Contraception not welcome in PMO G8 Maternal Health policy

[waldo]

excellent - I look forward to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon the health of women within developing countries... that the Harper Conservatives maintain that contraception is a detriment to woman's health. That's not been stated, so far, Dancer... you're ahead of the curve!

by the way, in Conservative Bizzaro World, are there other means of contraception besides the birth control pill? Do they similarly have health detriment or negative side effects?

You mean like the IUD?

refreshing - my experience has you not reaching your 'silly bugger' stage this early. You can pull out the negative side effects of the birth control pill... or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the associated mortality figures and we could evaluate them against the estimated lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

Edited March 18, 2010 by waldo

[M.Dancer]

or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the associated mortality figures and we could evaluate them against the estimated lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?

[waldo]

from the CDC:

Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Including HIV Infection

* Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.

hey Dancer... did you hear anything about those epidemic HIV rates in developing African nations?

Did you hear that Britain is donating 42 million condoms to south africa?

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/09/south-africa-to-stockpile-one-billion-condoms-for-soccer.aspx

Are you really going to try and suggest that unless condomsarepart of the womens health programme, they won't be able to get condoms?

are you really going to try and suggest that if condoms are NOT a part of the 'womens health programme', they will all be able to get condoms?

noted: we can also look to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon the Conservative understanding that all women/partners/men in developing countries will have complete and total access to a never ending supply of condoms.

[waldo]

refreshing - my experience has you not reaching your 'silly bugger' stage this early. You can pull out the negative side effects of the birth control pill... or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the associated mortality figures and we could evaluate them against the estimated lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?

wordsmithing - the go-to outlet for the flailing... that's right, mortality figures are never - never - estimates. Or... given your predilection for wordsmithing, you could take your presumptive mortality factual numbers and compare them to actual lives saved in developing countries... those attributed to contraception. Or you could altogether avoid your substantiation by playing silly bugger - dance Dancer, dance!

[M.Dancer]

noted: we can also look to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon the Conservative understanding that all women/partners/men in developing countries will have complete and total access to a never ending supply of condoms.

Am I to conclude that under a doffernt governemnt they would make sure that condoms are available everywhere..even where still illegal?

[M.Dancer]

wordsmithing - the go-to outlet for the flailing... that's right, mortality figures are never - never - estimates. Or... given your predilection for wordsmithing, you could take your presumptive mortality factual numbers and compare them to actual lives saved in developing countries... those attributed to contraception. Or you could altogether avoid your substantiation by playing silly bugger - dance Dancer, dance!

Would you like another opportunity to re-phrase that?

[Shady]

So you trust the EU?

Of course he trusts the EU. That's where most of his AGW heros reside. They're also the same people who insist on telling developing countries not increase their standards of living, and not to seek to progress in the same ways we do, all because of the myth of CO2. Now, after insisting they remain economically stagnant, they're insisting that they have less children as well.

It's a two-pronged attack on what I think they think are uncivilized and/or lesser cultures and people. It's pretty disgusting.

[waldo]

Are you really going to try and suggest that unless condomsarepart of the womens health programme, they won't be able to get condoms?

are you really going to try and suggest that if condoms are NOT a part of the 'womens health programme', they will all be able to get condoms?

noted: we can also look to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon the Conservative understanding that all women/partners/men in developing countries will have complete and total access to a never ending supply of condoms.

Am I to conclude that under a doffernt governemnt they would make sure that condoms are available everywhere..even where still illegal?

uhhh, Dancer... I missed your raised legality qualification in your initial post - must have been your oversight - hey?

one would anticipate the appropriate implementation arms of any G8 sponsored policy, would be cognizant to your expressed legality concerns. Strike another Dancer deflection attempt - dance Dancer, dance!

[waldo]

refreshing - my experience has you not reaching your 'silly bugger' stage this early. You can pull out the negative side effects of the birth control pill... or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the associated mortality figures and we could evaluate them against the estimated lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?

wordsmithing - the go-to outlet for the flailing... that's right, mortality figures are never - never - estimates. Or... given your predilection for wordsmithing, you could take your presumptive mortality factual numbers and compare them to actual lives saved in developing countries... those attributed to contraception. Or you could altogether avoid your substantiation by playing silly bugger - dance Dancer, dance!

