BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM

Scalia: one down, two to go......

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:36 PM

Meanwhile, Tony Scalia just got spiked by the Almighty's own coathanger.

Even I would think that leaving an unwanted foetus to age 79 is a bit late.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:45 PM

Actually the bishops have a role in scrutinising law, not making it.

And that is an anachronism that requires review. The Lords is always being reviewed mind. And for that matter, a private members bill that admittedly stands no chance has proposed that as CofE have an opt out on equality legislation that their membership is suspended till they accept all people as equal.

Interesting and puts self righteous claptrap into perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:39 PM

I would suppose that the influence of the church does still have bearing in how the Irish think about morality, but i am sure the secularists are fighting tooth and nail to become the influential factor.   We are all influenced by some philosophy or belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 03:41 PM

"Jim, in UK bishops have an input in law making."
Different situation here, and you should know it
The Jesuits put it perfectly
"Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"
They don'y need the laws, they have had the minds of the people from birth - and they are fighting tooth and nail to retain that grip, despite everything that has happened.
Go away Keith - you are arguing with someone whose entire family grew up under the shadow of the Church - not your 'pretend' wishy-washy Christianity that allows you to support mass-murder and denigrate other religions, but the real thing.
Go away and stop spoiling this discussion - our dialogue is done.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 01:40 PM

Jim, in UK bishops have an input in law making.
Is there any procedure for the Church to make laws in Ireland?
No.
It is a secular democracy just like Italy.
They just made different choices.

Your problem with democracy Jim, is that you think ordinary people too stupid to be given that responsibility.
You and Stalin.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 12:51 PM

Well, of course raggy, it will not be a satisfactory answer for an atheist. We have to admit an element of faith . I am not claiming proof. However, it seems logical to me that the creator has to be greater than, and outside of what he creates.   Of course people are working toward an understanding of origins ", but blindly chanting (evolution )does it does,nt satisfy a thinking or logical mind ".                           Of course the likes of Greg May prefer the FSM to the biblical God , but that would be a case of that creator being of the same substance as what he creates , or do pastafarians posit spiritual spaggheti ?!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:42 AM

Meanwhile, some signs of progress in Colombia:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/more-than-5000-pregnant-women-in-colombia-have-zika-virus-government/

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:38 AM

The obvious question is then "where did a creator come from" to which the normal reply is a creator has always existed. Not really a satisfactory answer, if a creator can always exist then why not a universe.

The vast difference is that people accept there was a start to the universe and are working towards an understanding of the origins of the same.

Blindly chanting God did it doesn't satisfy a thinking or logical mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM

The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator

Obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Care to "explicate" further, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:34 AM

"Nonsense."
Once again I agree - you are talking just that.
Comparisons with what happens elsewhere is as crass as it gets in the light of what ha happened in Ireland - even the Bishop of Dublin has stated that the church has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer can rely on the power it once had, but it still attempts to wield what it has left.
Church power was written into the Constitution when the State was formed - it is not just a matter of changing the law on these matters but altering the Constitution.
The power of the Church was finally broken when the revelations on clerical abuse hit the fan, your that same church still controls over 90% of primary education and many schools are rejecting pupils on the basis that they do not have a Confirmation certificate - explain that one away.
The Irish people have never been asked to vote on the power of the church - ever - the "democratic choice" that you claim is that of politicians - not that of the people - it would take a referendum to change that.
I am not going to do this with you again Keith - the effect that the church has had on Irish lawmaking speaks for itself - your denials no longer work.
No more Keith - unless you are going to show how the people have chosen - I'm tired to your permanent appeasement of tyrants and atrocities
Finished, before we **** up this discussion - I suggest you have the decency to do the same
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 10:06 AM

Musket, if you claim that some article supports your case, you have to let us see it.
Maybe you misunderstood it.
Maybe you took one piece out of context.

Everyone else here does that.
I am very suspicious of anyone who refuses. There is no reason why an honest person would refuse.

