reasons chooses to disguise itself as something else.

Linked from http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/29/bill-de-funding-pro-abort... :

Quote:
Citing Kemp-Kasten, President George W. Bush cut off funding to UNFPA for fiscal years 2002-2008. In 2008 Secretary of State Colin Powell explained the reason for withholding funds saying, “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.”

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
looleypalooley wrote:
If you trust "official" organization web pages to the extent you seem to, I urge you to study some of the research done by www.pop.org regarding the practices (vs. the official policies of) the UNFPA.

I think most rational people ought to be able to connect the dots here. The UNFPA is a pro-abortion agency (not necessarily the provider like IPAS), among other things, but for political reasons chooses to disguise itself as something else.


Whereas PRI, a Catholic-founded pro-life/anti-abortion organization, for political reasons chooses to... disguise itself as something else. Speaking of connecting dots.

Quote:
Our Mission

Debunk the myth of overpopulation, which cheapens human life and paves the way for abusive population control programs

Expose the relentless promotion of abortion, abortifacient contraception, and chemical and surgical sterilization in misleadingly labeled “population stabilization,” “family planning,” and “reproductive health” programs.

Defund these programs by exposing the coercion, deception, and racism inherent in them.

Emphasize that people are the most valuable resource on the planet, the one resource we cannot do without.

Promote pro-natal and pro-family attitudes, laws, and policies worldwide.

Encourage programs to help the poor become agents of their own development.


Quote:
Our Founder: Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B.
Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B. was a pioneer in the worldwide pro-life movement. He became involved in the movement in the 1960s, writing his first pro-life news article in 1967.

Fr. Marx had a Doctorate in Family Sociology from the Catholic University in Washington, DC. He did post-graduate work at Harvard, the University of California at Berkeley, and the American University in Washington, D.C.


He was ordained to the priesthood on June 15, 1947 by the Order of St. Benedict. After nearly two decades on the faculty of St. Johns University, he was permitted by his order to work on pro-life issues full time. He undertook the task of spreading the pro-life message with his characteristic vision, leadership, and energy.

In 1972, he started the Human Life Center at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. Moving to Washington, DC, Fr. Marx founded Human Life International in 1981, and the Population Research Institute in 1989.

Fr. Marx wrote more than 13 books, including The Death Peddlers, his most famous work. In 1973, concerned about euthanasia, he wrote The Mercy Killers. Well over one million copies of this book, warning of the dangers of legalized euthanasia, were sold or distributed in the English-speaking world. In 1997, Fr. Marx wrote his autobiography, Faithful for Life.

Fr. Marx visited some 90 countries of the world to promote the pro-life cause, working to defend life from conception to natural death. In retirement, he lived at St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, but remained active as the chairman of PRI’s board.

Fr. Marx passed away on March 20, 2010. At the moment of his death, he raised his arms towards Heaven and said, "Take me home."


PRI's focus is entirely on questions of population control, which it seems to approach from the Catholic Church perspective - i.e., anything that reduces the growth of population, locally or globally, is bad. It expresses no interest in women's health issues except insofar as efforts to address them include contraception, abortion, or anything else that may have the effect of limiting population growth.

Whether or not overpopulation is a problem, women's health (reproductive and otherwise) in the developing world is demonstrably a problem, and I believe the United States should be doing anything in its power to encourage developing nations to improve their approaches to that problem. If that means assisting UNFPA or other NGOs with family planning efforts, so be it.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I support foreign aid; don't know if I'm an "advocate," if that means agreeing with how are foreign aid is currently distributed. I am certainly an advocate for global women's health and a strong advocate for population control. Though ideally contraception would be the only necessary means of family planning, I wholeheartedly support funding safe (not "safe"—properly and legally performed, it's safer than childbirth) abortion and family planning services. (Therapeutic, i.e., "medical," abortions are not a "family planning" or population issue.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Looley, I seem to disagree with you on just about everything. Thanks for providing your views! I appreciate the diversity of opinion and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
Yes.

If saving lives is what you want to do.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
Looley, I seem to disagree with you on just about everything. Thanks for providing your views! I appreciate the diversity of opinion and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.


Here here!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stpauler wrote:
I'd rather have all the children born with AIDS, poverty, malnutrition, disease, or war than ever give a single penny to abortion or contraception!

Just like Jesus said to his disciples: "F**k all y'all, America first!"

The disciples replied chanting in unison "U! S! A! U! S! A!"


This post courtesy of the office of sarcasm.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I just can't wrap my head around this:

Quote:
Emphasize that people are the most valuable resource on the planet, the one resource we cannot do without.


Resources for what? I can only come up with a few options:

1) Labor (I think the great exodus of manufacturing to China debunks this)
2) Social Security/Pension payers (most impoverished people being born aren't exactly in a position to contribute)
3) Survey participants for Family Feud (Good answer! Good answer!)
4) Soylent Green (Pyramid Scheme)

People are consumers of resources and are only dehumanized as resources by HR departments. I guess if you need more people to build more pyramids by hand, there might not be enough people around (depending on how many pyramids you need to build and how fast), but equating people this way does nothing but confuse the issue.

