[Notice the Repugnicans--out of touch, out of power, out of the loop. Image by Mark Wilson, Getty Images]The policy has been in effect except for a period during the Clinton administration.
The policy had no rational basis, of course, but was a sop to the extremist right and their religious pretensions.
Yesterday, President Obama "lifted the global gag rule."
Here's what he said:
"It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.
"It is time that we end the politicization of this issue. 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.
"I have directed my 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.
"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."
What a breath of fresh air! For eight long and miserable years, realistic approaches to the problems of the world have been stifled because of the recalcitrant ugliness of christianist bozos with their tentacles deep into Bush and his administration.
Finally, we can move ahead with actions based on reason and justice to provide real help to those in need.
I know that when Obama says his administration will try to find "common ground" with various groups, he is speaking in "hopeful" terms. It ain't gonna happen! There is no common ground to be had with the christianist right for they know the absolute "truth," and that includes the notion that all abortions are wrong, contraception is sin, and the Obama administration is doing the work of the devil.
Hopefully, the Obama administration will simply ignore their ignorant cries and genuflections to their godawful god.
Read all about it here.
10 comments:
I agree with Obama’s reversal of the international ban on abortion information, etc. It is obvious that sincere people read the same bible and have a different opinion re abortion and contraception. That is why free choice makes sense.
Those that do not accept contraception or abortion, should not use contraceptives or have abortions. The same bible tells us not to eat pork and many other rules most people ignore, while others accept them. That freedom of choice has not changed the world. We still have evil, wars, disease, etc. When and if God, Jesus, Allah, or any other God wishes to change such abominations, it will happen. If prayer will change any God’s mind, we have not seen evidence over the centuries. No one has come down from Heaven to tell us anything. We are left with our individual belief and behavior. We will not know until we die. That will lead some to live a different life than some that do not believe any God cares. Some religious people sin daily and do damage to others as do non believers. The opposite is also true for none believers. Some are good and some are bad.
History is full of pious people that did great evil, so are our prisons.
"Those that do not accept contraception or abortion, should not use contraceptives or have abortions."
How about this?
Those that do not accept slavery, should not own slaves.
"That freedom of choice has not changed the world. We still have evil, wars, disease, etc. When and if God, Jesus, Allah, or any other God wishes to change such abominations, it will happen."
So, we should just keep boldly sinning until God says, "I told you to stop."
As far as the Mexico City policy, can't we pompous Americans realize that most countries don't want our base sex culture?
"
Disturbed with President Obama’s undoing of the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited US funding for groups trying to promote abortion and change pro-life laws in foreign countries, the president of the Caracas-based Latin American Alliance for the Family (ALAFA), Christine Vollmer, commented, “This is a horrible way for President Obama to begin to relate with the United States’ neighbors to the South.
“Instead of a positive message of wanting to work to better conditions for every Latin American, President Obama has announced his willingness to fund the enemies of the People of Latin America whose laws generally are very respectful of the right to life before birth.”
Congresswoman Martha Lorena de Casco of Honduras expressed “deep regret and sorrow” that “one of President Obama’s first decisions is to revoke the Mexico City policy. I interpret this action as a promotion of abortion and a threat to the national legislation of my country.”
Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, Vicepresident of Argentina’s Senate, and President of the World Action of Parliamentarians and Political Leaders for Life, rejected the Obama action: “We can’t say we defend human rights if we don’t defend the first human right, the Right to Life from conception to natural death. To use public funds to finance groups that promote abortion is NOT respecting the First Human Right, Life.”
Julia Regina de Cardenal, of the El Salvadoran organization “Yes to Life” commented, “Our country has total protection in its Constitution and laws for the right to life from the moment of conception. And our ‘Yes to Life’ organization works on a daily basis to provide practical help in a loving and life-enhancing way to poor women who have difficult pregnancies.
“Ours is the ideal situation: Protective legislation and practical, life-enhancing help for people who need it. The US government should follow our example; we shouldn’t be pressured to repeat their tragic, anti-life experience!”"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012815.html
"I know that when Obama says his administration will try to find "common ground" with various groups, he is speaking in "hopeful" terms. It ain't gonna happen! There is no common ground to be had with the christianist right for they know the absolute "truth," and that includes the notion that all abortions are wrong, contraception is sin, and the Obama administration is doing the work of the devil.
