Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[waldo]

Maybe if I formatted it with lots of indentations and coloured fonts he would have been able to read it...

no, sorry, silly-buggar Dancer will not prevail:

again: Reason #3 qualifier reads, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health". You're choosing to negate the qualification. Why?

arithmetic for silly-buggars: accepting to the aforementioned stated Reason #3 qualifier that extends interpretation more broadly than to just physical health, there are 30 African countries where abortion is not strictly limited to considerations of only preserving physical health and saving the life of a woman:

30 => (Reason3:) 17 countries + (Reason4:) 9 countries + (Reason5:) 1 country + (Reason6:) 3 countries

again, as stated:

Accordingly, following your penchant for across the board sweeping statistical designation:

- one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for 30 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reasons #3, 4, 5 & 6": Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

- of course, even if we adhere to the strictest of your designations (i.e. "Woman has health problem"), we could also say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for an additional 9 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #2": Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

- notwithstanding, one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would offer tacit support for the continued outright ban on abortion within the remaining 14 African countries associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #1".

[bloodyminded]

again: Reason #3 qualifier reads, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health". You're choosing to negate the qualification. Why?

The answer is obvious. It's the "wrong" narrative.

[Molly]

According to the pie chart, abortions only account for 4% of maternal deaths.

Excuse me? Are you so committed to the notion that abortion is *never* medically necessary that you think the only reason for abortion to be an element of a maternal healthcare package is to circumvent amateur abortions?

Botched abortions, yes, are a possible cause of maternal deaths. Childbirth complications, the vast majority of which are avoidable, some via abortion, account for the other 96%!

[WIP]

And how does that figure relates to the reason a woman has an abortion?

Never the less, funding to improve the health of expectant mothers and to bring a semblance of modernance to childbirthing is what the G8 proposal is all about, but instead, abortion advocates wnat to divert funds away from that.

Many of these women don't want to be EXPECTANT MOTHERS to begin with. The Harper policy that you support is like restricting aid to helping victims of car accidents rather than doing something to reduce the number of traffic accidents in the first place.

According to the pie chart, abortions only account for 4% of maternal deaths.

Which is 4% too high and another reason why the woman should decide this matter, not you or any other moralist who doesn't have skin in the game.

[M.Dancer]

again: Reason #3 qualifier reads, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health". You're choosing to negate the qualification. Why?

And again since you are playing stupid bugger, I inluded the count from reason #3..even though it may be interpreted more broadly...or it may bot be interpreted more broadly...

[waldo]

So out of the 53 nations of Africa, what I cold gather from your post...

42 will only allow abortions if a woman's health and to a greater extent, a woman's life is in danger.

If the stats are transferable, that would mean 3 out of 100 abortions would be allowed in 80% of africa...

And again since you are playing stupid bugger, I inluded the count from reason #3..even though it may be interpreted more broadly...or it may bot be interpreted more broadly...

bullshit you did... you continue to stick to your narrowest of definitions and your quoted stat that attributes 3% of abortions to, "a woman's health"... which clearly is restricted to considerations of physical health only. You are purposely playing silly-buggar by ignoring the rest of your quoted stats, the majority of which carry significant percentage associations to considerations for a woman's mental health and well being. To you, a woman's mental health and well being, doesn't rate, doesn't fit and should not be considered. Again, you choose to purposely ignore/negate the broader interpretations beyond, physical health... you choose to purposely ignore/negate the qualifier to Reason #3, which reads, again, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health". Again, as stated:

Accordingly, following your penchant for across the board sweeping statistical designation:

- one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for 30 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reasons #3, 4, 5 & 6": Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

- of course, even if we adhere to the strictest of your designations (i.e. "Woman has health problem"), we could also say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for an additional 9 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #2": Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

- notwithstanding, one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would offer tacit support for the continued outright ban on abortion within the remaining 14 African countries associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #1".

[M.Dancer]

bullshit you did...

Poor poor waldo....

to fixed on formatting to count...

[waldo]

Poor poor waldo....

to fixed on formatting to count...

poor poor Dancer....

to fixed on playing silly-buggar to count...

Edited May 14, 2010 by waldo

[Molly]

I inluded the count from reason #3..even though it may be interpreted more broadly...or it may bot be interpreted more broadly...

Meh. You included it because you thought you could get away with it, or at least effectively argue the case.

We know from the Canadian experience, though, that 'endanger the life or health' essentially means that the only real restrictions lie in logistics, not in the law. Since even in industrialized nations early abortions are much safer than childbirth, it's incredibly easy to make the case that pregnancy is, all by itself, a threat to life and/or health, so unless a threshhold of endangerment is specified or 'health' very restrictively defined... ya got nuthin'.

[CrazeeEddie]

So why do we have stautory rape laws? Or are you against those as well?

Still no takers eh? I was hoping Molly, who seems to have an answer to everything, would be more than willing to take this on, but of course, as the last 12 pages have attested, when you can't debate, ignore right? Either women are or are not mature enough to make these decisions.

3. I'd say a pregnancy is a pretty good qualification for being described as a woman, rather than being infantalized as 'girl'. Whatever their age, they are facing the decisions and consequences of full womanhood. Perhaps they also deserve that respect.

Well, then, once again, you agree that STATUTORY rape laws are unnecessary, correct? Not to be confused with ACTUAL rape, where one (or more) participants is not a willing participant in the activity.

[Keepitsimple]

There are several different angles to the Maternal Healthcare debate....so here's another take:

..........So how did such an apparent motherhood issue become mixed up in abortion politics? After all, abortion does not figure to make much of a contribution to maternal and infant health. Abortion is never in the health interest of the infant, after all; and whatever the position taken on abortion, it clearly is not a fruitful path to motherhood. So to fund abortion as a part of a maternal and infant health package is rather like funding smoking as part of a cancer prevention initiative -- the two just don't go together.

Leave aside the politics of the matter, which, after all, in Canada, are strange beyond parody. In the past few months, both sides of the issue have accused their opponents of raising issues that should not be discussed because they are "divisive." The idea that political debate should avoid topics on which there are disagreements is odd, especially when the parties are eager to manufacture disagreement on all other matters, even where none exists.

What drives the hostility to the government's motherhood issue? Motherhood. The heart of the opposition to the initiative is its starting point -- expectant mothers. To a certain cast of mind, considering women as mothers constitutes something of a retrograde step. Hence the objection that helping mothers to have safe deliveries is somehow illegitimate unless similar help is offered to women to avoid becoming mothers at all.

In most elite circles, the great social liberation of the past generations has been the liberation of women from the expectation, to say nothing of the reality, of motherhood. Indeed, liberation from the fear of motherhood due to easy contraception and unlimited abortion is considered perhaps the greatest item of social progress in the last half-century. Consequently, for a program to explicitly favour motherhood, even at the minimal level of ensuring safe deliveries, causes howls of outrage from those who think that African villagers should behave more like liberal society matrons--if one might use that pregnant word, figuratively speaking of course.

In many African countries, for example, for Canada to fund abortions would be breaking the local laws. To flout local laws and undermine local customs was once called paternalism. It's an odd turn for Canada's abortion extremists to be paternalistic, but such is the strangeness of this controversy............

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=55379238-8961-46dd-8c2c-916428670929

[myata]

As well as questions still waiting to be answered.. even if in another thread.

So we'll have to try again:

What exactly is the reason for Harper's government to stop funding for abortions where it is allowed by laws of the country?

And since it reverses a long standing policy of Canada, and is inconsistent with our internal status quo, what implications should be drawn from this government act for Canada itself?

Are we looking to reopen the debate? Why? What? Which?

No? Then what's the meaning of this remote policy change?

[myata]

Nope, no answers. Only silence as dead as in the heart of Wahabi desert at about 1.59 past midnight.

But no worries. We only have to wait couple of weeks/months for the same people to pop up with the same old unprovable and irrational but nonetheless highly cherished ideas that simply have to be imposed on everybody else in the world.

[yarg]

Nope, no answers. Only silence as dead as in the heart of Wahabi desert at about 1.59 past midnight.

But no worries. We only have to wait couple of weeks/months for the same people to pop up with the same old unprovable and irrational but nonetheless highly cherished ideas that simply have to be imposed on everybody else in the world.

What hypocrits, the far left has been imposing their beliefs on our society for decades, many Canadians, in some cases a majority disagree with some of these beliefs, but hey since you believe in them they must be correct, all other beliefs void. Not only that, any compromise or desire to find middle ground is also unwelcome, talk about imposing irrational ideals on the rest of the world.