Jim, you did attack and ridicule the Northern Assembly for making exactly the same ruling as they have where you live.

you in fact, on the Halappanavar case, claimed the Church didn't make the laws and could be in no way blamed for what happened

That is the case.
You live in a secular democratic state. Thie Irish are a free and fiercely independent people, who have shown throughout the 20Century that they will fight any imposition of rule that they do not want.

The death-grip of the church remains a factor in our law-making here
Nonsense.
The Church had just such a grip on both Italy and Ireland in the past.
Democratic Italy chose to reject laws based on religion.
Democratic Ireland chose to keep them.

Like you, I think they are wrong, but I would never seek to impose my outsider values on a proud and independent people, and I am surprised that your neighbours tolerate you doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 09:15 AM

"The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator."

Here endeth the lesson.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:51 AM

"My point is that you attacked and ridiculed Northern Ireland for having exactly the same ruling as Southern Ireland, where you choose to live."
I did not - I attacked an archaic law that has just been confirmed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We have argued in the past for the reason why the South has the laws and constitution it has - heavy-handed Church influence (you in fact, on the Halappanavar case, claimed the Church didn't make the laws and could be in no way blamed for what happened).
I defend neither Governments for their stand on pregnancy termination (I don't defend politicians of any country - most are sharks) - but at least we in the Republic now stand a chance of shaking off the influence of the church and perhaps reversing the situation, while in the Brit-bit, things will continue as they always were.
The church got its fingers severely burnt over the same-sex-marriage issue; the Bishop of Dublin described it as "a wake-up call for the church".
Let's hope they have learned their lesson - though I ha'e ma doots!!
For the record - this is the situation in Northern Ireland as it has just been confirmed in British Ireland.
"But the law governing abortion in Northern Ireland is one of the most restrictive in Europe and carries the harshest criminal penalty of any European country – life imprisonment both for the woman who has an illegal abortion and for anyone who has assisted her.
The 1967 Abortion Act has never been extended to Northern Ireland and abortion is only carried out when the life or mental health of the mother is deemed to be in danger. This happens very rarely; official statistics indicate that only 23 lawful terminations took place in Northern Ireland in 2013-14.
The law means in practice that women who have money can get an abortion; those without cannot. Monday's judgment in Belfast's high court, ruling that aspects of the legislation contradict European human rights law, will do little to change that"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:37 AM

Keith just said that I should post links in order to verify what I said.

I said that I read an article that mentioned x. That's good enough. If Keith wishes to put links because of his track record of twisting things, then perhaps that's a good idea. But I stand in front of the wicket with a straight bat.

"Something to hide". 😹 Judging by your own standards again eh? Some of us deal with reality instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM

What it feels like living through the epidemic in Colombia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35552340

The cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome that they describe are at the most severe end of the spectrum. Perhaps the Zika-induced form is worse. (Tony Benn got it from some unknown cause, but made a good recovery - too soon to know how many Zika victims will be as lucky).

Meanwhile, it's early days in Colombia and not enough affected babies have been born yet to know how many will be microcephalic.


Meanwhile I do not see the Brazilian situation the way Steve does:

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.
Talk about a false veneer of neutrality. No mention of the lack of sex education, thanks to the Church. No mention of poverty. No mention of lack of contraception or contraceptive advice, thanks to the Church. Just express your opinion that you shouldn't be doing it. Don't forget to mention the stigmatisation if she does do it, let alone ostracism by the Church and the threat of eternal damnation. After all that, leave it up to the pregnant woman, who has already been beaten around the head with churchy morality, who is now carrying a baby with a severe defect and who probably hasn't got the resources to get an abortion anyway.

Brazilian women are not the passive victims of brainwashing that Steve is suggesting. About 90% use contraception despite the church absolutely forbidding it, and with a million abortions each year, the church's teaching on that is being systematically and deservedly pissed on as well. They know to make their own choices - the problem is that the theocratic state stops them from exercising those choices freely. In a more humane society, abortions would not just be tolerated but funded on request. No Catholic theocracy is anywhere near doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 05:30 AM

'But most of the Catholic religious orders who teach in schools, espouse far more realistic sex education programs.'


Having seen my son go through a catholic education (there is no other kind he could have realistically attended in the West of Ireland). I think Joe may be referring to his local situation and orders but he is certainly not speaking for the programs taught here.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Monique
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 04:11 AM

To answer Jack's 12 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM post:
This song says, (I haven't typed twice what lyrics are sung twice and there're a couple of words I couldn't get):
Zika is not mortal but it can affect us,
zika isn't going to kill us but it can affect us.
I had a friend and she died briefly,
she died from mortal dengue.
Zika is a national topic.
It was born in a wood in Uganda,
now don't let this plague spread.
Zika isn't mortal though it can affect us
with conjunctivitis and arthritis, fever and pain…
Zika is a national topic,
zika is a regional topic,
zika is a world-wide topic.
[let's] All [be] watchful,
[let's] all [be] careful,
zika isn't going to kill you
but it can affect the children.
Let's take care of the children,
they are our future,
zika must not affect them…
Zika isn't going to kill you,
zika must not affect other people,
let's take care of people,
people are the future,
let's take care of the children,
zika can affect them.
Let's get rid of the breeding places
of zancudos and mosquitoes*
and thus we'll avoid
what's happening in Uganda.
We don't want zika to spread.

*zancudo and mosquito are synonymous in some countries, but in others zancudo is the one that spreads malaria and the likes.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 09:12 PM

I spent a long time on that post. I try to be considered and measured. Then I get some Catholic bloke telling me, in less than three lines, that I indulge in stereotypes. After all he said about the Guardian too. Sheesh.

OK, I'm listening. I told you in detail (from experience, mind, though you don't have to believe me) what I think. So tell me in detail about these realistic sex education programmes taught by religious orders. I'm all ears, really I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 08:25 PM

Gee, Steve, you sure are into stereotypes. I admit that there are some Catholic sex education programs I don't like, particularly the very popular "Theology of the Body" programs that were supposedly initiated by Pope John Paul II. I find them to be moralistic and unrealistic. But most of the Catholic religious orders who teach in schools, espouse far more realistic sex education programs.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM

Heads up:

search "zika cancion" on the web. There are already several songs about it on YouTube. My Spanish and Portuguese aren't up to telling whether any of them are any good (though I think I can tell that one of them is garbage). Maybe somebody here can understand them better.

You will get a few false hits from the singer Bolado Zika, who may be thinking about changing his name.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM

Well, Joe, let me expand. When I say sex education, I don't just mean willies, fannies and how to not get the clap. Your country and mine are a bloody disgrace. One third of your schoolchildren are taught to abstain, nothing else. Out of the other two-thirds, a very large number are taught in Catholic schools, in which they will be told that contraception and abortion are severely frowned upon and that sex (unlike eating, shitting, pissing and farting) is sacred and must be indulged in parsimoniously, if at all, unless you've tied the knot. A number of sexual activities will be classified on a scale of lesser to greater sinfulness. Don't worry, you're not alone. It's just as bad here.

It stinks, Joe, and it is entirely responsible for the high rate of unwanted pregnancies and the high rate of abortion. Nothing else comes close. I could write a bloody book, but let me try to sum up in a paragraph or two. First, keep the priests and nuns away. Their interest in sex is prurient and uninformed. Second, sex can't be divorced from the rest of real life. It's normal, and there is no automatic big role for moral inputs, any more than there is with going to the lavatory. In case you haven't noticed, the people most eager to impose their morality on sex are those who are least qualified. Let's start with any pope you'd care to name, then let's move on to Mother Teresa and all those fundamentalist idiots your country is so good at spawning.

So what do we do. Well, parents. Unfortunately, parents come with all the foul baggage that they picked up from their religion and the shitty schools they went to. Good parents are the best bet, but we're nowhere near in the right place yet where that's concerned. So, school. Every teacher in every school has a responsibility to show children that the way forward in this world is to promote good relationships. By that, I mean relationships that involve self-respect, mutual respect, agreeing to differ, respecting and celebrating difference, and tolerance for each other's weaknesses and foibles. Sexism, bullying, misogyny, homophobia and racism have no place. We don't need lessons in all that, as hectoring and beating people around the head with strictures usually has the opposite effect to the one you desire, but we do need a good, healthy school ethos that isn't just a sentence in the school policy booklet to keep parents happy, but something that should take up the bulk of staff meetings and which should be expertly led. School is about a lot more than exams and subjects.

Of course, the nitty-gritty of sex is vital too. Children are very respectful of teachers who cut out the bullshit and give the facts. They are extremely suspicious of people who inject moralising into sex education. They want just the facts, and, in my experience (I did this for 25 years, by the way, usually fighting against religion all the way), they will reject any hint of a moral veneer. They want to know, and are entitled to know, all there is to know about how you do sex (they've heard all sorts of stuff, so why wouldn't they?), about contraception and abortion, any discussion of abortion always centering around the need to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If only popes, priests, nuns and screwy fundamentalists had the same priorities. Out of the mouths, etc. Both here and in the US we do our children a grave disservice by not making education for relationships the absolute top priority in schools. And please leave your personal morals at the classroom door.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:39 PM

So, Steve Shaw has often mentioned "lack of sex education" as an issue. I agree that a lack of sex education is a problem, but I'm wondering where this lack exists, and why. Steve seems to implicate that the Catholic Church is somehow responsible for this lack of sex education, but he gives no specifics.

I don't have data on the matter, either, but I do have experience. Here in California, Catholic schools have provided sex education for decades. I got sex education in a Catholic seminary in the 1960s, and my three kids got sex education in four different Catholic schools in the 1980s. I don't know of any objection to sex education in the Catholic Church, but I suppose it exists in some places.

I would suppose that children who leave school before reaching puberty, often don't get sex education.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:03 PM

I am aware of that Keith - what's your point?

My point is that you attacked and ridiculed Northern Ireland for having exactly the same ruling as Southern Ireland, where you choose to live.

If Northerners are "dinosaurs" still walking the Earth, then so are your compatriots, as you should have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:59 PM

Musket, you gave us your version of what they said without giving us the opportunity to see if they really did say that.
If you claim an article supports your case, of course you should link to it to show that it really does.
Everyone else does.
What have you got to hide?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:49 PM

"Jim, Abortion is not legal in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or foetal anomalies."
I am aware of that Keith - what's your point?
"So Ireland is united on this, "
I suggest you look at how far the Republic has come and compare it with how far little Britain across the border hasn't.
If by "Ireland" you mean the politicians and the establishment (as you usually do" - our lot has taken a few tottering steps and is still ahead of your lot.
I think in terms of the people of Ireland, not its politicians.
It is significant that what is being considered first is a referendum - can only ever remember participating in one of those before we left (on the Common Market) - we tend to have them on important issues.
There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in Ireland over the question of pregnancy termination - the state are happy to leave things as they are happy to turn their backs on the many thousands of girls who nip over to Britain to have the procedure carried out - a sort of penalty for "getting into trouble' now the Madeleine Laundries have shut their doors .
When push comes to shove, as with hanging, same-sex- marriage and homosexuality in general, this issue should transcend a vote to find the will of the people and is a basic human rights issue - you wouldn't accept a referendum on whether it was right to gas the Jews - it's a basic evil, yet it was widely accepted in Germany.
Hopefully within my lifetime, this will be looked back on as part of our barbaric past.
It's interesting to note that many of those who incorrectly describe themselves as 'Pro-Life couple the issue with homosexuality - both "evil" even though both are fully accepted in the modern world, and termination is described as "murder – which makes the British, amd the majority of the rest of the world "murderers" – I do hope you lock your doors securely each night as you seem to be surrounded by killers.
You're still not explaining your own position - another 'Devil's advocate moment, no doubt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 01:27 PM

Why would Joe feel he could be arrested for having an opinion when he comes to The UK? How odd? I stated that here in The UK, anybody with knowledge of a crime, including child abuse (the crime most bishops get to hear about, judging by the number of priests in prisons) has an obligation not to withhold evidence. I could be wrong but most US states and federal investigations have a similar requirement? (Other than self incrimination under the amendment?)

Keith. This is a debating forum. If I felt links to articles explained things further, I would give a link. However, referring to what was printed in context to my point makes links unnecessary. Please learn how to debate. My good friend Musket has advised you to to do before if I recall. It isn't necessary to provide links, and if you are curious anyway you can easily find them. Although in this case, just reading what is in the thread gets you the links anyway.....

Ah well.

Always got pete's strange logic if I need cheering up. Hey Joe! Is pete's post above an example of this theological philosophy you mentioned? My granddaughter's finger painting is more deep and meaningful.

All together now!

We are stardust
We are golden

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 12:57 PM

Most parsimonious explanation! I don't think so. Rather it is the preferred explanation for atheists , albeit many theists tend to enjoy cutting off the branch they are sitting on !    What is your evidence that we came fom star dust ? What is your explanation of how lifeless matter became life ? You call all that explicable ?!.   The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator. And what is the atheist answer to this ....who made. God?....    And of course , when we answer that non question it is not accepted because atheists are committed to naturalistic explanation even though they don't have one that works.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 12:39 PM

Jim, Abortion is not legal in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or foetal anomalies.
https://www.ifpa.ie/Pregnancy-Counselling/Abortion-Irish-Law

So Ireland is united on this, and your own neighbours are the dinosaurs by your definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 12:28 PM

"How different is it where you live Jim?"
In 2013, Ireland passed a new law allowing abortion under certain circumstances. The law provided for a woman's right to an abortion if her life is at risk, including from suicide. Information on abortion services outside the state is also constitutionally protected, and is regulated by the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995.
The death-grip of the church remains a factor in our law-making here - as should be apparent from the appalling case of the death of Savita Halappanavar who was refused a termination on the grounds that that sort of thing didn't happen in Christian Ireland.
Sadly, it took the clerical rape of thousands of children to loosen that grip somewhat,
Whatever the situation here- it is an improvement on that the prehistoric conditions prevailing in that little corner of Ireland that would be forever Britain.
As we have an election coming up, we have the possibility of a referendum to change the constitution - not perfect by any means, but a step in the right direction.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 11:43 AM

How different is it where you live Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 11:33 AM

Northern Ireland has just kicked reforming the pregnancy termination laws into touch - AGAIN !!
DINOSAURS STILL DO WALK THE EARTH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 11:10 AM

this incredible event has occurred... and is explicable by science.

It is "explicable" by creationism too.
Science has yet to demonstrate how it happened.
Any day now I am sure, but not yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 08:25 AM

"Natural selection has nothing to do with individuals." Very badly put by me, that was. An individual is a collection of thousands of traits (and a lot more than just that). It's the non-random survival of heritable traits that's at the heart of natural selection. Keeping the "unfit" alive is not subverting natural selection in any way. Deliberately propagating traits that would be selected against would be. We call it artificial selection. It has its uses. That is not what the Nazis were doing in the death camps.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 07:50 AM

Cheers, Stu. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM

"but that they have no objective basis for morality"

That is very wrong. Objective reality can be the basis for a very profound and considerably less ambiguous moral code than those of religious nature by dint of the fact that the facts underpinning are less open to personal interpretation.

The fact we are, at the most parsimonious explanation of our existence, an aggregation of atoms, molecules and electrical signals, built from the stuff of stars and supernovae, that have become conscious and can now contemplate our own nature as the universe made conscious is profound and beautiful. The sanctity of all life on our planet, the way we interact with each other is informed by the fact as far as we know earth is the only place in the entire universe where we know this incredible event has occurred... and is explicable by science. Compassion, the value of all life and our planet's environment, tolerance, equality and understanding are at the core of many of us who have no evidence for the supernatural.

It's a moral code based on the fact life is explicable, that explanaition is rooted in science and the philosophy of science and understands at the most fundamental level is beautiful and complex and precious beyond measure. That's why we don't understand why religious folk believe they have dominion over all life on earth, and why they still seek to kill each other after millennia of slaughter, and now seek to influence debates on abortion etc when far more nuance, tolerance and compassion is needed to be sure society does the best thing for those involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:50 AM

A story which suggests we may be nearer to understanding why Zika causes microcephaly:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/researchers-find-new-zika-clues-to-birth-defect-in-fetus-study/

That also suggests the Zika-induced syndrome may be more severe than microcephaly caused by other factors (genetics, other viruses, toxoplasma) - the anatomical variation was extreme and the inflammatory calcifications are not a usual feature.

