New Pope don't rock

[M Holmes]

Nick Medford writes:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:44:51 +0100, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> >Paul Mather writes:
> >
> >> I just read yesterday on the Grauniad that the US (at the urging of
> >> Bush) has blocked the addition of certain abortion pills from the UN
> >> list of "essential medicines."  It's estimated that this will sentence
> >> approximately 68,000 women in poor countries to die every year from
> >> complications of having surgical abortions in poor operating conditions
> >> or using unsafe practices.
> >
> >Oh come on. It won't sentence anyone to anything. They could respond by
> >just not having an abortion.
>
> Yes, it's so simple, isn't it?

The abortion debate? Nope, it's horrendously complicated, which is why I
don't think dumb logic like:

"X won't pay for Y's abortion pill" implies

"X wants to force Y to have a backstreet abortion"

are a useful contribution either to that debate, or a list about rock
music.  Call me fussy, but sometimes I can't let dumb logic pass without
letting off a shot.

> In fact one of the major uses of the "abortion pill" in southern Africa (and
> probably other places as well, I just know more about SA) is to induce
> termination of pregnancy in girls who have become pregnant as a result of
> rape

Which is IMHO a Good Thing, but a lot of people do think that abortion
is a Bad Thing and I see no good reason to force them to pay for
abortions.

> something which is horrfiyingly common in many areas. The withdrawal
> of this option will indeed be sentencing these girls to either a) dodgy
> "bush medicine" surgery as Paul outlined, or b) becoming the mother of a
> "rape baby". Quite a choice.

It's a horrible world indeed, but consider whether it would be improved
by forcing people to pay for something they abhor.

FoFP