Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-03-Speech-3-253"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080903.24.3-253"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Millennium Development Goal 5 is a very important objective, touching as it does not only on the quality of life, but on life itself, its initiation and continuation. The importance of Millennium Development Goal 5 is all the greater in as much as its successful implementation does not cost very much in monetary terms. There are programmes and projects that are already being put into effect around the world that have significantly reduced perinatal mortality, and their cost has not been particularly high. Despite this, in some regions the achievement dynamics of Goal 5 have been poor or very poor. Moreover, in some regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, there has been no improvement since 2000. This is a very worrying phenomenon, as it means that implementation of Millennium Development Goal 5 on a global scale is seriously threatened.
Unfortunately in some developed countries we still see a tendency to ideologise the problem and concentrate on one really quite controversial issue, namely that of reproductive rights. This has already been mentioned today. However, one of the most important causes of death among mothers is hazardously performed abortions. However you look at it, it is logical that limiting the number of abortions would bring about a fall in mortality among mothers. Surely, then, it would be easier to limit the number of abortions than to increase the number of what might be called ‘safe’ abortions.
It is therefore difficult to agree with the assertion that reproductive health should be a priority in development policy. It is important, but surely the priority should continue to be the fight against poverty (I agree with the Commissioner), improving the position of women and keeping the promises made by developed countries. This choice of priorities is very important, because a poor choice of priorities could lead to actions that might be unfavourable. For example, we include the example of exchanging experience and best practice in resolutions as standard, but if the objective is inappropriate, an exchange of experience and best practice could be ineffective or downright undesirable.
It is also worth remembering that imposing our norms and standards on other countries and societies is morally ambivalent. In matters of ethics, countries that benefit from our aid should take their own decisions on what is good and acceptable. We should not, for example, say that abortion is a good solution. That would be inconsistent and it would be unjustified interference: inconsistent, because we ourselves wish to increase the birth rate in Europe, while promoting its restriction in other countries; unjustified interference, because no-one has authorised us to influence decisions on ethical matters in other states.
In my opinion, therefore, we should concentrate on what is not controversial, especially as there are very many things that are not controversial and on which we are all agreed: education, strengthening the position of women, protecting motherhood, good nutrition, access to skilled medical assistance and obstetric care. These are areas on which we can jointly concentrate, and thus facilitate the achievement of Millennium Goal 5."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples