Donation to Abort Black Babies

Since the money is fungible, I say they should accept it. Then they can "allocate" some of their other money to aborting white, asian and other babies, and it all evens out.

I agree with the theory that he's helping women realize their rights. His motives may be bad, but the net effect is no different than if he gave the money without strings attached.

The only real reason to deny it, imo, is that doing so may encourage more such conditional gifts, and taken to an exrtreme there might be a net effect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am surprised they allocate money for specific groups. It's not necessarily racist. A black woman could want an abortion in order to care better for the children she does have. The Planned Parenthood people seem to react with some distaste. In one case, she says "whatever" in response to the request. In the end, they just want the money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

which was my point spider

A similar situation happened in parliment yesterday were they were discusing who paid for a trip for the then oposition leader (now PM) to go to Dufor and Rudds responce was "well as the oposition doesnt get any alowence for overseas travel paid for out of DFAT's buget i havent got a choice if someone is willing to pay to get me there and i dont have the luxury of looking at why they are paying" which is wrong in itself but understandable (espeically as Kevin rudd was a diplomat before entering politics)

For an organisation who is cash poor is it better to look at the ends and actually provide the services they need to provide or look at the motives of those giving and not be able to provide those services because they have to refuse a portion of the funds they need

This would be infulanced by wether the money could be traced i guess, if it HAD to go to black abortions and if it didnt the organisation could be sued or whatever then yes there is a HUGE problem (although it could be argued that the organisation could just move a portion of there other funding around so the levels are where they need them anyway) but if the girl on the phone can just say "yea sure whatever" and then the money goes into whatever the organisation needs then i would sugest its less of a moral problem.

This situation comes up all over the place including in muslim teaching, "if someone is staving and pig is the only avialable food source then it is ok to eat pig" (from sam somewhere)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I were them, I would end the policy of allowing certain conditions from donators. The organization should just use it for whoever needs it most. It's a scandal that women can't just go to their doctor and get an abortion for free, if that's what they need and the law allows.

 

How would you evaluate who most needs an abortion?

And nothing's free,btw.I'm not sure who you could take that up with.

 

clusteringflux in Australia thats evaluated by who walks through the door free of charge because we have universal health care

 

"Well, it's cheaper to kill'em than having them live off the system their whole life if it's all tax money anyway."


Is that the mind set? No thanks. You can have it.

 

i never said that if that was aimed at me.

 

The money is nothing compared to the federal budget.

 

After listening to the audio, and having worked phones (under different circumstances), its obvious to me that the word 'excited' was an off the top of the head response to an unexpected encounter. Excited or uncomfortable?

I would imagine the training for this phone work is focused on not arguing with the callers, putting your own personal feelings aside and not being judgemental in response to callers.

You own a small business (if I remember correctly). How much training have you given your people regarding callers who dont want their services provided by [insert race here]? Have you instructed them to refuse such a call or has this issue never come up in your training and you assume it would be handled differently (or possibly never given it a thought because you didnt imagine such a request occurring)?

 

Of course not, nothing ever is. A billion here, a billion there, next thing you know you're in hock up to your ass, banks are failing, and your currency is crashing.

 

You voted for him, we didn't. But we get to lie in the bed that you and yours made anyway.

 

No, that takes something like an Iraq war, not anything as affordable as social programs.

 

Wars eventually end, and so no matter how expensive they are, the spending eventually stops. Social programs go on and on forever. Costing more and more every year they are in existance.

 

Less crime on the streets is beneficial to all.

 

And they reap returns, they are investments in society, saving us much more then their cost in imprisonment, police, emergency room care, slumping housing prices, and untold other social costs. While we wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, the rest of the world's economies passed us, and your children's children will still be paying for this war.

 

No, they should refuse the donation, why ?

well, what if another thousand people call in with the same request ?, then it turns out that theres not enough money to abort latino children, or white children. Loss of equality, which violates the whole abortion for anyone, anytime thing.

 

I think we need to pass some laws so nothing horrible like this ever happens again!