Global Gag Rule

[Tom Paine]

We all know the Bush policy on abortion: abortion is bad. We all also know he has little to no chance of overturning Roe v Wade in America, as its become somewhat of an essential of American life.

However what some of you may not know, and what I did not until I read an article on it in the New Statesman this morning, is that America has a policy

that no U.S. family planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman’s life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country

(http://www.globalgagrule.org/index.htm)

The impact of this is immense; if any arm of an organisation breaks such a rule, it is forced to lose most of its funding, and this means it will probably be forced to close. Such closures are, again, problematic, jeapordising the health of millions, especially in AIDS-affected African nations, as these organisations are also the ones providing information on condoms and other contraceptives of this sort. Worse, his actions are counterproductive; the more unwanted pregnancies there are, the more abortions, with figures of about 19-20 million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide per year, and 97% of these are in developing countres. These kill 68,000 women a year, not to mention those they maim. Safer abortions would preserve many of these lives, or even just advice on contraceptives.

Is this deadly limitation on the freedom of speech of international and independant organisations politically tenable or morally correct? That's the question I want to ask you.

[Zeffen]

Who are you to say the President of the USA's own beliefs are 'bad'.

Just because a person has a different belief from you they are 'bad'. He was raised in the Church and actually has morals unlike most in D.C.

Why is he wrong and you are right? How can one mans belief be wrong? Is it because the belief is different from yours?

[mrjesushat]

Who are you to say the President of the USA's own beliefs are 'bad'.

He didn't say that.

Just because a person has a different belief from you they are 'bad'.

He didn't say that. Nor have I ever known him to say anything like this.

He was raised in the Church and actually has morals unlike most in D.C.

This statement amazes me. Are you not aware that George W. Bush has admitted to having been an alcoholic, and also has admitted to cocaine use? These are not typically Christian values in action. To say that Bush has morals, unlike "most in D.C.", would actually be to imply that most Washington politicians have never had drug and alcohol problems---a claim I'm certain that many would make, but which I would doubt on the basis of direct experience.

Why is he wrong and you are right? How can one mans belief be wrong? Is it because the belief is different from yours?

Ozymandias made no such claims. However, the point of this thread is to ask if this policy, based upon certain "beliefs" willingly represented by the current administration, are damaging and dangerous. Based upon the evidence which Ozymandias has provided us, it is clear that things would be better if the Bush White House were dedicated to educating people abroad, and helping to fund NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that fight to prevent the spread of AIDS while assisting with family planning.

I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that one of the key obstacles to development in "Third World" nations is the triune issue of high birth rates, high mortality rates, and lack of adequate social services such as health care and education.

Thus, if our "moral" Mr. Bush truly wishes to help those less fortunate, in accordance with Christian morality, he should perhaps address these issues with greater clarity and effectiveness of policy.

[Zeffen]

High birth rates are one of the main problems in developing nations. You made that statement. Also, since this forum was started to discuss abortion, I'll assume you want to abort all those "problem children" in those developing nations. Why do the 'intelligent' people always believe killing babies is a good solution.

[Tom Paine]

High birth rates are one of the main problems in developing nations. You made that statement. Also, since this forum was started to discuss abortion, I'll assume you want to abort all those "problem children" in those developing nations. Why do the 'intelligent' people always believe killing babies is a good solution.

Further assumptions. Any form of birth control, and this includes education as the evidence shows educated women have fewer children (in fact that's the most effective way to reduce birthrates), is needed. Most of these methods are done by family planning agencies which are gagged by the US, furthering the problem thanks to the gag rule. I might add that I don't believe that we are referring to killing babies, but rather aborting foeti, a different thing.

[ErikinWest]

Further assumptions. Any form of birth control, and this includes education as the evidence shows educated women have fewer children (in fact that's the most effective way to reduce birthrates), is needed.

While it is true that generally speaking education lowers birth rates, there are exceptions. And higher birth rates are not necessarily a bad thing.

Erik

[mrjesushat]

High birth rates are one of the main problems in developing nations.