Of course it doesn't matter how detailed our understanding of the aetiology gets, the pig-ignorant anti-science bigots will still refuse to recognize it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:30 AM

The word "is" should have been removed from that quote.

This is disingenuous in the extreme:

Is it a good thing to abort babies with birth defects? The Catholic Church says it isn't, and I think it has a right to express that opinion - despite what the Guardian says. Others say it is, and I think they, too, have a right to express their opinion.

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.

Talk about a false veneer of neutrality. No mention of the lack of sex education, thanks to the Church. No mention of poverty. No mention of lack of contraception or contraceptive advice, thanks to the Church. Just express your opinion that you shouldn't be doing it. Don't forget to mention the stigmatisation if she does do it, let alone ostracism by the Church and the threat of eternal damnation. After all that, leave it up to the pregnant woman, who has already been beaten around the head with churchy morality, who is now carrying a baby with a severe defect and who probably hasn't got the resources to get an abortion anyway. Yes you have every right to express your opinion. Just don't forget that that isn't all you'll be doing. And that it's mostly men who'll be doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:15 AM

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987137/argentine_and_brazilian_doctors_suspect_mosquito_insecticide_as_cause_of_microcephaly.html

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:14 AM

Joe Offer is misrepresenting the Guardian. A survey of leading articles (the only conceivable source of any claim that the paper has "taken a view") makes it clear that that it is NOT "the newspaper's view is that abortion is the appropriate solution to the possibility of birth defects." In fact, recent editorial comment has been detailed and nuanced on this matter, hard to boil down to a sentence, but the essence has always been in favour of women having a CHOICE. Other articles are the views of the authors, not the official line of the paper. We've been here before, haven't we. Simplistic misrepresentations are most unbecoming of you, frankly.

Natural selection has nothing to do with individuals. It involves the differential survival of heritable traits. The Nazis perverted Darwin's theory deliberately. Pete is doing it because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. As for his having an objective basis for his moral code, well I don't think so, pete. If I haven't got an objective basis, then neither have you. A tawdry selection of incomplete ancient writings by a ragbag bunch of mostly anonymous authors, often controversially translated and interpreted, is not a sound basis for anything. And a lot of the biblical superheroes weren't very nice, by the way. Moses was a murderous bugger. Hope HE isn't your role model.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:41 AM

Musket, there have been numerous links above to various articles in the Guardian about this issue, and it's clear that the newspaper's view is that abortion is the appropriate solution to the possibility of birth defects. My personal opinion is that if the parents decide that they cannot raise a child with birth defects, abortion is appropriate in the first trimester and perhaps in the second. But maybe the parents should consider raising the child, even if the child has birth defects.
Third-trimester abortions make me very reluctant. Other people may have other opinions, and that does not make them horrible people. I would certainly hope that my opinion would not make me subject to prosecution, should I again set foot in the United Kingdom.
I also think that South American and African nations should make their own decisions on these issues, without interference from 'enlightened' Europeans and Americans.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM

Dunno why I put ...sides...last time,!       Anyway, it certainly is possible for evolutionism to lead to errant behaviour. For example , even Gould confessed that there had always been racism but that with Darwin thought it had increased by order of magnitude. There have been many examples.    The nazis proclaimed that they had sinned against natural selection (meaning evolution in context) by allowing the unfit to live.    And , to make it clear, I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral , but that they have no objective basis for morality. However , this also means that the goalposts can keep moving as has happened with the acceptance of abortion for just about any reason.   And certainly many atheists on here are of the opinion that the woman's choice is the sole consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 04:08 AM

Musket, if you did not make up your claim about BBC and Guardian reports, why not quote and link to them like everyone else does?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 03:40 AM

I'm not sure The Guardian has a "view" as such. It reports the risks of zika and notes how superstitious belief is, according to the WHO fettering the (normally) short life span of such conditions through perpetuating incidence which can become genetic through generational spread. Contraception and abortion are two factors that decrease the risk, both shunned by catholic leaders.

