My article was about President Obama’s choice to lift the ban on aid for international abortion. The article presents an idea that this ban has been tossed back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats for twenty-five years. President Ronald Reagan created this ban in ’84, it was removed in ’93 by Clinton, installed again in ’01 by George W., and now in ’09 Obama has removed it again. Everyone is not so excited about Obama’s actions especially an organization known as Every Child Ministries. Lorella Rouster, the organizations spokesperson, deals with African families’ needs. She thinks Obama should have thought about the potential harm he could cause these developing nations, and even asked his country before taking these actions. She speaks of the mother’s emotional disconnection after an abortion as well as the religious aspect of it. She even stated at the end of the article that we should e-mail President Obama to let him know of our disapproval.
I agree with what Obama did, so I won’t be sending an e-mail! I’m obviously very liberal and pro-choice is not like saying a curse word for me. I am also a Christian with morals and very strong faith, but we as humans have a right to make choices. I don’t feel like Obama is hindering women in developing countries from being great mothers. I don’t feel there is a huge difference in women having an abortion and selling their children to slavery and prostitution. Honestly I feel like I would rather abort than to send my child away because our family is going through hardships. The article spoke on a woman’s emotional factors after having an abortion, and there is no denying that a mother’s emotions are all over the place. I guess my question would be is there not just as much or even more emotional attachment from a mother to a small child, that has been in the mother’s care, and now has to leave to work in child labor and slavery?
http://www.mnnonline.org/article/12243
2 comments:
Whose money is going to be supporting abortions overseas? Regardless on whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice, the fact of the matter is that tax-payers' dollars will be funding these abortions overseas. How can you ask someone who fundamentally disagrees with abortion to fund it? How is that MY right to choose? This is a violation of the US constitution. Furthermore, we are in the middle of a financial crisis HERE in our own country; since when is spending millions of dollars on international abortions a wise use of our money? What cause are we fighting for, here? Since when is abortion the answer to poverty!? Before we start throwing our money into a pit along with the bodies of millions of dead babies, maybe we should consider other options.
I do agree with you, however, when you say that, "I don’t feel there is a huge difference [between] women having an abortion and selling their children to slavery and prostitution"...Thank you; I couldn't have said it better myself.
In my opinion it is time for the United States to actively take part in the discussions at the United Nations and and their global activities instead of stopping actions or using their veto - e.g. in the Security Council and hindering the rest of the world to act.
The decision that the new President made is in my opinion a first step on the right track.
Although the President is elected by the American People, he represents only the majority-so there are always some people that do not exactly agree with decisions made by the government or by him.
Post a Comment