Re: Majority objects to leaving out abortion in G8 plan: poll
Usually I don't agree with our Conservative Prime Minister on most issues but this one he has my full support.
It's a double standard, where it's supported in our own country and laws, yet based on Harper's personal/religious beliefs, he thinks he has the right to change our country's principles to his own principles, regardless of what the majority of the population believes or what our own laws state..... and additional details in the above report show that what he and his group did was open up the abortion and women's rights debate all over again, as noted of all the private members bills being tossed in these days to open it back up, along with all these pointless protests.
Harper and crew claim they don't want to open up the debate again, yet by doing what he did, he already opened it up.
Abortion does not improve the quality of life for mother and child and tax payers should not be paying for abortions in other nations.
It can and does improve the quality of life for the mother, and in regards to the child, there is no child in question, thus its quality of life is irrelevant.
from the above report alone:
"More than 350,000 women die every year because of childbirth and pregnancy problems, and 99 per cent of those deaths are in developing countries. And when mothers in developing countries die, their children suffer exponentially.
The best way to bring down maternal mortality is to give women the wherewithal to make choices about when they want to have children, and how many, Schweitzer said.
That means donor money should be targeted at contraception, reproductive health services and education of girls, he added."
^ Which means if a woman dies from child birth, whom already have children, then those existing children will suffer greatly.
The majority of those deaths of women are in developing nations where available hospital time, doctors, hygienic environments, etc. do not exist or are greatly limited in their abilities.
And hypothetically if a fetus gets to full term and the mother dies while giving birth, then once again, that new born child is now an orphan in an already poverty stricken land and its own survival is in jeopardy.... meanwhile nothing was done to save the mother.... thus rather then trying to save the life and well-being of one human, that one human is punished/forced to carry a fetus full term, risks death, risks the life of the baby during birth, and even the baby risks death shortly after birth on top of the whole process if it does survive birth.... thus at the very least, two people will suffer and/or die in the process because of abortion not being funded, not including any other children in that woman's family who now became orphans.
All because of some people's hangups on abortion and their religious moral values.
The whole simplistic argument of "Well they shouldn't have sex, it's their own fault" is baseless and ignorant on their situation, since most in these poverty-stricken areas don't have the best education, best medical facilities/coverage, a decent income and have already, plenty going against them in their lives compared to people in our own country who are better off then they are, better educated, yet still are covered by law for the same things these people are denied in having...... and yet some here seem to think that they simply should know better then us or should be in far more of a healthier state then the average Canadian citizen to deny them funding/coverage for the same things many here take for granted.
Then again, perhaps this is the Conservative way of punishing them where they can't punish our own citizens for what our laws already cover..... all so they can sleep better at night knowing they did "God's will" :roll:
