New foreign policy: every sperm is sacred

I believe this is already being discussed here.  Mr. Moriarity is right though.

Well I thought it was more of a matter of being reasoned with than schmoozed, but if the end result is the same I won't quibble over defining the process.

I had two reasons for requesting that parallel threads on this topic be allowed to exist.

The first of these has to do with the fact that the thread oldgoat has linked to exists within the feminism forum and the tendency of threads there to be derailed into arguments over whether or not any given thread is going to be governed by "safe space" considerations and whether or not it is appropriate for males to be posting in them. I see no reason to believe this topic is/was fated to be derailed in such a fashion -- but I have been surprised at the twists and turns some topics have taken resulting in just such a derailment. I also saw no reason to preemptively close this thread, which had actually been initiated earlier than the other -- there are enough threads that come into being that, to use a phrase I just saw Kropotkin use in a different context, attract posters in numbers that can be counted on two or three fingers, so if a single duplicate thread fades into obscurity, so be it. (Quite a different matter from those instances where five or six threads on the same topic spring into being within a few minutes.)

Perhaps Maysie will chime in at some point explaining why she initiated the linked thread, and her choice of forums... it is quite likely that she simply hadn't noticed this one, it is only 12 minutes older than the one she started.

My second reason has to do with wanting to expand the parameters of the debate, and I would prefer to do without running the risk of being misinterpreted as trying to diminish the argument that ruling out funding for family planning is a direct assault on women. The risks of early, multiple and potentially unwanted pregnancies have and will be spelled out by others much more competently than I can -- and I share their disgust with Harper/Cannon in ignoring these risks to women's health. At the same time, I think it is important to remind people of the importance of barrier method birth control (condoms) in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. It has to go hand in hand with the arguments about reproductive choices. An "initiative to improve the health of mothers" that refuses to fund information about family planning and fails to assist in providing effective methods of birth control, particularly condoms, is a doomed initiative - not only will it result in more maternal deaths from complications arising from early, multiple pregnancies, it is guaranteed to be accompanied by an increase in HIV infections. Of course concerns about poor women living far away are not foremost in the minds of the Conservative base, so I guess there is really no upside for Mr. Cannon to take the time to think through the broader implications of his incredibly ill-conceived initiative.

I think Stargazer, writing in the parallel thread, summed up my feelings quite well:

Quote:

There are no words to describe the deep feeling of hate I feel for Harper and his fundie fucking friends.

Oopsie, not only did I not notice this thread, the title is better than mine. Although having that particular song in my head is really not good for anyone.

Frig.

bagkitty, I hear your argument about expanding the parameters of this issue to a broader look at sexual and reproductive health, so I'm fine to keep both threads open. The crystal clear agenda of the Conservative's action in this context is aimed at women, and the reproductive health and safety (or lack thereof) available to women in poorer countries.

That said, disallowing the distribution and use of condoms does of course dovetail with most countries' lack of prioritizing of the cheapest and easiest way to help stop the increasing rates of HIV infection, and also fits within a conservative and anti-sex agenda. It's like a 2 for 1 conservative moron agenda. Lovely.