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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5