Hopefully, the Obama administration will simply ignore their ignorant cries and genuflections to their godawful god."
Will you say, "Everything is relative"? It is not. The abortion question comes down to this: when does the new human person gain the right to life? Even jewish atheists know the truth (be right reason): at conception!
http://www.l4l.org/
One last word: even the early Christians taught that abortion was wrong: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
"Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."
Also,"Since Barack Obama had the "audacity" to bring up Martin Luther King, let's look at my favorite portion of Kings prophetic "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" ...
"There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and outside agitators. But the Christians pressed on in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven" called to obey God rather than man. Small in number they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide."" http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/childress/081028 from http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html .
It depends on how we each define sin, doesn’t it? We eliminated slavery by law. We have not eliminated contraception or abortion by law.
I do not think a newborn child has committed any sin. I do not think some books are sinful. I do not think using contraceptives is sinful. I think there are wrongs and crimes but even crimes are subject to local interpretation all over the world. We might read Leviticus and decide to ignore his many abominations but they were God’s words, as was the original Ten Commandments. Many religions claim to know God’s words and we ignore them if they do not conform to our religion. Laws are made by man in most societies and are enforced by that same society. Not all crimes are universal or accepted as crimes in all societies.
Our society does not accept abortion as a crime. We have choices. Those that believe abortion is a sin or a crime, should avoid having one. Those that think Sunday is a day of rest, should rest on Sunday. Those that think Saturday or Wednesday are the days God declared to be rest days, should rest on those days. Those that think contraception is a sin, should not use contraceptives. I could go on all day but I think I have made my point. We do not make sins a crime because there is no unanimity to the definitions of sins.
You have free choice re birth control or abortion. Use it. I also have free choice and use it. I hope there is never an abortion in my family, but if it is the choice of one in my family, I will have to accept that. I think God accepts it. If not, He can make it stop in an instant.
"It depends on how we each define sin, doesn’t it? We eliminated slavery by law. We have not eliminated contraception or abortion by law."
So, an action is only a sin when it's against the law?
(Actually, contraception and abortion were against the law until some states and then the Supreme Court made it legal in the last century. Also, until 1920, all Christian denominations taught that contraception was a sin (Onan's sin, etc.).)
"Not all crimes are universal or accepted as crimes in all societies."
However, reason is a universal in every society. By right reason one can come to the Truth.
By reason, (without any talk of God's commandments (initially) or talk of a soul) one can come to the conclusion that a unique human person is created at conception that has the same right to life as you and me.
"We do not make sins a crime because there is no unanimity to the definitions of sins."
OK, we make some sins a crime, and some sins are not a crime. However, one role of government is to safeguard the life of all human persons under its jurisdiction; the government is to protect the common good. The highest good is life (in the hierarchy of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Therefore, the government's highest responsibility is to safeguard the life of all human persons under its jurisdiction. ... (see below)
"I hope there is never an abortion in my family, but if it is the choice of one in my family, I will have to accept that. I think God accepts it. If not, He can make it stop in an instant."
Why don't you want an abortion in your family? If abortion was in the same moral ballpark as removing a mole from your neck, why don't you wish that no one in your family would remove a mole?
Regarding God stopping sin in an instant, ever hear of Jesus and the folly of the cross (1 Corr 1; Romans 6)? (Where do you get the idea that God will always stop sin in every instance/instant?)
One last thing: before slavery was outlawed in the 1800's, would you have also hoped that none of your family would have owned a slave? Would it be wrong then too (before it was made illegal)? Would you be against making it illegal then too? (Also, human trafficking, or slavery still takes place today. The Supreme Court also once said that slaves were not persons (Dred Scott).)
("The Court first held that Scott was not a "citizen of a state" within the meaning of the United States Constitution, as that term was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and therefore not able to bring suit in federal court." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford ; see Justice Scalia's comment at the bottom of this URL reference too.)
I really do not want to continue this subject. The argument has gone on for centuries and people still kill each other while claiming superiority because they believe differently from others. In the meantime, Man must make laws, fight battles and provide for their families and neighbors, etc. Until God decides to run the universe, I will stick to Man. For all we know, God has created another universe and is concentrating on it, having given up on Earth.