Yes. Along with high mortality rates due to starvation, privation, and socio-economic chaos created by unstable political regimes. But lets focus on the topic at hand.

You made that statement.

Actually, the evidence is what makes this "statement".

Also, since this forum was started to discuss abortion, I'll assume you want to abort all those "problem children" in those developing nations.

You may so assume. But this is not something I am interested in, nor is it the stated agenda of any major, recognized organization in question, to my knowledge. In fact, this is a fairly monstrous accusation.

Why do the 'intelligent' people always believe killing babies is a good solution.

As an 'intelligent' person, I can honestly say that I had no idea that I believed this. Further, baby-killing is not synonymous with abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, the procedure itself has no moral value, positively or negatively. The reason or cause for said abortion may be lacking in moral intent, but that is a separate issue.

The matter at hand remains whether or not it is reasonable and/or just for the Bush Administration to deprive of funds those organizations whose specific intent is to raise standards of living and improve conditions by educating and providing health care.

I'll await your topical reply.

[Tom Paine]

Did I say he was bad? Did I even say the impact of his beliefs as he has put them into practice is bad? Or is that a conclusion you have leapt to because of the figures?

[Zeffen]

"We all know the Bush policy on abortion: its bad"

Is this not what you wrote? You have already draw your conclusion. Whether I agree or disagree with you does not matter. You have already shown that you are too hard headed to debate any moral issue seriously. You will not be convinced by things like facts.

[Tom Paine]

The Bush policy on aborion is that its bad, as most would interpret that first line to mean, and as it was written to mean.

I'm intersted to discover where you draw youre hard-headed conclusions from, since you have not yet presented facts.

[bdh]

Is this deadly limitation on the freedom of speech of international and independant organisations

They are not independent organizations if they depend on money from others, ergot, they are not free to do as they choose. Ultimately, they are the agents of those who provide them funding. If they do not act in line with the wishes of the donor, then the donor can just put the money somewhere else.

No organization, no matter how just, is entitled to funds. Though it may seem unfair, the fact that organizations are accountable and are not guaranteed funding is an essential aspect for any charitable organization. If its not working out the way it should this time, I'd rather have that than complete unaccountability.

[Lusted]

High birth rates are one of the main problems in developing nations. You made that statement. Also, since this forum was started to discuss abortion, I'll assume you want to abort all those "problem children" in those developing nations. Why do the 'intelligent' people always believe killing babies is a good solution.

Read through the recent "morality of Abortion" thread in the ethos for some of the arguments on both sides of the debate.

[Tankbuster]

What disturbs me is that your main argument on why the law is bad, is that aids-affected African countries would suffer under it. I'm sorry but no country is paying attention to Africa... Want an example? Countries averagely spend 2.0 % of their income to research on global warming. Global warming by human interference is not yet proved and 90% of the ******** around global warming is assumption, gambling and hypothetical worst case scenario thinking.
Countries averagely spend 0.9 % of their income to problems in Africa and other development countries. Problems who are NOT hypothetically.

You might want to find yourself another argument...

[Zeffen]

Wow, everybody got upset when I stated the obvious. Abortion is the murder of a baby. Now some of you probably disagree with that. This is due to the fact that people do not like to be told the truth if it hurts their feelings. Killing a baby before it is born is murder. Do not try to pretty it up with terms like 'foeti'.
The people who believe abortion should go on uncontrolled are the same ones who should never ever speak out against genocide.
By 'developing nations', I believe you are speaking of those nations in Africa. Africans are not Europeans, right? Therefore you want to 'educate' them in how to kill their babies, but the correct way. So, you want a mass African Baby Genocide.
You'll probably call me crazy and will refuse to listen to me. This is because you feel guilty. You are guilty for you belief that killing babies is OK. This is the same reason that you shift the arguements from abortion to 'education, and birth control'.

