"An Obama administration is considering overturning the Bush administration policy of banning funding to organizations such as the U.N. Population Fund that operate in countries that practice forced sterilization, including China, which adheres to the "one child" policy. "
Regardless of which side of the fence people are on about this issue, does anyone really think it's a good idea to fund forced sterilization or forced abortions?
Even I'm speechless, unless I'm reading this completely wrong.
Marquette Weather
Links worth visiting
Blogs I read
4 comments:
Hi E,
I'm sure you know by now that we sit on opposite sides of the "political fence," so to speak (although am I right in thinking we both may belong to the same denomination?). I think you're reading this wrong. The UNFPA has never, to my knowledge, funded anything close to forced sterilization. If you read that quote carefully, what it's saying is that the administration wants to fund organizations like UNFPA, which provide contraceptives and other measures to help prevent things like the spread of HIV/AIDS. The UNFPA happens to conduct those preventative measures in countries around the world, including countries that practice forced sterilization. That doesn't mean that the UNFPA participates in those activities. It's like saying that the administration is going to fund agencies like the Red Cross, which conducts programs in countries that practice forced sterilization. That same sentence could be applied to several dozen aid organizations, including many religious organizations, that conduct programs in China.
Whew. For more information on the UNFPA, I recommend going to its website: http://www.unfpa.org/. That site clearly explains the organization's goals and activities in each of the four regions it works in. Actually, if you go to my blog and scroll down, you'll see my lovely husband wearing a shirt promoting the Millenium Development Goals, which the UNFPA is helping to achieve.
I understand (even if I don't agree) with some religious groups opposing the UNFPA because it distributes contraceptives like condoms. That's the main reason the Bush administration refused to fund ANY aid organization that used funding to provide contraceptives or conduct abortions (like Planned Parenthood); he was responding to a request from his conservative political base. Of course, I vehemently oppose that position (particularly in regards to the contraceptives), but that's just me, and on that we may agree to disagree :).
I hope G is still feeling okay, what with the arrival of the cold weather. Your girls (and I'm sure all of your children) are so lovely!
By the way, where did that quote come from? I'd enjoy reading the original source.
Christina, ok, perhaps I read that too hastily - or it was worded poorly to begin. It was on CNN.com's politics section - under Transition. I do appreciate the clarification :)
That is entirely different that I took it to mean, although I still vehemently oppose tax dollars being used to fund abortions, either here or abroad. However, forced sterilizations or abortions are an entirely different matter, and I'm glad that's not what's at stake here.
Never a problem to point out that I might be misunderstanding something - I appreciate your taking the time to respond :)
As for denomination - I'm Catholic, and a covert at that, as well as working on my theology degree.
We can agree to disagree on this one.
Thanks for the source information.
And from one Catholic to another - I'm glad we can agree to disagree! :)
Hope things pick up in the retail department. There was an article about law firm layoffs on the New York Times, so things are looking pretty grim on my horizon as graduation looms. Let's hope things pick up SOON, for all our sakes!
Post a Comment