[myata]

What hypocrits, the far left has been imposing their beliefs on our society for decades, many Canadians, in some cases a majority disagree with some of these beliefs, but hey since you believe in them they must be correct, all other beliefs void. Not only that, any compromise or desire to find middle ground is also unwelcome, talk about imposing irrational ideals on the rest of the world.

Indeed you were asked specifically about what "compromises" pertaining to integrity of your control over your body you would be willing to accept. And all we get in place of intelligible answer is the standard offhand "left" blabber. Talk about hypocrisy.

Edited May 22, 2010 by myata

[Molly]

Still no takers eh? I was hoping Molly, who seems to have an answer to everything, would be more than willing to take this on, but of course, as the last 12 pages have attested, when you can't debate, ignore right? Either women are or are not mature enough to make these decisions.

Well, then, once again, you agree that STATUTORY rape laws are unnecessary, correct? Not to be confused with ACTUAL rape, where one (or more) participants is not a willing participant in the activity.

Right- no takers, because it's a false choice-- a little along the lines of you giving up all reasonable legal protection from fraud in order to gain the privelege of entering into a contract and so guiding your own affairs.

One has the right not to be unfairly used. One also has the right to make decisions in ones own interest.

[myata]

Somehow I think it's not the abortions but this: Canada: teen pregnancy rates falling sharply that drives these folks nuts these days.

Less helpless, vulnerable people = fewer fodder minds for their useless, desperately outdated ideology.

Edited May 26, 2010 by myata

[Keepitsimple]

Somehow I think it's not the abortions but this: Canada: teen pregnancy rates falling sharply that drives these folks nuts these days.

Less helpless, vulnerable people = fewer fodder minds for their useless, desperately outdated ideology.

Maybe you can elaborate. I can't see anything other than good news here.

[myata]

Maybe you can elaborate. I can't see anything other than good news here.

Good for you (if it's true that is, in a different way from your claim of being "pro choice" while arguing for limitation of it), but it's no secret that much of anti abortion crowd complete with their spiritual leader Pope are opposed to contraception as well.

And this is because uneducated (not in the least through the need to care for young children, from young childhood) vulnerable and hopeless people are the prime target of backward ideologies. Could it be because they'd have little notion of individual rights, or will to stand up for them? Those ideologies want nothing more than to rid of these dangerous innovations, and revert the society back to the archaic uneducated way of life that allowed them to control it for so long.

Right of abortion is the right to control one's own body. No, you don't want to compromise that right in any way - for yourself. Only to impose it on others, as a way to control them. Anything else, to elaborate?

[waldo]

Anything else, to elaborate?

well... it's clear Simple is still reading this thread and willing to, selectively, respond to you. Of course, neither he, or anyone else clamoring for a 'reopening of the debate', for laws, for a change to the status quo... none of them are willing to answer your other repeated requests/questions. Quite telling - indeed.

[Keepitsimple]

Good for you (if it's true that is, in a different way from your claim of being "pro choice" while arguing for limitation of it), but it's no secret that much of anti abortion crowd complete with their spiritual leader Pope are opposed to contraception as well.

And this is because uneducated (not in the least through the need to care for young children, from young childhood) vulnerable and hopeless people are the prime target of backward ideologies. Could it be because they'd have little notion of individual rights, or will to stand up for them? Those ideologies want nothing more than to rid of these dangerous innovations, and revert the society back to the archaic uneducated way of life that allowed them to control it for so long.

Right of abortion is the right to control one's own body. No, you don't want to compromise that right in any way - for yourself. Only to impose it on others, as a way to control them. Anything else, to elaborate?

Yes, it was good news. Any decline in unwanted pregnancies is a good sign. But around in circles we go. On one side, we have the extreme element that will not accept abortion under any situation. On the other side, we have the unqualified "pro-choice" extreme element that will accept no conditions on terminating a pregnancy - no matter the reasoning or the gestation period. The great majority of Canadians are somewhere in the middle. That's why I posted the official positions of all the other Western countries who have debated the issue......it gives us a clue as to how the rest of the world views the issue. In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm one of those Canadians that sits in the middle - but heavily weighted to the pro-choice side.

[myata]

Yes, it was good news. Any decline in unwanted pregnancies is a good sign. But around in circles we go. On one side, we have the extreme element that will not accept abortion under any situation.