Would you like another opportunity to re-phrase that?

I believe your attempt to redefine the meaning of 'mortality' as a definitive factual entity... showcases your wordsmithing failure.

[M.Dancer]

I believe your attempt to redefine the meaning of 'mortality' as a definitive factual entity... showcases your wordsmithing failure.

produce the associated mortality figures

Funny...you make it sound like a known ...i don't see the word estimate or projected or any other word which would leave someone to conclude that the number is anything other than definitive...but now you say it is a guess? I mean, I guess you are making an honest mistake..I could be wrong about the honest part...

So let me ask...you want me to compare one guess against another guess?

[waldo]

oh... if only we could hear from the prolific female side of the MLW Conservative support cast... silence is deafening.

[DFCaper]

Now, after insisting they remain economically stagnant, they're insisting that they have less children as well.

It's a two-pronged attack on what I think they think are uncivilized and/or lesser cultures and people. It's pretty disgusting.

I think Harper just doesn't want to force a leftist agenda onto countries that are still socially conservative. I believe that some of the countries that the G8 wants to help would have moral objections to the use of contraception. And if that is the case, we should avoid the topic completely, as Harper is trying to do.

Just because I don't agree with the values of a people from another country, I still don't feel obligated to try and correct them by offering them money to forget there values and adopt my own.. I would also not like to see our government fund religious groups doing humanitarian missions where part of the mission is to assimilate new people to said religions.

Pushing contraception to me is the same as it would take money away from other life saving methods as we all know there won't be enough money to fully fix anything.

[wyly]

I think Harper just doesn't want to force a leftist agenda onto countries that are still socially conservative. I believe that some of the countries that the G8 wants to help would have moral objections to the use of contraception. And if that is the case, we should avoid the topic completely, as Harper is trying to do.

Just because I don't agree with the values of a people from another country, I still don't feel obligated to try and correct them by offering them money to forget there values and adopt my own.. I would also not like to see our government fund religious groups doing humanitarian missions where part of the mission is to assimilate new people to said religions.

Pushing contraception to me is the same as it would take money away from other life saving methods as we all know there won't be enough money to fully fix anything.

ensuring contraception is availabe is not pushing contraception, no country or person is obligated to use it...

[M.Dancer]

ensuring contraception is availabe is not pushing contraception, no country or person is obligated to use it...

And indeed, in much of the third world they won't.

Which means taking money away from a service they will use like prenatal care for something they won't use is a waste of money.

[waldo]

refreshing - my experience has you not reaching your 'silly bugger' stage this early. You can pull out the negative side effects of the birth control pill... or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the associated mortality figures and we could evaluate them against the estimated lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?

wordsmithing - the go-to outlet for the flailing... that's right, mortality figures are never - never - estimates. Or... given your predilection for wordsmithing, you could take your presumptive mortality factual numbers and compare them to actual lives saved in developing countries... those attributed to contraception. Or you could altogether avoid your substantiation by playing silly bugger - dance Dancer, dance!

Would you like another opportunity to re-phrase that?

I believe your attempt to redefine the meaning of 'mortality' as a definitive factual entity... showcases your wordsmithing failure.

Funny...you make it sound like a known ...i don't see the word estimate or projected or any other word which would leave someone to conclude that the number is anything other than definitive...but now you say it is a guess? I mean, I guess you are making an honest mistake..I could be wrong about the honest part...

So let me ask...you want me to compare one guess against another guess?

nice try - although this deflection on your part should only be momentary. As shown in the quote stream, you bold faced "associated mortality figures" and "estimated"... and with your statement, "So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?", challenged, on your premise, that "associated mortality figures" are a, as you stated, "known figure".

as you also stated, would you, yourself, "like another opportunity to rephrase that"? Or do you maintain that mortality figures are absolutely, ever and always, "known figures" - factual?

[wyly]

And indeed, in much of the third world they won't.

Which means taking money away from a service they will use like prenatal care for something they won't use is a waste of money.

which is just your opinion because you have no way of knowing, so based purely on your opinion and the Harper governments religious beliefs you want this health option rejected... Edited March 18, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

ensuring contraception is availabe is not pushing contraception, no country or person is obligated to use it...

And indeed, in much of the third world they won't.

Which means taking money away from a service they will use like prenatal care for something they won't use is a waste of money.

your spin cycle is on high, hey Dancer?

noted: we can also look to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon sound Conservative fiscal management (deficit? what deficit?)

[M.Dancer]

your spin cycle is on high, hey Dancer?

noted: we can also look to Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, or Harper himself, confirming the Conservative position against including contraception is one predicated upon sound Conservative fiscal management (deficit? what deficit?)

So what percentage of funding would you remove from women's healthcare to allocate to contraception?

[M.Dancer]

nice try - although this deflection on your part should only be momentary. As shown in the quote stream, you bold faced "associated mortality figures" and "estimated"... and with your statement, "So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?", challenged, on your premise, that "associated mortality figures" are a, as you stated, "known figure".

as you also stated, would you, yourself, "like another opportunity to rephrase that"? Or do you maintain that mortality figures are absolutely, ever and always, "known figures" - factual?

Would you like a chance to clear you head and an opportunity to write coherently ?

[waldo]

So what percentage of funding would you remove from women's healthcare to allocate to contraception?

your statement holds to an incorrect assertion that contraception is not, in fact, an inherent facet of women's healthcare. Certainly, one would expect the G8 policy implementation side to work to broadly prioritize, subject to policymakers direction and budgetary constraints. Notwithstanding the initial embarrassment Harper Conservatives will bring upon Canada, they will certainly have an avenue to influence prioritization, direction and budgetary allotments... and bring subsequent further embarrassment to Canada through an implementation stage, should they be so bold as to hold to the exclusion of contraception.

[waldo]

nice try - although this deflection on your part should only be momentary. As shown in the quote stream, you bold faced "associated mortality figures" and "estimated"... and with your statement, "So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?", challenged, on your premise, that "associated mortality figures" are a, as you stated, "known figure".

as you also stated, would you, yourself, "like another opportunity to rephrase that"? Or do you maintain that mortality figures are absolutely, ever and always, "known figures" - factual?

Would you like a chance to clear you head and an opportunity to write coherently ?

you have selective reading comprehension, particularly when your own statements are presented for your personal edification. Would you like another chance to confirm your statement, your position, that mortality figures are factual?

certainly, the only way for you to challenge the legitimacy of comparing "known" to "a guess...estimates", is for you to hold firm to a premise that the "known, the "mortality figures" are factual. Otherwise... what was the point of your statement/challenge?

refreshing - my experience has you not reaching your 'silly bugger' stage this early. You can pull out the negative side effects of the birth control pill... or the IUD - perhaps you could also produce the

associated mortality figures

and we could evaluate them against the

estimated

lives saved through contraception measures in developing nations.

So you want to to position a known figure against a guess?

[waldo]

U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, defends reproductive rights and family planning: an eloquent response that clearly speaks to what 'family planning' influences help to reduce abortion... and what influences help to increase abortion.

Dancer, I trust you will not take further latitude to extend upon the abortion advocacy side of U.S. Secretary of State, Clinton's statement... again, this thread is not about conflated abortion/contraception. This thread concerns the Harper Conservative unwillingness to include contraception within Canada's G8 Maternal Health policy position.

[M.Dancer]

This thread is not about waldos flaccid attempts to dictate the parameters of debate and may indeed include the iberals insistence that abortions for women in other countries be funded by canadian taxpayers.

[waldo]

This thread is not about waldos flaccid attempts to dictate the parameters of debate and may indeed include the iberals insistence that abortions for women in other countries be funded by canadian taxpayers.

this thread is not about Dancer's bulbous attempts to extend upon the OPs thread premise, to succumb to his preferential consideration of the omissions of the Harper Conservatives, to accept his deflections, to endure his obfuscation.

[Smallc]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/18/birth-control-maternal-health.html

Sounds acceptable to me.