Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[waldo]

perhaps... you could highlight the passages within the following relevant portion of the Lancet editorial... those you would presume to use to support your statements to the Lancet's dishonesty and disingenuous position.

from the

Lancet Medical Journal

:

...Improving access to safe abortion services is also absent from the plan. Sadly, this omission is no accident, but a conscious decision by Canada's Conservative Government not to support groups that undertake abortions in developing countries.

This stance must change. 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year. The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

...Improving access to safe abortion services is also absent from the plan. Sadly, this omission is no accident, but a conscious decision by Canada's Conservative Government not to support groups that undertake abortions in developing countries.

This stance must change. 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year. The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

neither of your highlighted passages within the Lancet editorial rises to your claims of the Lancet being dishonest and disingenuous. A refusal by the Harper Conservatives to include funding for the complete range of maternal healthcare initiatives, including abortion, is tacit support for continued banning of the abortion procedure within those developing African countries... and it is most certainly a hypocritical and unjust position for the Harper Conservatives to lobby and introduce detrimental abortion access policy (through a lack of funding), that does not exist within Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the CDN special forces and snipers were sent by Chretien there to... ummm...????

JTF2 was only there to get a new sniper world record for distance and some easy medals. One shot...one kill!

Edited May 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

neither of your highlighted passages within the Lancet editorial rises to your claims of the Lancet being dishonest and disingenuous. A refusal by the Harper Conservatives to include funding for the complete range of maternal healthcare initiatives, including abortion, is tacit support for continued banning of the abortion procedure within those developing African countries... and it is most certainly a hypocritical and unjust position for the Harper Conservatives to lobby and introduce detrimental abortion access policy (through a lack of funding), that does not exist within Canada.

1) The Lancet claims Canada is trying to deprive foreign women access to safe abortions. This is false. Not paying is not the same as depriving someone of the opportunity.

2) The Lancet claims the Canada and the G8 are giving tacit approval. I assume they are psychic (which explains the iraq survey..) ...this is of course merely editorializing, posturing and politcizing the issue...but it is the Lancet so that should be expected...the claim is without merit, the GB has not yet made it's statement and given that many of the G8 members will support funding, it is just plain false.

And on top of it all, The lancet rightly says only a few nations would be affected....since only a few even allow abortion...which also happen to be the nations most able to pay for it themselves.

[waldo]

1) The Lancet claims Canada is trying to deprive foreign women access to safe abortions. This is false. Not paying is not the same as depriving someone of the opportunity.

oh really? Does a Canadian influenced G8 position that fails to provide funding for abortions... improve access opportunities to safe abortions.. or contribute to depriving opportunities for access to safe abortions? Your playing with the subtleties of words speaks volumes.

2) The Lancet claims the Canada and the G8 are giving tacit approval. I assume they are psychic ...this is of course merely editorializing, posturing and politcizing the issue...but it is the Lancet so that should be expected...the claim is without merit, the G8 has not yet made it's statement and given that many of the G8 members will support funding, it is just plain false.

the Lancet editorial speaks to the current state of the Harper Conservative G8 position and it clearly recognizes the pending final health plan; specifically stating, "Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.". Yes, the Lancet is editorializing... it's an editorial - duh! No, the Lancet is neither posturing or politicizing - it is offering opinion based on the current situation as put forward by the Harper Conservatives... itself a Harper Conservative posturing and politicized move. The tacit support reference reflects the current state/situation - you can also play word games if you want to presume psychic attachment of that tacit approval to whatever eventual final statement the G8 brings forward.

And on top of it all, The lancet rightly says only a few nations would be affected....since only a few even allow abortion...which also happen to be the nations most able to pay for it themselves.

so? Your previous position was that those countries didn't need the funding anyway; accordingly, by your call, they should get no G8 funding, whatsoever - hey? The tacit approval reference also comes back into play, regardless of which countries, since denying funding, outright, does offer tacit approval to those countries that currently ban the procedure. That's exactly what the Lancet editorial stated.

