Before calling Mr. Ignatieff ignorant, I suggest that Jennifer Cowan might inform herself more fully on the topic of abortion in developing countries. (Herstory, Feb. 6) (Click here to read the original post)

Last week, Michael Ignatieff urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to exclude abortion and contraception from his plan to become an international champion of women’s and children’s health by following the lead of the United States, which has cut funding to some aid organizations that promote the use of contraceptives and abortion.

Regardless of the morality of abortion, effective contraception and access to safe abortion are important and necessary to improve women’s health in developing countries. Given the choice, most women in developing countries would opt to have fewer children, if it meant they would be healthier and more educated.

Providing methods of controlling fertility can also help with development. Few countries have escaped from poverty while maintaining a high birth rate.

To suggest that funding be allocated for group maternity homes, just because they are available in Canada and the United States, is hopelessly naïve. Many developing countries are lacking the basic structures in society to support human security, let alone providing accommodation, pregnancy counselling and other support services to young women during their pregnancy.

Abortion is a choice to end unintended pregnancy, not a moral challenge for the global community.

In order for women to fully participate in society, they must have control over childbearing. Providing women in developing countries with a full range of reproductive health services is not only intelligent, it is just.

Rhea Pretsell Belleville