Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'The purpose of this is to be able to save lives'

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:28am - 89 Comments

Lawrence Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee that contraception won’t be part of the government’s commitment to maternal health in the developing world.

In no uncertain terms, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday ruled out any kind of family-planning programs being included in Canada’s “signature” initiative at June’s G8 summit – a strategy to improve the health of mothers and young children in poor countries. ”It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives,” Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

For the sake of argument, here is a USAID fact sheet which states that access to family planning options reduces the number of abortions, limits the spread of HIV and “could prevent 25 percent of maternal and child deaths in the developing world.”

Tags: abortion, Africa, contraception, family planning, foreign aid, lawrence cannon, maternal health, USAID

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Do we have any prooof that the Canadian public doesn't support contraception?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

But it isn't religious doctrine that is reducing HIV transmission; it is aspects of that doctrine promoting abstinence and faithful monogamy/polygamy, which no one disagrees with and can be part of an effective campaign.

The bugaboo of the conversation is that family planning cannot be part of the health discussion, regardless of the benefits to health (and society) of such programs. Which is a shame, but not unfamiliar.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

So even Mr. Cannon agrees – condoms suck.
Bill Simpson

Nobody ever died because they didn't have access to contraception. You can make an argument that it may be a contributory factor in some number of deaths, but when someone dies of syphilis, you don't write down "didn't use a condom" as a cause of death, you write down "syphilis".

As for the argument about HIV transmission, the diseases that are now categorized under AIDS may all be separately caused and have separate treatments, none of which are related to contraception.

It is specious to connect "family planning" with focussed efforts to improve how women during and after pregnancy and infants can be treated. Waving a condom at a sick infant or a woman suffering post-natal complications is unlikely to help and the government should ignore this noise.
burlivespipe

Revisionist government at its worst. But I give them credit for adapting the message on the same Bushian policy to trick a lot of Canadians into thinking that they're concerned with the life-and-death issues that affect women and children in the third world.
Of course, one could say their sly shift shows their disinterest in Africa.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Yeah, something that irks me to no end. I guess priests, like politicians, sometimes say (and do) the darndest things :)

(can't vote 'em out though…sigh.)
Holly Stick

Lots of women die in childbirth precisely because they did not have access to contraception. Welcome to the real world.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

The un-conceived are not alive. Family planning alternatives – contraception – do not harm those who are not alive.

As to the conceived and as yet born, that remains a matter between the woman and her family. Who does this government think it is to deny information and technology which has made our live better to those less well off?
Bill Simpson

No – they did from lack of appropriate treatment.

Holly Stick

They died because they were pregnant; maybe not by choice; maybe they were to young or too old to have a baby healthily; mayb e they were too malnourished; or too damaged by gang-rapes or by mutilation; or by self-induced abortions because they could not handle having another baby. And maybe they could have lived if they were able to get safe abortions. And maybe their orphaned children who are already alive will also die for lack of a mother.

Bill Simpson

Well obviously not being pregnant lowers the risk of dying in childbirth…and yes, people do go on having babies when the last one died.

The reason people die from malnutrition is not directly caused by a growing population, otherwise we could not explain how Europe, North America and other such places managed to largely eradicate hunger while growing their populations a hundred-fold.

Hunger, privation, and premature death in Africa have many causes. Why is everyone so focussed on contraception?

And I dislike being categorized a a pro-lifer simply because of their dogmatic denial of abortion as a valid medical procedure. But I am a great fan of babies and I have not yet seen one that I didn't think deserving of all the medical help we can give it. If we take of the mothers and babies, I suspect that the issue of contraception will take of itself.
Luke

That is the crux of the abortion debate: at what point does a "mass of cells" become a baby? After all, each of us can still accurately be described as a mass of cells. It is convenient to pretend that this is a simple question, but I think it is not. Maybe it is simple for you – if so, please enlighten me.
Bill Simpson

If only it was! I am as conflicted as anyone can be on the subject of abortion. Either way, I don't see it as helpful for governments to drive the issue one way or another. The current compromise in Canada seems acceptable, but it is hard to see how this can be exported.

Whatever funds and efforts that are to be expended should be directed towards helping mothers and babies through the dangers of birth. Let's keep out of the rest if it!
Luke

But you're not considering the rights of the life that would otherwise exist if not for contraception.

Ok, just kidding. I never intended to make an argument for or against distributing contraception. I guess Bill Simpson was right when he said in another comment that the two issues are complicating the discussion.
Bill Simpson

"Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
When a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate."

