Republican Ad up on the site...Follow

Yes. Uncle D1ck is very pro-life. Except middle eastern people. I believe I heard him quoted once as saying " F'uck those towel headed bastards f'uckin up the Texas oil industry. They can have all the abortions they want."

So I am assuming that USAID is going to take the money that it took away from abortion clinics (or clinics that perform elective abortions) and give it to a clinic that deals with Women's health issues. I dont see a problem with that. I see that as being in line with the orginal intent of the policy.

No matter what side of the abortion issue you come down on the government shouldnt be funding elective surgeries.

You're assuming there are multiple health care providers in all areas. I assume that sometimes there are, and often there are not.

Hmmm... I've got to actually side with Yanari on this one. This isn't an issue of the government funding elective surgery. The government is refusing to provide funds of any kind to organizations who advocate abortion, even if they get their funds for that part of their operation from elsewhere.

However, I still say you're just picking a specific interest area and highlighting it. Everything about foreign aid ends up with strings attached. What exactly is the difference between saying you only get foreign aid if you don't perform abortions, and saying you only get foreign aid if you allow us to have a military base in your country, or you allow corporations X, Y, and Z to built factories in your country, or any of a hundred other conditions that one nation may attach to it's aid packages.

It really is just business as usual in politics. In this case, the condition is based on a pretty silly problem some people have about what other people do with their bodies. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that's any worse of a condition then lots of other things we've attached to aid bills (and better then many).


Um... Can we also agree as to what is a health issue and what is not? If a part of your body does not function properly, even the most idiotic person would agree that that is a health problem. I don't know why Smash has this obsession with erectile disfuntion, but I think not being able to get it up should certainly be a health issue. After all, one can argue that the primarly bilogical purpose for our existence is to propriate. Something that prevents someone from being able to have sex certainly inhibits that. At the very least, it's a part of your body that is not functioning properly. If you couldn't move the fingers on your left hand, it may not be fatal, or prevent you from going about your day to day business, but I think most people would consider it a health problem.

Abortion, on the other hand, is very very rarely an issue of health (and that issue is specifically excempt from the restriction, although where they're going to find anyone qualified to perform an abortion in the event of a medical emergency if they've made it impossible for anyone who performs such things to operate in a country is beyond me!). I'm not going to get into the whole pro-life, pro-choice bit, but I think we can all agree that a pregnancy is not a failure of the body to do what it's supposed to do. If a woman is pregnant it's because her body is working correctly, not the other way around. She may not want to be pregnant (and I personally agree that that's her choice), but by no means it that a health problem.

I agree but we are and will continue to fund it.



Refer to Moe's comment on that one.



isnt erectile dysfunction a problem with the human body working properly? Last time I checked being pregnant isnt a dysfunction of anykind. Besides isnt getting pregnant a calculated risk of having sex? (besides homosexual, **** or oral that is) Women who become pregnant due to having sex of their own free will take that chance and should have pay their own way to have the abortion if that's what they want.

However, the G should pay for the babies that come of not having an unwanted pregnancy aborted? I'm assuming here that a large majority of these state-funded abortions would be given to ... that's right! ... economically disadvantaged people who can't afford to take care of kids. Abortion = ~$750, delivery of baby + financial aid for first 18 years = many thousands. Seems like a big dollar difference to me, and the taxpayers lose.

Have to disagree with Smash about the abortions thing though ... a lot of the people I have personally met that had abortions weren't really using "birth control" per se unless the rhythm method counts. Of course those same people took up real birth control afterwards in bout 95 percent of cases in order to avoid having to make that painful, guilt-ridden choice choice again.

So the way I see it unless the woman is completely irresponsible and into pain, abortion acts as a preventative measure as well as a "cure" for unwanted pregnancy.

As to those (very few) women who think of abortion as birth control, I'd rather my taxes pay for 5 abortions than 5 kids. People like that shouldn't be raising kids anyway.

Edited, Tue Apr 20 19:17:41 2004 by ValkyrieBuffinstuff

Hmm. So for you, the murder of unborn children is a fiscally responsible one. Nice to know.

The compassion is simply oozing around this place.

Now get back to the "why we shouldn't blindly despise everyone who belongs to the other political party" debate, dammit!

I should get a group-discount for ************* Think of all the money I'm saving. It's like a little jelly-filled holocaust in the palm of my hand.

Esteemed colleagues, before accepting this great honor in recognition of the painstaking efforts put forth by me in developing the 'Jellocaust Economic Model', I'd like to read a poem written by Robert Frost ...

Which flavor do you like? I'm partial to watermelon.

/wave Valk

Oh, I don't know, something arbitrary like having the ability to survive outside the womb would be a good start.