Trump Takes First Strike Against Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Reuters: Trump signs executive order banning funding for abortions around the world

I support this. So far, for me, Trump is staying true to his word.

So now more women will die from do it yourself or back alley abortions.
No sterile clinics for them,no doctors.But why would he care about them,they are poor.The rich will just jet set to where they can get a safe one in a spa like setting.
Time to break out the toxic herbs and the " granny" stick.

This is the part where I express my thoughts about this matter, but since my vulgar language gets banned often, let me just say that this strike is but a stepping stone towards a right wing government that there's is NO WAY IN HELL it will survive.

Let's take it to the extremes, why don't we? Since Trump is handing more control over to the States, I'm hoping he will do the same with this and each state can make a decision about what will happen with abortion. Like I have said in past threads, I'm pro-life and I don't wish to live under the laws of pro-choice people. If States decided abortion, then some States (Blue states) would support abortion and the other States (Red) would not. Those States which support abortion would therefore, have to pay and support it. Simple as that and with no Federal funds. I see no problem with that and pro-choice people shouldn't have a problem either. UNLESS, it isn't about just having their rights, BUT getting the service for free by making others pay for it.

Trump and his ilk are lucky they own no hotels in Seattle and have no plans on building any.

I simply heed what The Messiah has written and he has written that Abortion is the Ultimate Crime.

One of the reasons for Abortions is because of the FALSE BELIEF that are taught by FALSE RELIGIONS that FALSELY TEACH that children born out-side of wed-lock was some-how sinful. Sex between lovers is NOT a «sin» just because some «State» says that a couple does not have a marriage-license (ref: miscegenation).

Last edited by Ban-Dodger on 23 Jan 2017, 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ Sarcasm?

I support this, American NGOs should not be promoting abortions in other countries.

Or what? You have plans of joining the Madonna cult? Hopefully, under Trump, the FBI will make an example of her.

Most hospitals also have resources to perform abortions and to do other reproductive-health-related services. And hospitals are a lot safer than Planned Parenthood clinics, which aren't held to the same standard. There are hospitals that are specifically made to help the poor. It would be safer for the patient and probably less expensive overall to add such resources to existing hospitals than to build new facilities.

This law means that foreign NGOs can't go to Africa or wherever and start an abortion mill or promote it with foreign aid provided by American taxpayers. This law was originally instituted on Reagan, it was rescinded on Clinton, brought back under Bush, rescinded again under Obama, and now here we are.

Jacoby, you're misinformed about this. It denies federal funds to organizations even if they only use other (non US taxpayer) funds for these services.

I beleive its about what goes on overseas.Many women there are in poverty and pretty much considered the man's property.She has no right to refuse him sex.So if she already has six kids that are hungry she has no choice but to have six more.If she lives.Birth control saves lives.
As for making it a states rights issue,that will still cause hardship becuse what if you don't have the funds to travel to a state that provides abortions.Does anyone actually think a woman that's addicted to drugs and won't quit will make a good mom?If she has the child it will be born sick,if she keeps it neglected.People don't adopt sick babies.All the druggie will do is milk funds from the government to feed her habit,not the child.
It seems conserves carp about food stamps and large families but they don't want to do anything to help people with birth control.I think birth control should be free and easily available to all.Women and men.

I think birth control of all types should be free or affordable as well (it's covered in most insurance policies in the U.S., and other types are usually at a reduced cost), and I never said anything against it. I do, however, have a problem with abortion being used as birth control. It's an invasive surgery but it's advertised as being no worse than pulling a tooth (which by the way is also very prone to complications). It should only be used as a last resort, and I think in some of the cases you mentioned it could be justified because one also has to consider the life of the mother and her ability to care for her other children.

There are many pro-life organizations that run pregnancy resource centers that can help mothers in tough situations, and I think there should be more of those centers throughout the country and the world.

I also don't like people using it for birth control.I get that sometimes birth control methods don't work,rubbers break,someone forgets to take a pill,none of its 100% A woman I know(not a friend) has had six abortions.That is just ridiculous.Why wasn't she practicing safe sex? I can buy a few slip ups,but not that many.The two kids she did keep to term wound up with relatives.She's a meth head.Best for her not to have a baby,she'd trade it for a hit.Im all for supporting mothers that want to keep the babies,and adoption is great.Its a wonderful thing to give a childless couple a baby,and great that the baby goes to a family that will love and care for it.