Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the price-of-democracy dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

In the heat of a late September day in Mozambique, southern Africa, we started filming a meeting of young charity volunteers. They had poured heart and soul into an ambitious project aimed at combating HIV and spreading a message about contraception in the province of Gaza.

Then, out of the blue, and as our cameras rolled, came an unexpected announcement: the volunteers' work was to end because of a new policy from the United States.

Under US President Donald Trump's "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" policy, any foreign aid organisation that wants US funds cannot "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries".

Sebastiao Muthisse from AMODEFA, the Mozambican Association for Family Development, outlined the dilemma the aid organisation faced. They were not prepared to sign Trump's so-called 'global gag rule 'forbidding mention of abortion, and, as a result, projects had to close. For the youngsters it appeared to make no sense. Surely lack of advice on family planning would lead to unwanted pregnancies? Why should they be censored when it came to speaking about abortion?

AMODEFA, a member association of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has worked in Mozambique since 1989. Now, the stance both organisations have taken on the Trump rule means they face losing millions of dollars in US aid, and for AMODEFA in Mozambique two-thirds of their total budget, a sum of $2m.

It's led to hard decisions, particularly when it comes to critical work on HIV prevention.

In a suburb of the capital Maputo, we met Palmira Tembe. Members of Palmira's family have died; five grandchildren are now dependent on her, along with her 13 year-old-son Nelson.

AMODEFA has received funds to help people like Palmira disclose to their families that they have HIV, and to support their care. Palmira told us that prior to the charity's involvement she couldn't tell her son Nelson why he was sick. Now both take HIV medicine together.

We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have – they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status. In a country where it's estimated that up to 13 percent of people aged between 15 and 49 live with HIV, the support of organisations like AMODEFA can be a lifeline. But the work AMODEFA does with families like Palmira's is under threat, due to their refusal to sign up to the Trump policy.

Project leader Dr Marcelo Kantu is concerned about the future. "We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have - they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status," he told us.

Visiting those supported by charity work in Mozambique, there was a recurring question: With the heavy price organisations could pay for defying the new US policy, why not forget about the abortion issue, sign up to the Trump rule, and keep American aid money?

Activists and charity workers told us it was not only about upholding a principle of choice, it was about free speech and a law introduced in Mozambique to save lives.

Mozambique liberalised its law on abortion in 2014, not least due to the high numbers of maternal deaths from illegal terminations. Since then, abortion is a legal option up until 12 weeks of pregnancy, and in cases of rape or incest during the first 16 weeks.

But there is Mozambique's new law on the one hand, and the Trump policy on the other.

janrinok writes:

It has long been understood that aid donations are sometimes an integral part of foreign policy; aid can be given in the hope that the recipient will favour the donor further along the line, perhaps with trade agreements or regional political support.

But is this a case of the donor wanting to influence a law that has been passed by a democratically elected government? Should aid be used as a way of dictating 'democracy' to follow the donor's views rather than allowing each democratic nation to evolve into the nation that its own citizens want?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:21PM (12 children)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:21PM (#607818)

    You're very concisely ignoring the entire stance of the Other Side.

    The other side says that this entity is alive, and that you're murdering it. You're comparing a living entity to an inanimate object. You'd really compare a kid to a car? How long does that comparison hold? Can we abort for the first five years, but once they start school then they're protected? The other side says that it's a kid that you're trying to abort.

    The Other Side is very much trying to make the rules for humans apply to things that are still utterly dependent on their creator, that would die if their creator abandon them -- like a three year old would. The argument of one side is "If it has to be inside me and I can't get rid of it I get to destroy it if I want," and the argument of the other side is "If it's stuck in you and you can't get rid of it, too damn bad, you're not killing an X-year-old human!" "Child welfare laws prohibit this action!"

    It's as though you're intentionally misrepresenting things. The whole argument is a matter of "When does life start." You're acting ignorant. Not to say I support them, but you're just acting dumb.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Justin Case on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:02PM (5 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:02PM (#607826) Journal

    this entity [fetus] is alive, and that you're murdering it

    Oh come on! Most men produce somewhere around a billion sperm a week. They are human and alive. Shall we pass a law requiring women to receive and nurture every one of them?