And also, the element that would want us to bodypaint orange and green and walk in circles and upside down? OK, good for them. But what you persistently fail to understand is that it's their own private issue that's got nothing to do with anybody else here. After all, we are all independent and free individuals. Yes? No?

On the other side, we have the unqualified "pro-choice" extreme element that will accept no conditions on terminating a pregnancy - no matter the reasoning or the gestation period.

Perhaps they could (accept), if / when shown good lead - by example? And so, we're still waiting to hear what "conditions" you're going to accept on public use of e.g. your arm; or kidney; etc; all with proper "reasoning" of course. BTW did you notice that I'm asking this simple question here for the fourth of fifth time already? Keeping my fingers crossed for better luck this time around )

The great majority of Canadians are somewhere in the middle.

Correct. That "middle" so obvious to great majority of Canadians is that it's simply bad taste trying to pry into private choices and decisions that pertain to individual involved and nobody else. In other words, it's not cool and pointless. Because either we should all start giving each other unsolicited advice about eating, dressing, personal hygiene and so on, or we'll reserve that privilege for some selected and highly respected individuals. Unless of course we happen to belong to great majority that considers either option equally ridiculous.

That's why I posted the official positions of all the other Western countries who have debated the issue......it gives us a clue as to how the rest of the world views the issue.

Yep, some of the world (please note the highlight, so easy to get yourself confused in these complexities) views the issue different from us here, you've proven that point and it's good to know that. And now, .... what?

In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm one of those Canadians that sits in the middle - but heavily weighted to the pro-choice side.

Thanks, but it all depends on the meaning of that word "choice" or "freedom" in your interpretation. For elaboration of which we're still waiting, patiently (see above). Maybe it's pro- your "choice" to lecture and moralise on other's private decisions, while their "choice" is limited to obeying the preaching?

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps they could (accept), if / when shown good lead - by example? And so, we're still waiting to hear what "conditions" you're going to accept on public use of e.g. your arm; or kidney; etc; all with proper "reasoning" of course. BTW did you notice that I'm asking this simple question here for the fourth of fifth time already? Keeping my fingers crossed for better luck this time around )

Thanks, but it all depends on the meaning of that word "choice" or "freedom" in your interpretation. For elaboration of which we're still waiting, patiently (see above). Maybe it's pro- your "choice" to lecture and moralise on other's private decisions, while their "choice" is limited to obeying the preaching?

My interpretation doesn't really matter all that much.....and I'm not really confident that I have one because I don't claim to be smart enough to understand all the situations that might or might not present themselves. I'm also a man and as I've said before, I'd rather let women decide the issue themselves.....if in fact, anything needs to be done at all. My initial discussion offered the opinion that with no legislation, something might happen in the next 5, 10, 15 years that somehow re-opens the debate. One need only look at the Liberals' attempt to pass a motion demanding abortion be included in the Maternal Health initiative. It matters not who was right or wrong - only that it had the potential to re-open the debate.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[myata]

I'm also a man and as I've said before, I'd rather let women decide the issue themselves.....

I agree. And that's exactly what the status quo is, as of now. Women deciding the issue, etc. So another old question comes right back, what exactly is the problem?

My initial discussion offered the opinion that with no legislation, something might happen in the next 5, 10, 15 years that somehow re-opens the debate.

Yes something might or might not happen, and it may happen not at all only in the area of abortion and birth control. So should we also consider legislating the case of e.g. asteroid/comet impact? Black hole emission by LHC experiment? Aliens visiting Earth and asking tough moral questions?

But in fact one thing is certainly and actually happening in practical reality right now, severe shortage of organ donations. Which again, brings back the old question, should we consider legislating mandatory donations of tissues and organs with the right "reasoning"? Still waiting for that answer...

One need only look at the Liberals' attempt to pass a motion demanding abortion be included in the Maternal Health initiative.

Wait, I thought that only a minute ago you said this: "I'd rather let women decide the issue themselves". No? So if a woman in Africa decides to have an abortion, what would be your "reasoning" to deny it to her?

It matters not who was right or wrong - only that it had the potential to re-open the debate.

No, I'm afraid you've got it backwards. The liberal position, consistent with Canada's long standing policy meant exactly that, "let women decide the issue themselves", providing them this that one choice in the array of many. It's the Harper's government decision to remove that choice that brought up those same simple questions you still struggle to answer: What? Which? How?