I would like to see the data on how they figured out that we cannot do without population growth.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:

I just can't wrap my head around this:

Quote:
Emphasize that people are the most valuable resource on the planet, the one resource we cannot do without.


Resources for what? I can only come up with a few options:

1) Labor (I think the great exodus of manufacturing to China debunks this)
2) Social Security/Pension payers (most impoverished people being born aren't exactly in a position to contribute)
3) Survey participants for Family Feud (Good answer! Good answer!)
4) Soylent Green (Pyramid Scheme)

People are consumers of resources and are only dehumanized as resources by HR departments. I guess if you need more people to build more pyramids by hand, there might not be enough people around (depending on how many pyramids you need to build and how fast), but equating people this way does nothing but confuse the issue.

I would like to see the data on how they figured out that we cannot do without population growth.


Have you never seen:
1. Soylent Green
2. The Matrix
or any number of other such movies?

EDIT:
Oops humor ruined
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depends on what the abortioin is, if there is a health issue then yes, other wise I would ask why should it be used, would not centracepoticved and sex education be better? As to foriegn aid in general, no I don't think that countires should recive foriegn aid unless there is an actual need for that aid, and the aid is not used to enrich warlords and dictators.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Depends on what the abortioin is, if there is a health issue then yes, other wise I would ask why should it be used, would not centracepoticved and sex education be better? As to foriegn aid in general, no I don't think that countires should recive foriegn aid unless there is an actual need for that aid, and the aid is not used to enrich warlords and dictators.



I think foreign aid is being better targeted these days, it is not just handed over to the criminals as it once was.

Back to the Op, one of the major criticisms of Mother Teresa was her refusal to teach or promote sexual health which would have considerably assisted the people she claimed to be helping.

It is one of the key ways to reduce poverty and illness. If you have aid given to a certain area they are less likely to attract other aid, thereby condemning those who receive it to substandard assistance just because of religious beliefs which should have no say in the matter.

So not to include contraception advice and the means is pointless. Either give aid properly or don't do it at all. The fact this is even considered a valid topic is disheartening.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rinelk wrote:
Looley, I seem to disagree with you on just about everything. Thanks for providing your views! I appreciate the diversity of opinion and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.


Yes! I don't think we've ever had a conservative Libertarian that is a staunch supporter of Freedom except when it's not about monies!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HeinzGuderian wrote:
rinelk wrote:
Looley, I seem to disagree with you on just about everything. Thanks for providing your views! I appreciate the diversity of opinion and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.


Yes! I don't think we've ever had a conservative Libertarian that is a staunch supporter of Freedom except when it's not about monies!


I aim to frame my views consistently, in such a way as to encourage personal freedom and personal responsibility in all areas, including but not limited to "monies". I think on this particular issue (abortion), my consistency hinges on the validity of my conviction that it is right to allocate nearly equal human rights to both the mother and the unborn on the basis that these are fully people, just very little people.

I say nearly because, as I've noted elsewhere, I recognize the tragic exception of when a mother's life is at risk, and a baby must be brought out prior to viability. And even in these cases, I think live birth or C-section are the only humane methods--as opposed to methods which intentionally poison, chop, or vacuum up the baby.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Halfinger wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Depends on what the abortioin is, if there is a health issue then yes, other wise I would ask why should it be used, would not centracepoticved and sex education be better? As to foriegn aid in general, no I don't think that countires should recive foriegn aid unless there is an actual need for that aid, and the aid is not used to enrich warlords and dictators.



I think foreign aid is being better targeted these days, it is not just handed over to the criminals as it once was.

Back to the Op, one of the major criticisms of Mother Teresa was her refusal to teach or promote sexual health which would have considerably assisted the people she claimed to be helping.

It is one of the key ways to reduce poverty and illness. If you have aid given to a certain area they are less likely to attract other aid, thereby condemning those who receive it to substandard assistance just because of religious beliefs which should have no say in the matter.

So not to include contraception advice and the means is pointless. Either give aid properly or don't do it at all. The fact this is even considered a valid topic is disheartening.


Abortion and contreception are different (but realted) issues.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:

I just can't wrap my head around this:

Quote:
Emphasize that people are the most valuable resource on the planet, the one resource we cannot do without.


Resources for what? I can only come up with a few options:

1) Labor (I think the great exodus of manufacturing to China debunks this)
2) Social Security/Pension payers (most impoverished people being born aren't exactly in a position to contribute)
3) Survey participants for Family Feud (Good answer! Good answer!)
4) Soylent Green (Pyramid Scheme)

People are consumers of resources and are only dehumanized as resources by HR departments. I guess if you need more people to build more pyramids by hand, there might not be enough people around (depending on how many pyramids you need to build and how fast), but equating people this way does nothing but confuse the issue.

I would like to see the data on how they figured out that we cannot do without population growth.


I got completely confused by that sentence as well. It just doesn't make any sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.