Sin is defined in the Old Testament but many items that were regarded as sinful, no longer are. Leviticus is full of things we ignore now. Did God change or did society? I live in a nation of laws, some of which I do not like but obey. The Taliban also enforce their ideas of sin. I would not like to live in their society. I have traveled in Muslim lands and would not like to be governed by their version of sin. You seem to want me to live by your version why not the Taliban’s version? I do not define sin. A variety of religious books do, but all do not agree, so we still would have to choose which we want to define. I prefer choice.
I wish there was never a reason for an abortion, but some reasons seem legitimate to me, so I approve. Others are frivolous, so I do not approve. I approve of contraception if sex is not designed to create a child. I never thought slavery was right and still don’t, yet it persists in some African and Muslim lands. I am glad we changed it by law. (My family was here during slavery, wealthy enough to afford a slave, but opposed to the idea, so they did without. They exercised their freedom to choose.) I do not see sin as law. Sin is a religious term. Law is not.
Re Onan: masturbation is a sin. Should we have a law against it?
Reason is not universal in all societies. If it were, perhaps the people of Darfur would be able to work out some arrangement to stay alive. They see truth differently than their killers. The same should be true in the Arab world but they see truth differently than you do.
You have your beliefs, I prefer the law. Re God: I have trouble waiting another few thousand years for the lamb and the lion to lie down. Too many have died while waiting. If God can change mankind, I wish He would do it now. So far He has moved in very mysterious ways and we are still killing each other in His various names. Until He returns, we are on our own.
"I really do not want to continue this subject."
Well, I choose to continue on this subject; it won't kill you. (Unlike other choices that your mother could have made (assuming you were born after 1973 or so).)
"In the meantime, Man must make laws, fight battles and provide for their families and neighbors, etc. Until God decides to run the universe, I will stick to Man."
Ok, then, please continue the debate with me, a man, about abortion laws (including the Mexico City policy that started this dialog).
"I live in a nation of laws, some of which I do not like but obey."
So, what if having an abortion became illegal again?
"I wish there was never a reason for an abortion, but some reasons seem legitimate to me, so I approve. Others are frivolous, so I do not approve."
Something we agree about: some reasons for abortion are "legitimate" and some are "frivolous". Since abortion is akin to murder (of an innocent child), I'll make an argument from the reasons for murder. There is one legitimate reason for murder (it's really not murder): self defense (limited to things like tubal ligation (one person would die *without a doubt*; things like diabetes would not count until things got beyond control (my aunt had diabetes and had a healthy boy)).
On the other hand, a frivolous reason for murder would be for the convenience or assertion of power of the murderer (non-exhaustive list). Therefore, the only legitimate reason for abortion is the case of the imminent danger of the mother's life.
"I approve of contraception if sex is not designed to create a child."
Actually sex is designed to create a child. Contraception fails: contraception (and the contraception mentality: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004_docs/contraceptionmisconception.htm) lead(s) to abortion.
"I never thought slavery was right and still don’t, yet it persists in some African and Muslim lands. I am glad we changed it by law."
Will you be glad when abortion is made illegal by a change in law?
Yes, Muslims have slaves, but it is not right for them to have slaves either (it's a universal truth; Would you assert otherwise?): the US doesn't have jurisdiction in other lands to force the truth (although we could assert it in other communicative ways). Actually, this is a reason why the Mexico City Policy is so needed. We do not have the right to kill people in other sovereign nations (especially when it is illegal there too). The pre-natal murder (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021011.html) of foreign babies must stop; they don't want it either (see my quotes from other nations in my previous comment above. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012815.html)
"(My family was here during slavery, wealthy enough to afford a slave, but opposed to the idea, so they did without. They exercised their freedom to choose.)"
What if your family instead chose to own a slave? Would we now be reminiscing about how great it was back when they had more legal choices (to own slaves)? Wouldn't have your family been against changing the laws so that they could no longer own a slave? Wouldn't a law that said they could no longer own slaves limit their choices? (Or) Shouldn't they have wanted to do the right thing and petitioned and talked up the cause for emancipation?
Let's go into the future. Abortion except for saving the life of the mother is illegal. Would we be reminiscing about how great it was back when they had more legal choices (to have an abortion)? Wouldn't have your family been against changing the laws so that they could no longer have an abortion? Wouldn't a law that said they could no longer have an abortion limit their choices? (Or) Shouldn't they have wanted to do the right thing and petitioned and talked up the cause for making abortion illegal (the New Emancipation)?
Many people now, most vehemently Christians (there are Atheist, Jews, etc. too), are petitioning and talking up the cause for making abortion illegal (the truly progressive side). Before slavery was made illegal (and even during and after Jim Crowe), Christians (of the North; the other (non-Catholic) Southern Christians were wrong; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html) most vehemently petitioned and talked up the cause for emancipation. It's the right thing to do.
"I do not see sin as law. Sin is a religious term. Law is not."
Will you work to change the law so that, like the slavery abomination, the abortion abomination will become illegal?
It's the progressive, socially just, and most inclusive thing to do. (from my blog, "Pro-Life a Liberal Notion?": http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-already-started-putting-up-my-old.html)
I do not choose to respond. She has her views and I have mine, she sets up simple choices and wants an argument. I do not. She will wait for God to resolve all the bad things. So far, hundreds of years have passed and we still have all the bad things, including slavery in parts of the world.
"I do not choose to respond."
You did respond in the last response.
"She has her views and I have mine, she sets up simple choices and wants an argument. I do not. She will wait for God to resolve all the bad things. So far, hundreds of years have passed and we still have all the bad things, including slavery in parts of the world."
Who is she? Me?
If it's me, I am attempting to engage in a dialog. What simple choices am I setting up? I am simply asking logical Socratic questions which you refuse to answer.
God did not help Socrates. He was poisoned to death for making people too uncomfortable in their pursuit for comfort in their ignorance. Was is still wrong to kill him for asking questions?
May God bless you.
God sent his only Son to resolve the bad things. It started in His resurrection (1 Corr 15). May I suggest that you listen to this: Bishop Tom (Dr. N.T.) Wright - Bishop of Durham in the Church of England - "Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?" here: http://web.roanoke.edu/x6381.xml .
My blog
Yup, I did and this can be considered a response:
I think you are locked into your opinions. I do not want a dialog with you. You are neither right nor wrong in your trust in Jesus curing the world. I do not believe God sent His only son to do anything. I believe God can do or not do whatever He wants, He obviously does not think saving all those that have died for no reason is worth the effort,
"I think you are locked into your opinions."
Can I say the same for you? (I wouldn't assume that my opinions are locked.)
"I believe God can do or not do whatever He wants, He obviously does not think saving all those that have died for no reason is worth the effort, [sic]"
Yes, you've said this again and again. From the beginning of this dialog, I have been trying to understand your initial comment more fully: "Those that do not accept contraception or abortion, should not use contraceptives or have abortions." All of my questions have been trying to get to the bottom of this enigma (for me).
I've also been attempting to understand the other things you have consequently said (not about your belief in God, but about the rule of law, Truth, etc).
So far from your text, my impression of your ideas is this (in chronological order):
(1) Way back when slavery was legal in the US (also Jim Crow), I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor black folk sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the Abolitionists in their struggle for racial equality of blacks because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.
(2) Way back when ethnic cleansing of Jews was legal in Germany, I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor Jews sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the German Jews, Catholics, Christians, Gypsies, and people of good will in their struggle for ethnic equality of Jews (and Catholics, Gypsies, etc) because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.
(3) Since abortion is now legal in the US, I sit back in my chair and think, "Those poor unborn children sure have it rough." Consequently, I don't think it necessary to join Atheists, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Libertarians (and Democrats), and people of good will in their struggle for developmental equality of the pre-born because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.
If this impression is right (is it right?), this is one of the reasons the world is so bad. People just sit on their behinds and do nothing unless their personal bubble is touched.
---
The problem with dialoging with people of different views is that tough questions and answers are posed. Unless people of liberal and conservative views can dialog, the cultural landscape will continue to divide since no understanding can be reached without communication.
I am simply trying to understand. (That is what I want my blog to accomplish.)
(I am now done unless you would like to answer any of my questions.)
Post a Comment