Of course not.
And if I in any way implied that, which I don't think I did, I have to thank you for pointing that out.

By the same token as my earlier response, a majority are AGAINST "unlimited abortion on demand".


No. Not automatically...
But the reason that the government DOES impose the restrictions it does in other countries on "Family Planning Programs" IS based on the ABORTION ISSUE.
If you believe it is not, maybe you can explain what you believe the government restrictions on "Family Planning Programs" is really about...

...or more importantly, perhaps it could be explained why it's okay to spend Ameerican taxpayer dollars on butchering pre-born babies in foreign countries. That's NOT family planning.

Making condoms available... that's part of family planning.
Teaching men to respect women and not just "stick it in"... that's part of family planning.

But abortion is simply murder of pre-born babies, and solves nothing.

If the policy ONLY stated that it would not go to ABORTION PROCEDURES, I would be less opposed.

But the policy goes BEYOND that.

Called the "global gag rule" by opponents, it required "nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

Mexico City Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ergo, if an organization PERFORMS abortions, even without U.S. money paying for the abortions, then the organization receives NO MONEY.
If the organization ADVISES people that they might need to seek an abortion, then the organization receives NO MONEY.

THAT is the distinction.

There's your key - right there in red.

But here's the crux of the matter: If WE are the ones "giving" the money, WE have the right to make the rules.

Who is this "we" kemosabe?

Like I pointed out, a MAJORITY in this country don't like our foreign aid funding policy dictated by what "family planning" takes place.

And like I pointed out, this would be ILLEGAL in the states.
Could you imagine Bush trying to withhold funding from a hospital just because abortions are talked about there? The courts would smack him down so fast his head would spin.

Why don't we put this up for a vote instead of one president making the decision for millions? Then it really will be a "we" instead of a ONE PERSON making the decision...

I would be surprised if the vote didn't come out as a simple "No to funding actual abortions. Yes to funding medical procedures (not abortion) even if abortion is discussed at that hospital or performed at that hospital."

Regarding the comment that "family planning" is too vague...

Newsweek reported that more than 50% of Americans disagree with President Bush’s memorandum banning federal funds to international family planning service providers that use their own funds to provide information, counseling or services related to abortion.

PLANetWIRE.org: Public Support for International Family Planning

"We" is the United States - funded by "we" the taxpayers.

The MAJORITY of Americans don't know there's a world beyond their city limits - so their opinion on world affairs is probably rather naive.

So we put it up to a vote: Hopefully, people would be informed enough to make an intelligent decision...

Well, your original statement was the following: "If WE are the ones "giving" the money, WE have the right to make the rules."

Your first "we" is accurate. "We" are the ones giving the money.
But that SAME WE is NOT making this decision...


Ahhh.
So you're a liberal from your ivory tower then, thinking you know better than others and that democracy should only be for the elite.
Is that right?
< end sarcasm >


What the heck information do you think you have that others do not that would sway them from the current position of 50+% against Bush's policy, to being in favor of it...

Do you honestly think the rank & file American has ANY idea what this policy is, what it entails, and what it involves?

From my Ivory Tower, I give a condescending, "Heck no!"

Quote:

This happened in Cameroon, you ninny! And aren't you, and all the other liberal terrorist-sympathizers always screaming about how America ought to "mind its own business"?

is what Jefferson said.

I am wondering what that means. If someone according to Jefferson, "blames" President Bush for something, then they are being blind haters.

But what is a man that calls entire people groups of this world, savages that can take care of themselves?

That sounds pretty hateful to me. Love, appreciation and acceptance would have a heart to help, a hand to give whatever it can. And a respect for life that would find it difficult to discount any as mere "savages"!

Now I am new here, I know, and I would just as soon make friends with everyone here, but I just want to know Jefferson, "Who's doing the hating really?"

Thanks,
Oh Dear