Prosecutions exist where people use their power and position to impede the course of justice. It happens in UK and indeed US and elsewhere. My point was to note that in both our countries, police are increasingly making sure all citizens live to the same laws, so withholding evidence is no longer the domain of priests or indeed doctors , social workers etc. When I trained, I was told that patient confidentiality was enshrined in common law. Now, I have a duty to ensure my confidentiality knowledge does not obstruct the course of justice. Priests are under the same obligation, although the Vatican advises otherwise.

Nobody is above the law. It is often an ass, to use a famous American spelling, but it can only protect when equally applied. My overall point was to highlight the problems dealing with such issues when one group of citizens think themselves answerable to a different structure than the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:57 AM

The information about the manual for new bishops comes from John Allen, who has reported on Vatican matters for a long, long time. I've heard Allen speak several times. I find his tone a bit cynical, but what he says is very, very credible. Note that Allen explains that the Rome-based Gregorian University's Centre for Child Protection is giving different advice. John Allen knows his stuff.


Peter Laban linked to an article from The Guardian titled Concern grows at Catholic church's silence over Zika virus crisis. Articles from the Guardian have been mentioned throughout this thread. The oft-stated position of the Guardian is that abortion is the solution to the Zika virus epidemic, and that the Catholic Church is wrong because it fails to sanction abortion as a solution for birth defects. The Vatican has expressed concern about the Zika virus [click], but it does not propose abortion as a solution to the problem.

Is it a good thing to abort babies with birth defects? The Catholic Church says it isn't, and I think it has a right to express that opinion - despite what the Guardian says. Others say it is, and I think they, too, have a right to express their opinion.

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.

-Joe-

P.S. And Musket, I still don't understand your reference to prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:20 AM

Google it from news stories at BBC and Guardian this week for both subjects Joe.

An article regarding training for bishops saying they have no obligation to report such crimes where they have knowledge or suspicion. (A crime to withhold under UK law, as many have found, including an ex Archbishop of Canterbury funnily enough.)

The confession bit, see the link provided by Peter Laban up this thread (and the killer quote from it by Steve Shaw two posts down.)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 02:09 AM

Musket, I'd agree with much of your post of 3:38 AM, although I'd tend to attribute it to the state of development of thinking of our culture.

Then you say: Meanwhile, the Vatican has released a training manual for bishops saying they don't have to report child abuse to authorities. The pope stated that victims of rape should apologise to priests before the priest sanctions abortion. It'll be interesting when civilised countries start prosecuting then.

I'd like to see documentation of this "training manual for bishops." And your statement about rape and abortion is certainly a little inaccurate. And who's going to be prosecuted by civilized countries?

A priest can't sanction abortion, except in rare circumstances where the life of the mother is at stake. If a woman has an abortion "in good conscience" (believing it to be the right thing to do), then there is no sin and no need to confess abortion as a sin - that's been official policy for a long, long time - at least since the Council of Trent in 1545.

And I don't understand the prosecution bit at all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 07:49 PM

It is simply not possible (why am I bothering...) To ascribe errant behaviour to evolution. This is the trouble with pete. He's OK, but unfortunately he understands nothing about anything. The thing is, bad behaviour by North Koreans/Iranians/Saudis/Israel is not heritable, therefore nothing to do with evolution, yet has everything to do with brainwashing and conditioning. Which is exactly what pete and his sorry ilk are up for. So Christ knows what he's complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 03:55 PM

Was that really pete? "Seven sides"? Mods...?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 02:29 PM

Funny how I feel I have a decent moral code but I have never picked up a bible other than to use a Gideon bible once in a hotel to prop up a wobbly chair. I'm of liberal thought, social inclusion in my work and

What is this "higher authority?" I assume it to be either the a Supreme Court or The European Court of Human Rights? Mebbe The Hague court for the Bliars of this world.

There is no higher authority pete. What are you talking about?