Melinda Gates has decided to devote her life to propaganda for contraception. Described as a practising Catholic, she tells the Guardian that while there are amazing things about the Catholic religion, she wants to keep women alive and not let babies die. Contraception will apparently achieve those goals. She has wrestled with this and is now going to make $560 million available over the next eight years to promote artificial birth control.The Grauniad article originally said that there were 200 billion women who wanted to have contraceptives but has now put that down to 200 million. (The combox has the usual slew of hate-filled anti-Catholic comment.)
Would that the Gates millions could be spent on genuine development projects rather than attempting to make women in developing countries victims of the anti-life philosophy that has been such a disastrous failure in the West.
3 comments:
Pope Melinda I is in town, with no one from the idiot BBC daring to question her assertion that Catholic doctrine is, or at the very least ought to be, determined by opinion polls taken among Americans who happen to identify themselves as Catholics. It is likewise taken as read that the problem with the world is that it has proles and darkies in it. Heaven forfend that anyone might mention the global redistribution of wealth, or the improvement of African women's healthcare by providing them with, oh, you know, doctors, nurses and midwives.
The invariable increase in abortions wherever there are contraceptives; the horrific side effects of the Pill, of women poisoning themselves so as to be permanently available for the sexual gratification of men; the obvious dangers of sticking a coil or a diaphragm up oneself; the total ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections from Botswana to Birmingham, from Malawi to Manchester, from Ghana to Glasgow, from Cameroon to Cardiff: none of this must ever be mentioned. Did someone say something about "informed choice"?
Years ago, I remember mentioning the Conservatives to one of this country's best-known pro-life and pro-family activists. She all but spat with contempt: "I spent 18 years campaigning against them." As, indeed, she had done, and most especially against Margaret Thatcher, the abomination of whose name in such circles is matched only by the abomination of the name of Tony Blair. A traditional Catholic, my interlocutor's only objection to Labour was that "it used to be based on Methodism, but it isn't anymore."
And now, the party against whom she fought so valiantly for 18 years is back with a vengeance. Labour should make clear that, in emulation of Saint Melinda, it will cease the direct funding of abortion as part of the overseas aid budget, something that would in fact reduce that budget dramatically, so very much of it is spent on that procedure.
We could then get to work with facts such as the invariable increase in abortions wherever there are contraceptives. Our reasonable expectation could be to reframe the debate entirely, in terms such as the global redistribution of wealth, and the improvement of African women's healthcare by providing them with, oh, you know, doctors, nurses and midwives.
I agree 100% with David Lindsay. Whatever more can one possibly say?
Is it news that rich women are all for condoms and contraceptives and abortions for poor women? It has been so since the beginning; and more so in the past decades. They want the pleasure without the responsibilities.
Post a Comment