Obama Reverses Rules on U.S. ******** Aid

To demand that ******** be supported would be a mistake, yes.

Like they demanded that ******** and non-chaste pregnancy prevention methods be not even whispered.

But, it doesn't preclude allowing ******** to be subsidied, and that already makes a difference. Then nations can do what they do best, or worst, as they invariably will.

Then countries will outright refuse the aid. And will women be better off then?

I'm not against abortions, though I regret some do it for the wrong reasons.

But I don't think we should dictate to sovereign countries what their ******** policies should be through conditional funding.

James

We're talking about people and their physicians here.
No funding for abortions doesn't mean no abortions. It means no safe abortions.
Like in the western world in the '30s - '60s.
It happens. We should help make sure that people can live to regret it, instead of dying trying.

If yuo are merely speaking of standard charitable donations, forein aid, etc. Most of these organizations seek donations and canvass all teh time, in many cases it is a fruitless effort as when they call people at home, their calls are blocked people are "not interested" etc.

That should be a big clue...

I wonder how much money the "National Endowment for the Arts" would be getting in this relief effort if the people who are paying for it were asked to donate. Exactly how is that going to help the country get out of this economic turmoil?????

If yuo are merely speaking of standard charitable donations, forein aid, etc. Most of these organizations seek donations and canvass all teh time, in many cases it is a fruitless effort as when they call people at home, their calls are blocked people are "not interested" etc.

Never seen the little kid with the orange plastic bowl on tv while you seek out the baseball scores?

In this and many other cases where your tax odllars are so generously donated on behalf of the American people, it is not a matter of $20 here and there trickling in to assist in daily operations, it is large sums of money being donated to foreign and local programs on behalf of the American people.

Spmething everyone is proud of but likes to complain about too.

But not to worry, in 4 or 8 years the next president will lay the ban down again, as goes tradition and will **** millions on some other program that you may like and the other half may object to.

life goes on, the planet keeps turning and you wake up in the morning to do it all again.

it sucks.

As a boy, I watched my great-uncle Terry decline into oblivion. He would not remember you 30 seconds after meeting you. Then he lost his peppyness.

I have watched other uncles fall to the same situation, and it kills me.

The thing I hate about the "assisted suicide" is this:

In our country, we consider stopping the feeding tube humane...letting them die over a period of 7-14 days of malnutrition.

But, we think of euthanasia of that person going to sleep and never waking up as something only suitable for putting down a rabid dog or some other beast.

Honestly, I think the paramount thing is: if the person has a "living will" or some other document that states their wishes, then that should be their choice. If that person doesn't want to be kept in constant care (fed through a tube in a home or hospice or whatever, let the person have the dignity of deciding to go.

Give the person one last bit of honor, for God's sake.

But COULD you decide on an individual basis? Nope.

When the ASPCA calls and asks for a donation, I have the choice to decline. When the Red Cross does, I have the choice to donate!

I really don't know why everything we donate to couldn't be done in the same way... If it really is an important cause, it shouldn't be hard to convince people to donate. Conversely, if you have trouble getting donations,maybe the cause isn't as important as you think it is.

That wouldn't be possible. It would mean that any time that your nation seeks to act on such an issue, a vote would be required. That means there would be parties that are pushing for or against it, in order to get your vote, polling stations and everything else.

In a high school PTA, they can efficiently vote on each matter and allocate finding individually as there is a smaller group to address and count.

TRo do so on a national level lwould create an endless string of votes in waiting, you'd be at the polling station once a day at least etc.

Most of these matters come up and are decided upon without teh public paying any attention, but for somethign like this that has beecome a presidential tradition, its like waiting to see what the ground hog will do this year and thus becomes a matter of pulic interest.

But COULD you decide on an individual basis? Nope.