[waldo]

today's Don Martin-National Post article: Conservatives pushing the Christian agenda

... The Armageddon Factor-- a look at rising Christian nationalism in Canada by political observer Marci Mc-Donald -- is likely a book this Prime Minister doesn't want you to read.

Amid a renewed abortion debate, as funding is eliminated for major gay pride events and off-script advocacy groups, Ms. McDonald has connected plenty of dots to show the hidden Harper agenda isn't so hidden.

There's little doubt evangelical leaders have a higher profile and more muscle in an Ottawa under Conservative control. Some boast parliamentary passes giving them free rein of MP's offices and enjoy private Harper access that would be a regular lobbyists dream.

For conspiracy theorists looking for hints of an evangelical takeover, she presents the Prime Minister's Office as the grassy knoll.

Chief of staff Guy Giorno is strongly pro-life, backed by deputy chief Darrel Reid, who had a history of court fights against gay rights and same sex marriage while opposing abortion on demand. Mr. Harper has also hired former Christian educator and activist Paul Wilson as his policy director. Dozens of other staff and aides proclaim deep religious affiliations.

The funding cut for feminist advocacy organizations, unusual government stimulus spending on faith-based colleges, gay pride parade cutbacks and the abortion controversy had their genesis this year.

Ms. McDonald argues the important wall between religion and federal politics has become so porous it's crumbling. If this budding culture war flattens the Liberals in the next election, perhaps her book is a glimpse at the operating manual of a majority Conservative government.

[WIP]

neither of your highlighted passages within the Lancet editorial rises to your claims of the Lancet being dishonest and disingenuous. A refusal by the Harper Conservatives to include funding for the complete range of maternal healthcare initiatives, including abortion, is tacit support for continued banning of the abortion procedure within those developing African countries... and it is most certainly a hypocritical and unjust position for the Harper Conservatives to lobby and introduce detrimental abortion access policy (through a lack of funding), that does not exist within Canada.

The worst aspect to this policy is that it takes the pressure off the majority of Third World nations which do not allow abortion (or birth control in many cases) to change their policies and allow women to have control over the number of children they are going to bring in to the world. Africa has a young population that is just entering adulthood, and will cause a surge in population growth right at a time when climate change is causing disastrous droughts, water shortages and soil erosion, that are destroying farmland and will leave growing populations with less to eat. If the Harper Government was really concerned about life, rather than playing to their fundamentalists, they would do anything and everything to stop population growth.

[M.Dancer]

oh really? Does a Canadian influenced G8 position that fails to provide funding for abortions... improve access opportunities to safe abortions..

Since where it is leagal, abortion are safe, where it is not legal, funding is irrelevant

or contribute to depriving opportunities for access to safe abortions? Your playing with the subtleties of words speaks volumes.

What opportunities have been taken away? You can't deprive someone of something they have never had.

so? Your previous position was that those countries didn't need the funding anyway; accordingly, by your call, they should get no G8 funding, whatsoever - hey?

Strawman. Please show where I said they should get no funding at all. Souyth Africa, one of the richest nations in Africa has more than enough resources for abortions. What they do need is help dealing with aids. If I were to adopt your tactics, I would have to assume you want $$$ going to treat HIV diverted to abortion. Clearly you hate gays and babies

The tacit approval reference also comes back into play, regardless of which countries, since denying funding, outright, does offer tacit approval to those countries that currently ban the procedure. That's exactly what the Lancet editorial stated.

So you want to fund abortion to countries that eiother can afford it themselves and those who outlaw it?

Posturing, politicizing and dishonesty

Edited May 13, 2010 by M.Dancer

[waldo]

that's fine Dancer, the Lancet editorial nailed the Harper Conservatives... and your personal... tacit approval and support for continued banning of abortion in those respective countries. It equally nailed the Harper Conservatives... and your personal... hypocrisy, in presuming to back-door policy you haven't the desire (the nerve?) to attempt to bring forward in Canada.

[Molly]

So you want to fund abortion to countries that eiother can afford it themselves and those who outlaw it?

Posturing, politicizing and dishonesty

This sort argument is used here an awful lot. "It doesn't make any difference, therefore YOU shouldn't care about it."

I return that logic, Dancer: If it's irrelevant-- if abortions are not allowed in any nation in need of aid, and therefore will be none funded anyway-- then there would be no harm, from your perspective, in humoring me by leaving the policy alone, instead of you, by changing it.

[M.Dancer]

that's fine Dancer, the Lancet editorial nailed the Harper Conservatives... and your personal... tacit approval and support for continued banning of abortion in those respective countries. It equally nailed the Harper Conservatives... and your personal... hypocrisy, in presuming to back-door policy you haven't the desire (the nerve?) to attempt to bring forward in Canada.

What is this back door policy your pschic powers discovered?

[M.Dancer]

This sort argument is used here an awful lot. "It doesn't make any difference, therefore YOU shouldn't care about it."

I return that logic, Dancer: If it's irrelevant-- if abortions are not allowed in any nation in need of aid, and therefore will be none funded anyway-- then there would be no harm, from your perspective, in humoring me by leaving the policy alone, instead of you, by changing it.

So you are pro empty posturing and antagonizing?

How diplomatic..

[waldo]

What is this back door policy your pschic powers discovered?

yes, that's right Dancer... until we see the final G8 statement, any discussion or reference that draws critical attention to the Harper Conservatives G8 position... is simply playing to "psychic powers". How dare anyone actually comment on the existing Harper Conservative G8 position!

[Molly]

So you are pro empty posturing and antagonizing?

How diplomatic..

How obtuse...

[M.Dancer]

yes, that's right Dancer... until we see the final G8 statement, any discussion or reference that draws critical attention to the Harper Conservatives G8 position... is simply playing to "psychic powers". How dare anyone actually comment on the existing Harper Conservative G8 position!

So you plan to keep this back door policy you discovered, secret?

[M.Dancer]

How obtuse...

Not really. Since abortions are fobidden in 90% of africa, a policy that funds them, will not be implemented. That is an empty posturing.

By exterting our post colonial pressure on these nations, who will not change regardless, we are antaginizing them, possibly hindering orur ability to change the things we can change.

More and more I feel the "enlightened" abortion policy is more about us than africa.

[Molly]

More and more I feel the "enlightened" abortion policy is more about us than africa.

And what was your first clue?!

[waldo]

So you plan to keep this back door policy you discovered, secret?

no, no, Dancer... your 'Conservative secret' is out of the bag! Apparently, there has been a plethora of interest in the current Conservative G8 position... an interest that actually saw Harper, Oda and Cannon furiously backpedaling to alter the initial Conservative position that also wanted to exclude funding for contraception. Ya see, apparently... that interest trumped Conservative ideology... stay tuned for the effect of continued interest on that final G8 position statement and whatever Conservative spin ensues.

[M.Dancer]

no, no, Dancer... your 'Conservative secret' is out of the bag! Apparently, there has been a plethora of interest in the current Conservative G8 position... an interest that actually saw Harper, Oda and Cannon furiously backpedaling to alter the initial Conservative position that also wanted to exclude funding for contraception. Ya see, apparently... that interest trumped Conservative ideology... stay tuned for the effect of continued interest on that final G8 position statement and whatever Conservative spin ensues.

So what is this back door policy that the governemnt has no intention of implementing?

Try to answer with less word salad...

[M.Dancer]

And what was your first clue?!

The lack of interest from Africa...

[Molly]

Since abortions are fobidden in 90% of africa...

When exactly did 'except where a mothers life or (physical or mental) health is threatened' become 'forbidden'? Only a tiny handful of countries in the world actually outright forbid abortion.

[M.Dancer]

When exactly did 'except where a mothers life or (physical or mental) health is threatened' become 'forbidden'? Only a tiny handful of countries in the world actually outright forbid abortion.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00637/africa_maternal__637261artw.jpg

You are correct. They are not forbidden..completely. But the amount of abortions that are approved would be miniscule.

[waldo]

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00637/africa_maternal__637261artw.jpg

You are correct. They are not forbidden..completely. But the amount of abortions that are approved would be miniscule.

oh... is this where the psychic Dancer references come in?

[M.Dancer]

oh... is this where the psychic Dancer references come in?

No, you are reigning psychic..

I extrapolate.

Why Women Choose Abortion

Inadequate Finances

21%

Not ready for responsibility

21%

Woman’s life would be changed too much

16%

Problems with relationship; unmarried

12%

Too young; not mature enough

11%

Children are grown; woman has all she wants

8%

Fetus has possible health problem

3%

Woman has health problem

3%

Pregnancy caused by rape, incest

1%

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/facts/Why_Women_choose_abortion.html

If you have stats that are apropos to Africa, now id the time to present them. Barring that, we are left to assume that 94% out of 100 abortions would be forbidden in 90% of africa

[Timothy17]

She is absolutely correct. Abortion is absolutely legal in this country, and there's no rational reason to use different policy abroad.

The rational reason is called respecting other people's cultures. Hilary doesn't: not ours or her own.

Of course, wary of exhibiting their outdated socially conservative mentality openly,

Outdated? I'm sorry, I didn't know justice had an expiration date.

Harper's conservatives are again following the path of vague insinuations and kicking it (the right to abortion, i.e reproductive freedom) behind closed doors and beyond our borders.

"Reproductive freedom"? That's a fancy spin. Ladies deserve reproductive freedom; okay, next Masculinists might argue that men have "Natural-needs" rights; that is, because nature makes them want to have sex with women, they should be allowed to with whomever they want whenever they want, regardless of the other person's rights. We'll call this "reproductive freedom" or simply, "Natural needs acquisitions." Now, most Canadians might call that rape, but they just need to leave "their outdated socially conservative mentality" behind, right?

You know what, "theft" is another one of "their outdated socially conservative" notions. Perhaps theft is also a "Needs-acquisition" which is perfectly natural. After all, people have needs and other people have stuff only because they are greedy, right? Maybe they should be made to learn to share. Of course, this means the other party has no consideratoin under the law, but afterall, people have the "freedom" to "choose" to steal, so that must mean it is also a "right."

Such logic is beloved by the Vikings.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[bloodyminded]

The rational rason is called respecting other people's cultures. Hilary doesn't: not ours or her own.

Outdated? I'm sorry, I didn't know justice had an expiration date.

"Reproductive freedom"? That's a fancy spin. Ladies deserve reproductive freedom; okay, next Masculinists might argue that men have "Natural-needs" rights; that is, because nature makes them want to have sex with women, they should be allowed to with whomever they want whenever they want, regardless of the other person's rights. We'll call this "reproductive freedom" or simply, "Natural needs acquisitions." Now, most Canadians might call that rape, but they just need to leave "their outdated socially conservative mentality" behind, right?

You know what, "theft" is another one of "their outdated socially conservative" notions. Perhaps theft is also a "Needs-acquisition" which is perfectly natural. After all, people have needs and other people have stuff only because they are greedy, right? Maybe they should be made to learn to share. Of course, this means the other party has no consideratoin under the law, but afterall, people have the "freedom" to "choose" to steal, so that must mean it is also a "right."

Such logic would be beloved by the Vikings.

But you have not even attempted to navigate the actual logic. All your analogies involve crimes or assaults upon other persons. Reproductive rights is about protecting one's own right to their own body.

Now, I can anticipate a response about the fetus's "rights": but a fetus' full-fledged humanity is not an issue on which we can all agree.

Whereas we do all agree that sexual assault, theft, etc are attacks on another fully-fledged human being.