Bush Anti-Abortion Policy Closes African Health Clinics

1. Yes, but it engendered little controversy. America just didn't get worked up about it, and that was the genius of the move. Who cares about health care clinics in Africa? That doesn't affect us. Why should "Bush's" money go to something he doesn't approve of? It was an easy way for Bush to give a token victory to the anti-abortionists without actually doing anything to stop abortions.

2. That's why I called it cynical and hypocritical. (see #1 above). However, that doesn't make it acceptable, because even though it does nothing to stop abortions, it does a hell of a lot to stop health care and education in Africa.

Bush effectively took away the African health care clinics' freedom of speech. They cannot even discuss a medical option which is perfectly legal in the United States.

 

This is sick.

What does Bush care about more - stopping people in Africa from dying of a terrible disease, or his decadent Western principle?

He is entitled to do this, but surely he should put his beliefs to one side in this struggle. Other methods of birth control can also be promoted along with abortion in these clinics, then it is up to the choice of the individual Africans. Perhaps you could also have abortion as the "last resort" method, when the individuals refuse to accept the other possibilities.

But surely keeping these clinics open (and opening more) is the most important thing.

 

I think that's the point. These clinics weren't spending a whole lot of time talking about abortion because they were too busy with AIDS. Bush is the one making the big deal about abortion.

 

Treating it?

 

Apparently, they did...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,762161,00.html


Mike, stop being obtuse. Stopping the funding of these clinics is not helpful, regardless of what you think of abortion.

From the same article --

The UN agency's director, Thoraya Obaid, said on Monday that the decision would cost the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.

The money would have prevented two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths.

 

Is this where I question the need to fund clinics in Africa, even after Bush said he would, in a time of relative need (and please note the term "relative" because nobody here will deny the individual suffering, here or there) in the USA?

Be it by his own making, the budget is at a point where Bush should make a symbolic gesture and not take a salary.

 

Hey city planner...think infrastructure.

The med center or church is the usual place where all such things related can be found in the 3rd world.

Abortion and Aids are both health issues. If you lose one key center (infrastructure) where both are concerned, then you must see how they are related.

Let alone, both are "women's issues" since men never go to the doctor, especially with some 3rd world thinking.

 

You know what? In this case it is completely decadent and self-indulgent. This whole situation really makes me sick. This "gag rule" will not stop abortions from happening. On the contrary, it will cause more abortions, along with more AIDS babies, more unwanted children, and more women's deaths. Those who support the gag rule obviously coudn't care less about actually stopping abortion. They just want to satisfy their own sense of moral rightousness. They would rather see more abortions worldwide, than feel like they might be indirectly condoning the procedure.

The precious fetus is so dear to them, yet they clearly couldn't give a shit about the child once it's actually born. There is no question that the closing of these clinics will make life worse for women worldwide, as well as for their living children and those yet-to-come. But heaven forbid our tax dollars should fund their freedom of speech, right?

When we talk about abortion in the US, people seem to have a picture in their minds of a spoiled, professional woman or teenage girl who simply doesn't want to inconvenience herself with an unexpected pregnancy. It's fine to debate the morality of the various paths she might choose, but in the end those discussions are academic, because if abortion were illegal women like that would go to Canada or Europe or to the illegal network of underground abortion providers which would undoubtedly spring up. The women and children who would really suffer would be the poor, undereducated ones. The ones without healthcare, who couldn't afford to leave their jobs for months at a time, who would wind up killing themselves in droves in attempts at cheap abortions.

The women we're talking about here are largely even worse off than that. Without proper health care, pregnancy can be a fatal condition. These women may not have families to take them in. They don't have 20,000 hopeful childless families waiting with open arms to adopt their bundle of joy. They have almost no realistic options. And this gag rule threatens to take away even their access to birth control and prenatal care, all so that anti-abortionists can rest easy knowing they aren't supporting something morally distasteful to them (even though, in effect, they're causing it to proliferate).

In truth, here it comes, I'll admit it: I'm fed up with hearing men talk about this when they will never be the ones to suffer from it. With all due respect to the rights and responsibilites of fathers, you guys will never, ever, ever find yourselves being forced to gestate a fetus against your will, will you? You'll never find yourself alone and pregnant with no-one to turn to. Even if a man is willing to raise the unexpected child completely on his own, he still has no right to hijack the woman's body to bring the baby to term. Sorry, that's the bottom line. The law can't force someone to donate a kidney against his will, even though it might save a life - not only that, but a self-aware life with investments in this world and ties to other people. But we don't mandate organ or bone marrow donations and we can't mandate carrying a pregnancy to term. (Sidenote: if anyone's genuinely concerned about the rights of fathers in these situations, I recommend writing to your congressperson and asking her to fund research into artificial wombs. In all seriousness, the technology is very close to becoming a reality).

Fine if you want to use persuasion to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. But when you seek to make it illegal, or you seek to suppress freedom of speech so that women may not even be educated about the option, you cross a really serious line. Frankly, unless you 1) have never had sex for any reason other than procreation, 2) are prepared to support me financially during my pregnancy and 3) are personally ready and willing to take in the child I can't care for, then you can just shut the fuck up.

 

Maybe I missed it Mike but I don't think anyone made the argument that abortions = less AIDS other than you. The closest I've seen is people saying that shutting down clinics who are trying to get people to stop fucking like you wanted because they might mention that there is such a thing as abortion is going to lead to both more AIDS and more babies (some born w/AIDS). Therefore pipmping abortion isn't the solution, leaving clinics that might mention abortion open in the interest of the greater health good (ie: tell people to stop fucking, stop having multiple partners, and for god's sake use a rubber) is part of the solution.

 

Please do try to keep up. The family planning clinics in question provide contraception and safe-sex education. If the clinics close, those valuable services disapper. If they lose US funding, they close. Are you following?

My apologies. I used your post as a jumping off point to rant about a bunch of things that were bothering me. I didn't mean to imply that you yourself are for the banning of abortion. You never said that you were and I'm sorry I wrongfully implied that you were. Generally, those that support the gag rule also support making abortion illegal. I was talking about those people.

What you just said indicates that you didn't read the link provided in this thread, nor have you read anything related to this topic. Have you?

 

I don't think either of these posts is saying that abortions will stop AIDS. I read Foos' as being a rather sarcastic jab at the current policy (gag order = fewer abortions by women w/AIDS = more babies born w/AIDS) and implies that absent the gag order there would be the negligible drop in the number of AIDS babies due to abortions of said pregnancies. This seems to agree with your earlier post although you and he may (probably will) disagree on how large the impact will be.

Demosthenes is arguing what seems to be a contradictory opinion in which the gag rule results in both more abortions AND more babies (w/AIDS). My guess is she means that by eliminating the family planning activities of these clinics the increase in pregnancies will outstrip the increase in abortions so that both numbers go up and given the number of women with AIDS a large number of those increased births will be babies born w/AIDS.

I agree with you that it doesn't seem like too much of a price to bear. On the other hand it seems rather capricious to me for us to demand they pay that price. Afterall the ban on money going to groups that provide abortions would still be in place, and these clinics would be able to present the full range of medical options which if Demosthenes is right will result in less abortions than the current policy.