"David Matas is spinning this in a way that will see him excluded from all civilised society for the rest of his life as a total and unabashed liar. "

We can do that? This is huge! I'm making a list now - I assume there's some sort of form to fill out? :)

So we agree to differ. I don't think there's any way a conservative, pro-life politician could choose to bring international aid for women to the nation and not even think of the abortion/contraception link. Especially given Bush's history on this exact topic.

"...nothing but unfounded speculation."

Of course it's speculation, unless you have some direct line into the PM's office or brain. Sheesh.

Look at the very first comment on this post. It was me, saying "Do you think Harper strayed close to this politically loaded topic accidentally, or is he trying to trigger an abortion debate?"

Then I asked, early in this thread: "I asked above, and still wonder: did the Conservatives blunder into this, or is this a deliberate attempt to trigger an abortion debate?"

Your response: "It's a deliberate attempt by Ignatieff to trigger a debate about abortion."

Who's traffic in unfounded speculation here?

I think each of Harper's potential motivations that you list is feasible but not exclusive of the potential motivation I'm talking about. I don't doubt that he genuinely wants to help women, but I doubt he missed the political implications of this issue.

I don't think it's feasible that Harper failed to forsee an abortion debate as a result of this, given that foreign aid and access to abortion and contraception have long been an issue for evangelicals. If he saw it coming, my question is whether he hoped to dodge the debate or trigger a debate.

"The idea that Harper was secretly inviting an abortion debate by not mentioning abortion is laughable."

That's not what I said - you're being obtuse. Try again.

I'm glad, and not surprised that we agree - a fulsome debate is always healthy.

Frankly I'm so gobsmacked by your offensive hyperbole that I'd rather not find myself sharing any side of any debate with you at the moment.

You're fooling yourself if you think Harper didn't anticipate this. Harper, the Master Strategist:

- chose an issue in which abortion and contraception feature prominently.
- chose an issue which ignited an international debate when Bush played games with funding
- left the question of abortion and contraception unaddressed.
- When asked about it, sent Soudas out on the offensive, slobbering and snarling and still not addressing the issue

Like I said above, you can question whether Iggy's response was over-the-top. But to deny Harper's role (deliberate or naive) in putting an elephant in the room is ridiculously short-sighted.

Incidentally: "The idea that Harper was secretly inviting an abortion debate is even more laughable given that it was Ignatieff who surprised everyone by taking the most aggressive pro-abortion stance..." is a logic failure. Read it again, and think about it.

I say again: ask a public health professional how to improve womens' health, and they will include access to safe abortion and contraception as necessary.

Ignatieff isn't changing the channel, he's addressing the elephant in the room: does our evangelical, right-wing politician intend to limit the application of public funds to the aspects of womens' health that he's personally comfortable with?

The larger issue: if Harper only intends to fund a fraction of the items required to improve womens' health, then he needs to say so. It's not his money, it's public money.

"He's the one who brought it up."

Uh huh. And Harper, apropos of nothing, drops his dirty bomb schtick and introduces womens' health as a G8 focus.

Harper knows perfectly well that access to abortion and contraception are a major factor in womens' health. He also knows that his fellow rightwing evangelical, George W Bush, caused a huge international outcry by restricting funding to organizations that provided or even counseled abortion services.

If you think Harper blundered into this, you're really fooling yourself. Harper put an elephant in the room, just begging for someone to ask about it.

As for Iggy, you could argue that he walked into a trap. You could argue that his strong pro-choice language was too big a step. But to ask whether this money will be spent in line with public health data is not to "trigger" a debate.

I agree with Martin, it would be a shame if people's ideological positions get in the way of providing women the support they need. I also agree with Martin that unsafe abortions are a major factor in womens' health.

And if Harper is spending my money, I want to know how and I want it justified by data.

From your link:

"This has nothing to do with abortion, or gay marriage or capital punishment, in case those are going to be [Mr. Ignatieff 's] next arguments on this issue," --Dmitri Soudas

"What kind of mindset is that that you have to start killing unborn babies in order to help people?" - Tom Flanagan

Such huffing and puffing. I asked above, and still wonder: did the Conservatives blunder into this, or is this a deliberate attempt to trigger an abortion debate?

Don't be ridiculous.

Again, from the link above: "80 per cent of these maternal deaths are a result of just five entirely preventable or treatable causes: sepsis, hemorrhage, eclampsia, obstructed labour, or as a consequence of a septic abortion. "

The PM hasn't said whether he's going to focus on just four, or all five of these causes of maternal deaths. It's a perfectly reasonable question and all the breathless hyperbole in the world can't change that.

I want to know how Harper intends to spend my money.