Questionable Motives

April 27, 2010

Why should we be ashamed of respecting religious belief in the public domain?

Canada is hosting a G8 summit and wants to promote a child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries. But that will not include any money for funding abortion.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the health initiative should include access to safe and legal abortion. Why? Because safe abortions reduces women mortality – a fundamental concern when addressing issues about about child and maternal health-care. So access to therapeutic abortions is a health concern.

According to the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women by 189 participating countries and more than 2100 non-governmental organizations, the resolution passed that access to family planning, safe and legal abortion and maternal health, are essential to achieving gender equality. The UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies (TMBs) have recognized that access to these essential reproductive health services is rooted in international human rights obligations. The Beijing PFA (Platform For Action) highlighted the impact of unsafe abortion on women’s lives and health and the need to reduce recourse to abortion through expanded family planning services. It urges governments to review punitive measures against women who have undergone illegal abortions and calls for women’s access to quality post-abortion care. In turn, over the last decade, human rights bodies and regional and national courts have increasingly recognized that restrictions
on access to safe and legal abortion interfere with women’s enjoyment of their human rights.

So access to abortions according to the UN is a human rights concern.

But rather than follow this previously agreed to PFA, Canadian officials say they will instead focus the G8 plan on other measures aimed at improving the health of women and children in poor countries — including safe drinking water and vaccination programs, an important issue about child and maternal health to be sure. But why not therapeutic abortion?

Access to therapeutic abortion (outside of Canada) according to Harper and his Canadian government is about “clarifying family planning,” which simply does not include any discussion about abortion. One must wonder why when it is widely considered both a health-care concern and a human rights concern. According to Harper, it is not a concern at all and certainly not one open to debate.

This omission is a cop out, a capitulation not to the best practices of modern medicine nor furthering the human rights of children and their mothers. It is a tacit nod of agreement to the religious belief that abortion under any circumstances is wrong. By refusing to fund abortion outside of the country, the Canadian government’s inaction supports the bizarre idea that a zygote is of greater value than is the life of a fully developed mother. This position simply ignores (or at least finds perfectly acceptable) maternal mortality when therapeutic abortions are unavailable. What lies behind the politics of abortion is neither any kind of informed debate about why it is a necessary part of health-care or a necessary plank in furthering maternal human rights; it is a position in favour of appeasing religious sensibilities at home about this controversial topic. And how informed is that sensibility by comparison? I think not at all. It’s simply an uninformed, unjustified belief that has no place at the table of discussion about child and maternal health-care.

And do religious sensibilities stop in areas of public health care?

Umm, no. Are we surprised?

In January (2010), the Ontario government introduced changes to the sex education component of the public school curriculum: Grade 1 children were to be taught to identify genitalia using the correct words, such as penis, vagina and testicle, Grade 5 children were to be taught to identify parts of the reproductive system and describe how the body changes during puberty, and in Grade 7, the plan was to teach kids how to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Children in grade 7 are usually 12 years old.

CBC News reported the following:

Religious groups objected to the revised curriculum and raised a voluble campaign against it earlier this week. They promised a huge demonstration on the front lawn of Queen’s Park (the Ontario provincial legislature) to protest the sex education changes.

“It is unconscionable to teach eight-year-old children same-sex marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Charles McVety, head of the Canada Christian College. “It is even more absurd to subject sixth graders to instruction on the pleasures of masturbation, vaginal lubrication, and 12-year-olds to lessons on oral sex and anal intercourse.”

So we know what McVety thinks is unconscionable and absurd in sex education at these grades and seems quite content to oppose any curriculum that promotes healthy sexuality, counteracts schoolyard misinformation, prevents teen pregnancy, gives information that shows how to avoid STDs, and so on. What does he offer in return as an alternative that still meets the goals of informing ht epublic about these issues? Nada. On what, then, does he base his opposition? His religious belief. And how is that uninformed religious belief comparable to the kind of consideration to what informs best practices in education? On what basis of knowledge is a religious belief about sex education equally worthy of consideration than curriculum development done by professionals and informed by evidence?

Only because the public tolerates unjustified religious interference and unwarranted intrusions in the public domain does ignorance and bigotry of uninformed religious belief become a potent political force, enough to adversely affect informed public policy in education to the likes of the sanctimonious self-righteous morons like McVety and his ignorant ilk, as well as adversely affect funding for promoting the health-care and human rights of women in developing nations. That’s the ongoing gift (and legacy) of religious belief in action in the public domain: promoting ignorance over knowledge, belief over health, misogyny over human rights.

These weak-kneed governments should be ashamed of themselves for appeasing the ignorant and foolish among us (including those within these parties) for political gain. That political behaviour – supposedly done in the name of good governance – is what is  truly unconscionable and absurd. For when we grant guanocephalic clerics and their supporters a place at the table of determining public policy like education and foreign policy aid because of some warped idea that the representatives of the public owe respect to religious beliefs of the few, we are damaging the welfare of all.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. With regard to abortion – I think the issue your government officials will have is related to conducting of abortions in a safe and clean environement. If this is their reason for not debating the issues then they should say so.

    I can understand why this would make it logistically difficult – performing operations in countries that need access to safe drinking water as a priority must be quite a challenge. In addition, there are probably health and safety issues relating to the medical staff who undertake these operations; the ignorance levels within the general population (the mob) related to such procedures is likely to be quite high due to lack of education. It is also likely that superstitious beliefs prevail in developing countries due to the tyranny of everyday life (“my goat died this morning, because that doctor does abortions – god is angry, I will now kill doctor to save my goats!”) – which would further endanger those performing the operations.

    Education is key here – my preference always will be the prevention of unwanted pregnancy over abortion, mainly because of the waste of medical resources. A further benefit of education is that people learn about disease, and their prevention of through the use of condoms.

    With regard to sex education – for me the only controversial issue about the policy is the ages. I think the innocence of children should be protected for as long as possible – that is to say children should remain children. But as usual, the experiences I have of child innocence are of my own. It would be interesting to see the statistics and methodologies on which these age classifications are based to see the trending to help people judge if the ages set by the legislation are representative of fact – I am guessing it probably is for most people, but it would be reassuring to know that the government has done its homework, and it certainly helps with the public debate.

    i.e. we set this age group in the legislation because:

    – teachers said x,y,z
    – doctors said, x,y,z
    – children questioned answered x,y,z
    – adults questioned answered x,y,z
    – adult parents answered x,y,z

    That way – those who protest at least understand what the legislation is based on before they make a futile attempt to overturn it.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 27, 2010 @ 12:04 pm | Reply

    • I think the issue your government officials will have is related to conducting of abortions in a safe and clean environement (sic).

      That issue doesn’t seem to have caused problems with other G7 countries. I know you’d like to think well of the Canadian government and are willing to give them this break, but don’t. Stating policy without rhyme or reason is a harbinger of a policy that can not be (reasonably) defended. It reminds me of those dress-wearing guys in funny hats led by that infallible dress-wearing guy with the really funny hat over there in Rome.

      And of course age appropriateness is an issue for education. To find out when the appropriate age is… let’s not go with the professional advice of people who work with children centered around age-appropriate learning… Ooh, I know… let’s go ask a cleric and determine our educational response on his religious beliefs!

      ?

      Comment by tildeb — April 27, 2010 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  2. Hello! I’ve been following your weblog for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Houston Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!

    Comment by click here — July 6, 2013 @ 12:06 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: