Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ncdave4life
The main problematic feature of this foreign aid bill, from a pro-life perspective, is the money which it provides to UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, which I think was increased to a total of $37.5 million. The UNFPA claims that it does not promote abortion (see http://www.unfpa.org/about/faq.htm#abortion ) but there is evidence that their claim is not honest (see http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0018238.html ).

Plus, the UNFPA promotes so-called "birth control" methods such as IUDs and "emergency contraception" that kill unborn human embryos, though they are not conventionally called "abortions."

Unfortunately, the votes are not there in Congress for ending UNFPA funding.

Neverthless, the bill Bush signed does not fund abortion,

Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?

307 posted on 01/11/2002 7:12:47 PM PST by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]


To: Aristophanes
Aristophanes wrote:
Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?
Because it doesn't. It flatly prohibits using the funds for abortions.

If you pass a law that funds ABC and prohibits XYZ, but someone breaks that law, steals the money intended for ABC, and uses it for XYZ, you can't then say that the law "funds XYZ."

According to this law, it is illegal for the UNFPA to accept U.S. money and also promote abortion.

They claim they don't promote abortion. I don't trust them, either. But I trust President Bush. And I'm an optimist. It is quite possible that, because of the discretion that Bush has over UNFPA funding, the UNFPA thieves might actually clean up their act, so that they can keep their funding. If they don't, Bush will almost certainly cut them off. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606557/posts.

BTW, IUDs, "emergency contraception," Depo-Provera, and other birth control methods that prevent implantation do, in my opinion, kill an unborn child, and I would ban them. However, they are not conventionally called "abortion." I'm just using the words in the English language as Webster defines them. It isn't my fault that they don't always mean what I think they should. So to those who would say that this bill funds abortion because it pays for IUDs, I would reply that, though they are right about the nature of the problem, the accusation is nevertheless false. IUDs are like abortions in that they also kill unborn human beings, but they are not "abortions."

-Dave

317 posted on 01/13/2002 1:01:48 AM PST by ncdave4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson