Anti-abortion groups have criticised the move US President Barack Obama has lifted a ban on federal funding for foreign family planning agencies that promote or give information about abortion. The US is one of the biggest supporters of family planning programmes globally, but former president George W Bush blocked funds for abortion services. Powerful anti-abortion groups in the US have criticised the lifting of the ban. But aid agencies welcomed the move, saying it would promote women's health, especially in developing countries. A White House spokesman said Mr Obama signed the executive order without asking for coverage by the media late on Friday afternoon. The issue of abortion services remains controversial in the US, pitting pro-life conservative groups against more liberal, pro-choice Americans who back a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The BBC's Richard Lister in Washington says this may be why President Obama signed the order with so little fanfare. Highly contentious: Organisations that had pressed Mr Obama to make the abortion-ban change were jubilant. They called the funding ban the "gag rule" because it cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America hailed the president for "lifting the stranglehold on women's health across the globe with the stroke of a pen." "No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women," the organization said in a statement. But anti-abortion groups were quick to criticise the reversal of the funding ban. "President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. A 1973 decision by the US Supreme Court legalised abortion. A Gallup poll conducted last year showed that 54% of Americans think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances, 28% believe it should be legal under any circumstances, while 17% back a total ban. See-saw issue: The policy has become a see-saw issue between Republican and Democratic administrations. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, repealed the policy when he took office in 1993 and George W Bush reinstated it in 2001. The ruling is also known as the Mexico City Policy, because it was first introduced at a UN conference there in 1984 by former Republican President Ronald Reagan. In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Mr Obama is also expected to restore funding to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in the next budget, the AP news agency reported. The Bush administration contended that the fund's work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilisation, claims the UNFPA has vehemently denied. In a separate move earlier on Friday, US regulators cleared the way for the world's first study on human embryonic stem cell therapy. While the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration is independent of White House control, Mr Obama is widely expected to adopt a more pragmatic and science-oriented approach to stem cell research. sorz well.... good thing? bad thing? or mixed?
As I'm against abortion. I say I dont like it. But I do think there should be abortion for certain cases, mainly if the women is raped.
I see it as a good thing, hopefully it'll lead to less young women destroying their lives and hopefully the children which they may choose to have later in their lives will lead happier and better lives than the possible alternatives may have had .... ("Steps into metaphorical firebat armour") Hopefully this'll be the last time the law gets changed as well...
I say good, but with some restriction. People will criticize anything whether its for or against a ban.
For the less developed places, this is great. I know simple lack of birth control is not the only reason for overpopulation but this policy is certainly a step in the right direction.
I am pro-choice all the way on pretty much everything as long as someone's choice doesn't force someone else to or not to do something. In the realm of abortion I fully support womens rigths (primarily because of what I define life and there by "someone else" as), so this is a good decision in my book.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as people say it is. It's always talked about as simply being either legal or illegal, but I reckon it's more in depth than that. If the fetus is only a few days old or so, then yes, it should be perfectly legal to get an abortion, after all, it's her body and her life, and seeing as, at that stage, it would be no different to cutting off a bit of skin, there's nothing to even suggest that she shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Seriously, when it's that premature, it's no different to having a period. However, once the fetus has developed and reached a certain stage, and I don't know how long it takes to reach this stage, then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be legal. Once it's actually become a living child, as opposed to a living pile of cells, then I don't agree that it should be able to be aborted. By that stage, it's actually a living creature, so should not be able to be aborted, and killed.
i don't think abortion is right unless it'll be fatal for the mother (but rape cases are also something to look at) it will be good in less developed areas because they lack contraception, and sanitation etc. but here in the US i don't think it should be lifted from restrictions. i am all for women's rights but i believe that 'tiny bundle of cells' is a life. and i think that life has just as much right to exist as the woman who carries it. if people have sex, then i think they should face the consequences of their actions, that's how i see it. people here have acess to birth control, and if it fails, sucks for you because you were the one having sex and in that you KNEW the possible results of it. it's not like you didn't know you could impregnate/get pregnant. i want people top stop killing just because they make stupid mistakes.
I really don't know what to make of the subject of abortion myself. On one hand I am for life and value it a lot and don't think we should throw it away or carelessly kill others. Then there is the fact it is the womans body and a mothers responsibility to take care of the child so they are the ones who decide what is best for their children for better or worse. So I don't know if i have the right to tell them what to do even if it is to protect a life. These two beliefs however conflict with each other. Then there is the issue of birth defects such as diseases and deformities. Of course you really can't make a 100% diagnosis until it is born. Also when exactly the life actually becomes a life is at a debate, so really I am a loss of a opinion.
So true. The abortion issue is a double edge. No matter what is done there will always be a problem. This is due to immaturity.
Immaturity? I think anti-abortion is important because it makes us remember the value of life. (whatever that is) I think abortion is important because its free-will at its best. (among maybe a few other reasons)
Immaturity to put themselves and a part of themselves thought that kind of situation. Immaturity due to lack of protection, accommodation etc. Immaturity as abortion would not be needed if certain things were the way they are, i.e. rich and poor.
Abortion should be allowed before the viability point, but not after. Also, yes, the fetus is alive from conception onwards, according to conventional interpretations of what life qualifies as. Given that I neither believe in the existence of life or morality, perhaps I'm not the right person to ask.
The problem with both sides of the argument is the slippery slope either side can lead to. The problem with the right to life side is if you believe an embryo has a right to its own life (which at the embryo stage anyway is more just a growth of the mother v. an actual living organism) what about the millions plants, animals, and bacteria that we kill on a daily how can you not be a hypocrite for supporting a growth v. all of those other animals? On the same token if we choose to believe an embryo along with all of those plants, animals, etc... are less than human what makes us different than slave owners of the past? Or maybe a better question becomes what happens when we create or meet another organism that has some level of sentience are we going to believe we are better than that organism as well? Finally here is something to chew on http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4232383.ece is this more acceptable than an abortion, if so what is the difference?
do you really have to ask? how many days can you go without food? the circle of life and killing of plants and animal's are one thing. To stay on the subject though, abortion and what they are doing with stem cell. I think if a women becomes pregnant, Regardless of reason!! its a damn shame IMO. But i feel if thats their choice(father's consent if applies) then that is just that... their choice. Free will and human rights I am all about. People should make their own mistakes. On the up hand of this tragedy though, is Stem cell.. which will help those of less fortune(in theory right now). Who might otherwise be left out and that In itself can be just as beatiful as the miracle of life.
It can depend on the situation. If say the family already has like 5 kids then sure. But it contradicts the point about taking responsibility for your actions. It's extremely hard to decide. So I just say, both.