[Richard]

Wow, everybody got upset when I stated the obvious. Abortion is the murder of a baby. Now some of you probably disagree with that. This is due to the fact that people do not like to be told the truth if it hurts their feelings. Killing a baby before it is born is murder. Do not try to pretty it up with terms like 'foeti'. .

I believe technically it is a foetus until it leaves the mother (correct me if I'm wrong).

[the Black Prince]

on what grounds do yuo base that assumption. thats a provocative claim to make based on nothing said by the poster.

I for one am in favour of a womans right to choose, but that doesn't mean to say that disabled or genetically ill mothers should always have their pregnancies terminated. Thats a rather flawed assumption. If a mother who has a heritary illness wishes to have her child aborted, that is her decision and no one elses. equally so if she wishes to carry the child to term. Thats what being pro-choice means. Forcing abortions on people who don't want them is equally as bad as refusing abortions for people who both want and/or need them.

As for the Global Gag Rule, i don't think its justified or necessary. Its no different than a country saying to all NGOs who recieve foreign aid from it that in order to recieve any AID at all, they must hand out free condoms to all at every centre they operate.
Forcing your moral values on other people and threatening to withhold vital aid if you don't accept is just plain wrong. Its like saying we'll help the poor, but only some of the poor, the ones we like, and don't smell that bad

[bdh]

Forcing your moral values on other people and threatening to withhold vital aid if you don't accept is just plain wrong. Its like saying we'll help the poor, but only some of the poor, the ones we like, and don't smell that bad

Threatening to withhold! Thats absolutley inane. People's right control their resources is fundamental to the existance of society as well as the regulation of NGO's in the first place. If that right can be trumped, you face issues complete unaccountability. If you don't agree with it, fine, but don't lambast their very right to do it.

[Erik]

The impact of this is immense; if any arm of an organisation breaks such a rule, it is forced to lose most of its funding

No, it will only loose it's US funding.
And since we are talking foreign NGO's, and the US contributes only a small percentage of all the foreign aid, it's effect should not be exaggerated.

It's still a shame the US government is so short-sighted though.

Want an example? Countries averagely spend 2.0 % of their income to research on global warming. (..) Countries averagely spend 0.9 % of their income to problems in Africa and other development countries.

You got sources for those figures?
Because I think they are way off.

I think the west agreed to spend .7% on foreign aid, but almost all countries are spend less than that.
And research on global warming? I would be surprised if research in any field exceeds .1%.

[Tom Paine]

Wow, everybody got upset when I stated the obvious. Abortion is the murder of a baby. Now some of you probably disagree with that. This is due to the fact that people do not like to be told the truth if it hurts their feelings. Killing a baby before it is born is murder. Do not try to pretty it up with terms like 'foeti'.
The people who believe abortion should go on uncontrolled are the same ones who should never ever speak out against genocide.

Of course! Because making sure abortion is legal, saving over 50,000 women per annum, is all about ensuring people die, no? because abortion happens anyway, it just seriously damages the woman as well as killing the foetus (the perfectly and widely accepted medical term, not just something made up)

By 'developing nations', I believe you are speaking of those nations in Africa. Africans are not Europeans, right? Therefore you want to 'educate' them in how to kill their babies, but the correct way. So, you want a mass African Baby Genocide.
You'll probably call me crazy and will refuse to listen to me. This is because you feel guilty. You are guilty for you belief that killing babies is OK. This is the same reason that you shift the arguements from abortion to 'education, and birth control'.

Or maybe we will say you are wrong, talking in misconception, and ignoring the issue at hand, which is removing a variety of life-saving programmes from people, and increasing dangerous and illegal backstreet abortions, by denying aid from those who provide safe abortions or even lobby for its legalisation.

No, it will only loose it's US funding.
And since we are talking foreign NGO's, and the US contributes only a small percentage of all the foreign aid, it's effect should not be exaggerated.

It's still a shame the US government is so short-sighted though.

Yes, very little... Usaid provides no more than 40% of the global aid for population programmes, including family planning organisations. That's the vast plurality.

[Zeffen]

Is that a real figure. Will they really lose 40% of their funding?