ABORTION

Apparently, some time in the recent past, there was some debate about abortion in Canada.  I am wondering when this debate occurred.  Anyway, it seems to be a sensitive issue in Canada.  Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1988 (perhaps this was the debate I'm hearing about, which would mean it occurred before I was born), and it is funded by the government (excluding in New Brunswick).  Last year, during the G8 summit in Toronto, Stephen Harper said that Canada would not fund abortions in foreign nations.

Harper has since been insisting he doesn’t want to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada. But many have noted the contradiction between a foreign policy that rejects abortion for women in developing countries and Canadian laws that give women here access to abortions paid by government insurance.

I don't see any contradiction here.  By that logic, Canadian taxpayers would fund social services and infrastructure in developing countries, in addition to many other things.  Anyway, Harper's statement prompted this:

The Liberal Party, the main opposition to Harper’s Conservatives, has tried to make the most of the issue. Led by their struggling leader, Michael Ignatieff, it tried to pass a motion in parliament demanding that the government “refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States.” 

I love it when lefties use the term "right-wing" as if it were an insult.  Anyway, that motion failed because anti-abortion liberal MP's didn't vote (in Canada, MP's must vote along party lines, something I find stupid).

Anyway, my reason for bringing this up is that I wanted to write a post on abortion.  I would argue that any abortion committed after life begins is murder.  I am unsure whether there is scientific consensus on when life begins, but, I would argue that life begins at conception based on the fact that the when the sperm, which contains 23 chromosomes, and the ovum, which contains 23 chromosomes, are combined, you get the 46 chromosomes that constitute the individual.  However, I do have some problems with that reasoning, because that would mean that killing a zygote is murder, and a zygote (which is a cell), is not really a person.  And, while a zygote is a distinct organism, so is a deer (for example).  Personally, I have no moral issues with killing a deer.  So, if a zygote isn't a human, why should I have any moral issues with killing one?  To me, that is semantic, and a debate best left up to ethicists.  To avoid such ethical issues, it is better to simply say that life begins at conception, because it certainly doesn't begin by going through the birth canal (unless that is some sort of magic portal, which I don't think it is).    

Screw Diabetics

Apparently, Vancouver's public health authority believes catering to crack addicts is more important than catering to diabetics.  A new program in Vancouver will provide crack addicts with free crack pipes.  Vancouver is also the location of a controversial program that provides free needles to heroin addicts.  From CTV:

It's part of the city's harm-reduction strategy that seeks to reduce the transmission of disease while ensuring health-care and social workers are able to interact with hard-to-reach drug addicts. Currently, the city distributes clean mouth pieces for crack pipes, but not the pipes themselves.

"We want to do it in a way that we can evaluate this, because there's a couple of questions I hope we can answer by doing this," says Dr. Patricia Daly, the medical health officer for Vancouver Coastal Health.

"And not just about demand and numbers, but can we use this as an engagement strategy like we do with our other harm-reduction initiatives. If you can deliver them (harm-reduction programs) in a way where you can get people into other services, that's very beneficial."

Unlike needle-exchange programs for injection drugs, programs to ensure users who smoke crack are using the drug safely are uneven across the country and, in some cases, non-existent. That's despite a growing body of evidence that smoking crack cocaine increases the risk of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.

In a small handful of cities, including Calgary and Winnipeg, local health authorities pass out crack pipes. Others prefer to only hand out mouth pieces, which users can place on their own pipes to avoid exposing themselves to others' saliva and blood.

And in others still, the job of distributing either mouth pieces or pipes is left to local community groups.

That uneven approach is needlessly putting crack users at risk, say experts and advocacy groups, who argue crack-pipe distribution should be a standard tool in every provincial and municipal drug strategy.

The widespread use of narcotics such as heroin and cocaine leads me to believe either education on the dangers of narcotics use is insufficient or a lot of people are just plain stupid.  Having said that, I am not completely opposed to this program.  Given the way Canada's healthcare system is structured, this makes sense if it reduces the rates of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, which would therefore reduce the costs associated with treating those diseases.  I am strongly opposed to the program ideologically, but it seems to be the pragmatic thing to do (that is, as long as it saves money).  I think, if money is going to be spent at all, it should be spent on educating children on the dangers of drug abuse (which it already is).

If I were to allow my ideology to dictate my approach to this problem, the solution I would propose would be to allow the crackheads to pay for the consequences of their stupidity on their own.  What responsibility to taxpayers have to pay for other people's mistakes?

Simply put, I am outraged at the prospect of paying for someone else’s terrible choice.  This is one reason I am opposed to universal healthcare; people who make terrible decisions and do not properly care for their health are drains on the system.  That goes for drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, overweight people, and people who practice unsafe sex, among others.  In an ideal private healthcare system, these people would have to pay for their own mistakes with higher insurance costs, thus proving them with a disincentive to continue their unhealthy lifestyle.  As for the specifics on what to do with crack addicts (and other narcotics users), I will get into that in a subsequent post.  For now, suffice it to say I have an idea that more so conforms to my ideology and, frankly, I don't give an [expletive] about people who are stupid enough to use drugs in the first place, particularly those who are stupid enough to risk contracting HIV by sharing needles or crack pipes, as long as taxpayers do not have to pay for their treatment.  

Furthermore, this program seems to treat crack addicts preferentially over diabetics, who must use their own money to pay for their equipment.  Diabetics' equipment may be more expensive, but, as a matter of principle, it doesn't make any sense to provide drug addicts with equipment they use to use drugs and not provide diabetics, whose condition is often genetic, with equipment they use to live.