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

That's a no (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, April 26, 2010 4:49pm - 82 Comments

Bev Oda states the government’s case.

Oda said the internationally accepted definition of family planning includes contraception but not abortion. “We’re not debating abortion, we’re clarifying family planning,” she said over her shoulder as she left a press conference in Halifax. The hastily-convened media availability happened minutes before she was due to arrive at a private dinner for the heads of delegation at Government House, the home of Nova Scotia’s lieutenant governor.

After the jump, the statement released by Ms. Oda’s office.

At the upcoming G-8 Leaders’ Summit, Canada will champion an initiative to increase the number of healthy pregnancies, healthy mothers and healthy children. We will be looking at a wide range of interventions across the continuum of care, that I will be discussing with my G8 colleagues, including pre-pregnancy, safe births, and family planning, as well as training and support for frontline health workers; better nutrition and provision of micronutrients; treatment and prevention of diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and sepsis; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS; proper medication; family planning; immunization; clean water and sanitation.

The Government of Canada agrees with the internationally-accepted definition of family planning, as agreed to by the World Health Organization, UN and G8 development agencies. This includes a woman’s ability to space and limit her pregnancies, which has a direct impact on her health and well-being, as well as on the outcome of each pregnancy.

Within the scope of this G-8 initiative, countries will be able to identify their own priorities. Canada’s contribution to maternal and child health may involve various interventions, including family planning, which includes the use of contraceptive methods. The details remain to be determined. However, Canada’s contribution will not include funding abortion. Our work ahead for this G8 development meeting is:

∙ to reach a consensus on a G8 initiative to save the lives of

millions of mothers and children under the age of five;

∙ to continue our work to meet the challenge of food security; and

∙ to do so effectively, sustainably and accountably

Thank you.

Tags: abortion, Africa, Bev Oda, foreign aid, G8, maternal health

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, so lying about what I've said is classy, is it? Look, if you can't understand what I write, then you're a bumpkin, right?

And why do you always talk about a "few cell" right after conception? First, you and I were just a few cells at one point. And what about a few minutes before birth? Is there a difference in status to you?

Why not address this specific point?

As for murder, it's the abortion doctor who's committing it. Logic 101. Although I do think there should be penalties for women who allow their unborn children to be killed, yes.

In fact, I think there should be a reproductive bill of rights, which outlines responsibilities and protections for everyone involved in reproduction – woman, man, child. Instead of this backroom horror show that many of you are completely fine with.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, and I'd have no problem with the man being charged if his child is aborted in the womb. He should take responsibility for that life, too.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Well now, for a change, you are going beyond the black and white.

But you still fail Logic 101 and kindergarden law.

If I hire a third party to go and kill someone, then at law I am just as culpable if not more than the hired gun. So you are bending over backwards for a revision to a fundamental aspect of law.

As for a few cells, I am quite unequivocal that a few cells are in no way shape or form a human baby. As for a few minutes before birth, I am quite unequivocal that that is a completely different status.

I am also unequivocal in my belief that we do not need any criminal law – and that criminal law would make matters worse – to deal with this fantasy of abortions in the final weeks of pregnancy. Except for serious medical reasons, they just do not happen and a doctor would lose their license if they tried.

Add the possibility that a doctor may face murder charges or at least manslaughter charges if he aborts to save a mother's life, and you are putting women's lives at risk and that utter disregard for women's health is to me quite appalling. But very revealing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Actually, the reason you want to kill someone (unless it is self-defence) never enters into it.

And yes, a little while back I specifically asked Dennis if he thought it was murder if you caused a termination a few hours after conception and he was unequivocal that it was.

So when I say Dennis wants to throw women in jail for life for terminating a pregnancy that is a few hours old, I am not misrepresenting Dennis.

So why do you feel it necessary to make stuff up about what I said?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Yes, you are killing a human life a few minutes after conception. Also a few minutes from birth. When have I been unequivocal about that? Gee. Next.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

It's a completely nonsensical position. I'm sorry. You want to have it both ways. You're for life, but you say killing it is OK if a woman's threshold for it is lower than yours. It's absurd.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

John Lydon got loads of things right; I disagree with him on this one.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So, if other people have different views than you on child rape, you don't think it's absurd? Really???

I don't understand this notion of bodies being "sovereign". However, when a woman has an unborn child in her womb, there are two bodies involved. Why isn't its body "sovereign?" Why don't you or I have rights when we're inside the womb? Why is it that only women have "reproductive rights" whatever they are?

Furthermore, if a woman or a man doesn't want to reproduce, there are measures that can be taken in order to avoid conception. That's how you avoid unwanted pregnancies – to avoid pregnancy – not to abort it after the fact.

The fact of the matter is that your position is that an unborn child can be killed at any time during pregnancy. It's an ugly view, which is precisely why you're desperately trying to say you don't have it, but you do.

Under your view, life in the womb can be killed at any time for any reason. Like I keep saying, it's indefensible, and bizarre. I'm sorry.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Yes, because engaging with you on the topic is going to be so fruitful and enlightening when you would throw a woman in jail for life for terminating the growth of cells just a few hours old. I'd get more interactive and intelligent debate banging my head on the wall.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Absolutely he did.

He repeatedly calls abortion murder. He has said categorically that a termination at conception is no different then a moment before birth.

In Canada, there is only one category of criminal charge applicable for first degree murder and there is only one sentence with a mandatory minimum of life in jail.

So absolutely, he is asking Canadians to throw women in jail for life for termination a pregnancy that is a few hours old.