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by terrab0t on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:29AM (1 child)

      by terrab0t (4674) on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:29AM (#607881)

      Do spill them on the dusty ground? You heathen! [youtu.be]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:26AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:26AM (#607944)

      You do realize that until very recently masturbation was illegal [theguardian.com]? And there is a push to make it that way again? [dailycaller.com]

      But that doesn't actually help you. All you wanted was to color a child right's issue into a women's rights issue. Every one else is just an asshole, isn't it?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:23PM (#607975)

        You do realize that until very recently masturbation in public was illegal [theguardian.com]?

        There. FTFY.

        And there is a push to make it that way again [dailycaller.com]? [dailycaller.com]

        From TFA:

        Democratic Texas State Rep. Jessica Farrar introduced a bill that would fine men for any “masturbatory emissions,” according to a Sunday report from The Hill.

        The fine could reach $100 for each “emission” that takes place that doesn’t directly involve a medical matter or creating a child, calling each incident “an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life,” according to the bill.

        The bill, however, isn’t meant to be serious. Farrar wants to shed light on what she views are unjust laws that govern women’s health issues.

        “Although HB 4260 is satirical, there is nothing funny about current health care restrictions for women and the very real legislation that is proposed every legislative session,” Farrar wrote on Facebook. “Women are not laughing at state-imposed regulations and obstacles that interfere with their ability to legally access safe healthcare, and subject them to fake science and medically unnecessary procedures.”

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:05PM

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:05PM (#608890) Journal

      > Oh come on! Most men produce somewhere around a billion sperm a week

      given the number of eggs, I think that even the most darwinian hardliners will concede it's a matter of redundancy.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:21PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:21PM (#607831)

    Fucking leads to pregnancy, maybe stop fucking and the prooblem will go away.

    I absolutely accept that your solution works with full compliance. Do you have one that works in the real world, where we all live, where full compliance is both impossible to expect and enforce?

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 10 2017, @01:47AM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday December 10 2017, @01:47AM (#607856) Journal

    You're comparing a living entity to an inanimate object.

    So? A termite is a "living entity." So is a mosquito. So is a bacteria that causes severe illness. We have no qualms about terminating their lives.

    You'd really compare a kid to a car? How long does that comparison hold? Can we abort for the first five years, but once they start school then they're protected? The other side says that it's a kid that you're trying to abort.

    Let's go further, shall we? Let's compare the fetus to an ADULT HUMAN! At that point, what rights/responsibilities would hold?

    Philosopher/ethicist Judith Jarvis Thompson already thoroughly examined that argument back in 1971 [wikipedia.org]. (The Wikipedia summary is okay, but I'd encourage reading the original article.) The assumption of the Right seems to hinge on the idea that "oh, it's a living person" automatically means abortion is wrong. Thompson considers that assumption in the context of an unwanted pregnancy, and she has some pretty interesting arguments about why you may still not have an obligation to keep another person alive in that case.

    You may not agree with her arguments (and many philosophers have made other arguments since, both following her logic and offering other analogies), but it's not a clear-cut case if you say "it's a living entity" or even "it's a full human person with normal human rights." It still doesn't necessarily follow logically that abortion is wrong.

    The whole argument is a matter of "When does life start."

    Actually, not really. The whole argument is a matter of people -- on BOTH sides -- not really thinking through a lot of their assumptions rationally.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:47AM (2 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:47AM (#607929) Journal

    "You're very concisely ignoring the entire stance of the Other Side."

    No, I'm not. I'm saying that if they think it is a child and should not be aborted and will tell you you CANNOT abort it, THEY should be responsible for it.
    They think the child is worth having, but NOOO, they won't raise it: you who don't want it or cannot afford it has to raise it because the morally constipated say so. Nyah!

    If a woman is repeatedly raped, should she be forced to raise a child she doesn't want because it will represent the attack and attacker for the rest of her life? Are you really that fucked?

    You want her to keep it? You fucking raise it and pay for it.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:30AM (1 child)

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:30AM (#607945) Homepage Journal

      What is your stance on men who don't want to pay child support?

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:14AM (#607965)

        If those men didn't have a child with a partner I'm totally in favour of their stance. If they did, the mother made a bad choice. You shouldn't have a child until you've fully domesticated you primary earner, after that they'll do literally anything for you. After than you may choose the have a child by any one who meets your selection criteria. It seems that men who have been domesticated really don't like it when men who haven't behave accordingly.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:36PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:36PM (#608064) Journal

    The other side says that this entity is alive, and that you're murdering it.

    So they are against hunting, right?