Suzy ALLCAPSLOCK! Get your Meds Adjusted! Abortion is Covered Here; Why Shouldn’t It Be Covered Elsewhere?

I was goofing off on Twitter after dinner to check news updates and other tweets from followers, those I follow, and yes, sometimes the ultra neo-con tweets for entertainment. This evening’s session on Twitter led me once again to Suzy ALLCAPSLOCK’s  ( Big Blue Wave if you must know).  In all honesty, even if Iggy were not talking about including abortion in aid to mothers and children, she, like so many other neo-cons suffer from Liberal Derangement Syndrome, but I digress.

Suzy is referring to Jane Taber’s article in the Grope & Fail, regarding Iggy calling on Stevie and the Harpercons to include abortion in their plan to help mothers and children to be proposed at the upcoming G8 summit in Muskoka.

Ignatieff wants to save lives by killing unborn babies. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense! Money you use to fund abortion is money that is taken away from life-affirming choices.

Ok, Suzy, once more, let me explain how funding abortions in poor countries ( or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will save lives.  These third world countries have higher instances of children dying before age 5 than in Western Europe (my guess: probably in other industrialized Countries as well) according to Unicef.

About 29,000 children under the age of five –  21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.

These children suffer and die due to lack of health care, food, medicine, clean water; the basic necessities of life. No doubt these children suffer and they surely end up dying before they’re fully grown.  If they live that long, their fate doesn’t improve. The cycle continues onto the next generation. Read more details from Unicef

What is one of the main reasons a woman would seek to have an abortion? Usually, financial.  They have no means of supporting a child: they don’t want a child to suffer poverty. In most industrialized countries, women are fortunate enough to have this option.

Let’s look at the life of the woman. How can abortion save their lives? Well, if one recalls history, long before abortions were legalized,  desperate women went to these back alley flop houses to have an unsterilized hatchet job by non-medical people; scammers out to make a buck. Another common, equally dangerous method was the old wire hanger. If desperate women had to resort to such things before legalized abortion in industrialized countries then what dangerous methods are desperate women in that part of the world using? What are they doing to themselves? I shutter to think of the horrible possibilities.

However, some just don’t seem to get it: including Stevie’s mouthpiece, Dimitri Soudas:

This has nothing to do with abortion, gay marriage or capital punishment. This is about saving lives of vulnerable children and mothers in the developing world. Saving lives of mothers and children should not be a political football. Mr. Ignatieff’s comments are sad and pathetic. Far too many lives have already been lost for want of relatively simple health care necessities such as clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as trained health workers to care for women and deliver babies. In June, under the Presidency of Canada, G-8 Leaders will be discussing the importance to combat maternal and infant mortality around the world.

Decisions will be made based on one clear objective, saving lives of vulnerable children and mothers in the developing world.

Unlike what Soudas, some blogging tories and neo-cons commenting over at Taber’s article in the Grope & Fail, I don’t think Iggy is just playing politics here, at least no more than Stevie trying to deflect attention away from his transgressions as of late.   He basically supports the Harpercons’ plan to make maternal health a key plank at the G8, except that he would like to see abortion play a part in all that.

Yes, there are some who argue most in the third world are religious or attached to their customs that they would never consider abortion. What about those who aren’t? Or even those who are, but are desperate? What if there was an option for them to have safe abortions done in clean facilities by health care professionals?

We can promote birth control and there are organizations who do promote birth control in developping nations.  That definitely should and must be continued, but if birth control doesn’t always work  the way it’s supposed to in western countries;  same problem would exist anywhere in the world.

Again, those who have followed me for sometime know that I’m not a fan of Iggy’s but he is asking the Harpercons to do the right thing all around.

Sadly, given Stevie and some of his MP’s draconian views on abortion, I don’t think he will do anything about that, not when criminalizing abortion is surely to be one of his goals if given his precious majority.

So, Suzy, abortion is covered by medicare here in Canada, why not include abortion funding in the third world countries where folks can benefit the most from it?  Cheer up Suzy, Blogging Tories and other neo-cons: I don’t like paying taxes for this senseless war in Afghanistan, installing government porn viewers in airports just to keep us all scared,  their extended vacation in shutting down parliament, Mike Porky Puffy Duffy’s expense account, corporate welfare and shouldering the tax burdon of many rich folks paying lawyers and bean counters to protect them from paying their share in taxes, but I’m dealing with that; you should deal with  publicly funded abortions.

For the record Suzy, Iggy is not advocating the killing of babies, poverty and its’ byproducts are doing a masterful job at killing babies and women extremely horrendous deaths with much suffering before hand.