M.Python
Holly Stick

Contraception and abortion are part of helping mothers and babies. Again, look at the real world.
Holly Stick

And you men have no choice in this matter and no right to judge.
wilson

Funding is limited.
Better to have unlimited supply of electrolites availble to save babies lives,
than have the cost of contraceptives limiting the supply of life saving drugs.

The only way to set a target and successfully reach it (which has been the problem) is to focus,
not go a little bit here and there, amounting to alot of nothing.

If this global group picks up all the cost of clean water, post natal care form mother and child ,
other ngo agencies can focus on family planning.
Brian

Here's a novel idea – let's ask the countries we're donating to if they want access to safe abortions and artificial contraceptives. If they say yes, fund abortions and artificial contraceptives. If they don't want access, they don't have to use the funding for those things and promote alternatives.

Isn't it presumptuous of the Government (notice how I'm not using party affiliation? I'm trying to be impartial here) to say abortions/contraceptives are ineffective and undesirable? The same could be said if the Government FORCED people to get abortions and use condoms.

In my opinion, we shouldn't deny funding for condoms and artificial contraceptives because some people will want access to them and some people won't. The people who don't want them won't get them because THEY DON'T WANT THEM. Why should we punish people who, in their own minds, are trying to act responsibly?
Holly Stick

Not at all. It is the woman's choice and her choice only, and all of you self-righteous ignorant men have no say in the matter whatsoever. It is none of your business. Keep your grubby hands out of our wombs.
Luke

For what it's worth, I understand why people believe having control over their own bodies is a fundamental right and needs to be protected vociferously, and this is a powerful argument against abortion restrictions. But the question of when life begins and the value of an unborn child needs to be considered. Few people would disagree that a child even just a minute old has innate value and deserves the same protection afforded to the rest of society. Maybe to you it is clear that this value only comes to the child at the moment he or she is separated from the mother, but this is certainly not clear to me. There were nearly 100,000 abortions in Canada in 2006. These were not all performed on 10 year olds with incestuous fathers. Like it or love it, this is a serious and complicated moral issue.

Holly Stick

Few would disagree? That is false, many would disagree with you. At any rate, a woman is born first and her life comes before that of the foetus; and the life of her children who are already born come first as well, since they need a mother who is alive and healthy and able to care for them. And you have no right to tell any woman what to do with her body at any time. Your moral beliefs are irrelevent. No one is forcing you to have an abortion.

Luke

I wasn't clear. When I said "Few people would disagree that a child even just a minute old has innate value…" I meant a minute after birth, not a minute after conception. The point I was trying to make is that at some point there is a child involved. And once a child is involved, it is no longer just an issue of a woman's control over her own body. Nearly everyone (I think and hope) would agree that the child does not suddenly go from value-less to valuable the instant the umbilical cord is cut. And as I mentioned in another comment, this is the crux of the matter.

illbethejudge

Absolutely patently false Bill Simpson. Contraceptives lower the risk of dying in childbirth, which is extremely high in developing nations and increases exponentially with each birth. A smaller family also increases the likelihood that they will all get proper nutrition. That means fewer of them die from disease related to malnutrition. This is WELL documented. Are you suggesting that women in developing countries should have as many children as nature allows? Do YOU plan to feed them all? Because most women in developing countries certainly can't.

Your HIV statement is too ridiculous to even address. If you don't spread HIV, then you don't develop AIDS.

You silly pro-lifers care nothing of life. You only care making sure a mass of cells grows into a baby. Then your job is done.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, but a fight against contraception is another story all together, isn't it? The policy outlined by Cannon does not amount to "we must protect the right of a mass of cells to become a baby", it's, "we must not do anything to prevent the mass of cells from forming".

I could almost stomach a policy that left abortion to one side for moral reasons, but CONDOMS?!?!? I don't think that you'll ever convince me that a mass of cells is deserving of having it's "human" rights protected, but I can GUARANTEE that you'll never convince me that individual cells have a right to be able to mass unimpeded. You may be able to convince me that at some point a fetus has certain inalienable rights, even prior to birth. You'll never convince me that sperm has an inalienable human right to an unobstructed path to the egg.

Human life may arguably begin at conception. It most certainly does NOT begin BEFORE conception.
Holly Stick

And it doesn't matter whether their decision affects your physical health, your mental health, or your self-esteem.
Holly Stick

No, the woman is the crux of the matter; focus on the woman.
Luke

That would be a simpler approach. But at some point there are two – a mother and a child – and the rights of both must be considered.