Another reason for the world to hate the US

[fredjacksonsan]

One of George W. Bush's first acts as president five years ago was to reinstate a global gag rule on family planning for health organizations in foreign countries that get U.S. aid. Under the rule, the organizations had to pledge not to counsel women about abortions or to advocate for liberalized abortion laws in their countries. U.S. law already prohibited them from providing abortions.
The effect has been that health centers in the developing world have had to forfeit U.S. funds, limiting their ability to help couples plan their families using various methods, most of which help avoid abortions. Last week, the British government, to its credit, stepped in to help fill the gap.
Britain is making a two-year, $5.3 million contribution to a new Global Safe Abortion Program. An international development minister for Britain, Gareth Thomas, said an absence of sexual and reproductive health services leads to more unplanned pregnancies and more unsafe abortions. "We work very closely with the Americans," he said, "but we have a very different view from them on abortion. Friends can disagree." The British and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which developed the program, hope that other nations will add to the fund.
The need for more services is acute. According to the World Health Organization, about 19 million women and girls have unsafe abortions each year. Nearly 70,000 die from infection or bleeding.
The global gag rule was first made U.S. policy by Ronald Reagan in 1984. President Bill Clinton eased it when he took office in 1993 but Bush restored it in 2001. Today, health centers that provide either abortions or abortion counseling cannot take money from the United States for a wide range of services, from family planning to treatment of malaria and AIDS, or screening for cervical cancer or other conditions.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been pictured by British critics as a lapdog of Bush for supporting the Iraq war. Defying U.S. policy on the global gag rule is a constructive way for him to rehabilitate himself on the home front and contribute to the health of women in some of the poorest countries on the globe.

----

So now the Bush administration is trying to dictate the medical and moral policies of other countries by withholding humanitarian aid if they don't do what the administration says. WRONG! Either give the aid or don't, but don't try to impose your morality on countries half a world away.

Comments please.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Today, health centers that provide either abortions or abortion counseling cannot take money from the United States for a wide range of services, from family planning to treatment of malaria and AIDS, or screening for cervical cancer or other conditions.

It's simple, stop giving abortions and you'll get your money. What is so hard to get about that?

As for the argument, "oh but these women didn't want to get pregnant..." and "these countries aren't like the U.S. and don't have what we have..."

What costs more, an abortion or a box of condoms? Which is easier to hand out?

[fredjacksonsan]

The abortion/prevention debate has been done, Muscletang. I'm talking about the US dictating that in order to get aid, they have to enact a certain law. Though in a farfetched, warped kind of way that could be considered to be a qualification they would have to have to get the aid.

Imposing your country's morality on another country is wrong; and not giving people the aid you would otherwise give them because of their own internal decision is wrong, plain and simple.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Imposing your country's morality on another country is wrong; and not giving people the aid you would otherwise give them because of their own internal decision is wrong, plain and simple.

True. Instead though of helping abortions, why not give the money for the other reasons. Then instead of helping with an abortion, as I said, give them a couple of tons of condoms?

[fredjacksonsan]

Agreed; make other options available. If you've decided that someone needs help, give them the help but don't put conditions on it.

[YogsVR4]

I'm for withholding all aid. Not a dime of taxpayer money to any other country for any reason. Citizens can buck up and send whatever they want.

I don't have any problem with any restrictions put on any 'donation' given to any country. They're free not to take a damn dime.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

True. Instead though of helping abortions, why not give the money for the other reasons. Then instead of helping with an abortion, as I said, give them a couple of tons of condoms?

Giving them condoms would not be consistent with our theocratic government. If you didn't know, the federal government ONLY funds abstinence-only sexual health education, a concept so rooted in religion and ignorance that it shouldn't even be considered as a policy.

Things like this make me embarassed to actually be associated with this country at times, that such ignorance actually makes its way into our foreign policy

[fredjacksonsan]

Yogs, by your reasoning it would be ok to give some money to a homeless woman. And demand sex before you would give it.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Giving them condoms would not be consistent with our theocratic government. If you didn't know, the federal government ONLY funds abstinence-only sexual health education, a concept so rooted in religion and ignorance that it shouldn't even be considered as a policy.

What's wrong with abstinence? I do think teaching that as a "this is the only thing you can do" is wrong. I believe though it should be taught that it's the best choice you could take. If you feel you don't want to though, then these are the best ways of safe sex to reduce AIDS, STDs, pregnancy, ect. This way, everybody is happy because it covers all bases.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Imposing your country's morality on another country is wrong; and not giving people the aid you would otherwise give them because of their own internal decision is wrong, plain and simple.

Though I agree with the whole 'imposing will' thing, it's OUR money. We don't HAVE to give the money to them. They can do whatever they want, just don't do it with OUR money.

[tenguzero]

The thing to note here, is the question of the principle behind the thing. Sure, we can put conditions on the money we're willing to give them for aid, however the focus is on how realistic those conditions are. I don't care if you're for abortion or against it -- the point of the piece is that the people in these countries WILL DO IT REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT. If anything, abortion counseling centers are a worthy cause, because at least you know they have the opportunity to go somewhere that will discuss it with them to possibly even AVOID ABORTIONS, as opposed to the parent(s)-in-question skipping the professional advice and just using their "best judgement" (which is clearly severely lacking, as evidenced by the high number of botched DIY abortions.)

I will say it again, refusing medical/research aid to a country because they don't adhere to one particular POV is the same as when a schoolteacher punishes the entire class because a couple kids won't shut the hell up. Sure it's perfectly within right to do so, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

[2strokebloke]

I think what's neat about this, is that another country is stepping up to the plate, and taking responsibility, instead of running away because they don't want to deal with it. There's no good reason the U.S. should provide aid to anybody, but if they don't somebody else will, and this demonstrates that the U.S. is not the superpower that will lead the rest of the world by the hand.
I think that's a far more important thought than whether or not it's right or wrong for th U.S. to base it's charity decisions on moral beliefs. It's because different people have different ideas, different beliefs, and different goals that the world continues to move instead of grinding to a halt. I don't see why somebody should hate the U.S. for this, as you can't please everybody all of the time, and you can't try to conform the whole world to your own system. If somebody else will help them then it's all for the better.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I think that's a far more important thought than whether or not it's right or wrong for th U.S. to base it's charity decisions on moral beliefs. It's because different people have different ideas, different beliefs, and different goals that the world continues to move instead of grinding to a halt. I don't see why somebody should hate the U.S. for this, as you can't please everybody all of the time, and you can't try to conform the whole world to your own system. If somebody else will help them then it's all for the better.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Yogs, by your reasoning it would be ok to give some money to a homeless woman. And demand sex before you would give it.

Thats a piss-poor moral equivelence. Going down that same path, would it be ok to give money to a homeless woman and stand by and watch as she used it to buy a gun and kill your son.


Of course you can make demands based on your gift. If they don't want to live up to the restrictions, DON'T TAKE IT. Go with hat in hand to someone else.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Of course you can make demands based on your gift.

There's a difference between a donation, and paying somebody to get a job done to your specification - in case you hadn't noticed.
Making demands based on gifts, is abusive. Not making a donation because you don't want/need to, is different than withholding aid because people aren't going to adopt policies that are unrealisitic, and worthless in the context of their situation and needs.