New Pope don't rock

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 18:44 +0100, M Holmes 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. Unless "sentence" is used in the context of
> > "We made car protection a priority, thus sentencing erstwhile car
> > thieves to the more dangerous pursuit of robbery".
> >
> > There are arguments both pro and anti abortion. The above isn't one of
> > them.

[stuff bordering on insult elided...]

> The fact is that denying a safer medical treatment will knowingly put
> patients using the more dangerous one at greater risk

Nobody is denying the treatment.  What's been proposed is simply that it
isn't provided on the taxpayer's dime.  Since many taxpayers have great
ethical objections (I'm not particularly one of them) to abortion, I
think that's entirely reasonable.

> I'm not going to get into one of your debates on BOC-L.

Fairy Nuff. Let's drop it then.

> Looking back at the genesis of this entire thread, I suddenly feel the
> victim of an elaborate troll.

Not by me. I just said that the Pope don't rock. The last thing I'd have
brought into it is abortion. I don't like either side of that argument.

FoFP