BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 01:41 PM

about a marginocephalic girl in Brazil who had just graduated with a degree in journalism

OK, that's one in the plus column compared to how many thousands in the minus column?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven sides
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 01:35 PM

North Korea etc is the "...extreme end product ..of evolutionism , which is why it should not be taught as religiously dogmatic doctrine in science classes....                                 Just as logical as your gross generalisation, stu !                And reason to figure out a moral code !?    Whose reason ?   The nazi,s defence at Nuremberg was to the effect of abiding by their own moral code. They were told there is a higher law    And whence might a higher law come from do you think if you discard God and scripture?.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 12:26 PM

There are different grades of microcephaly. We don't yet know what the spectrum of severity of Zika-induced microcephaly is, but the most severe forms are easy to recognize in utero on a scan.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 12:17 PM

There was a great story in the paper (which I now cannot find - grrr) about a marginocephalic girl in Brazil who had just graduated with a degree in journalism and was off to (or looking for, I forget which) work. This shows how complex this issue is, and how hard it can be to judge what is best for the mother and child.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 09:45 AM

The "no microcephaly in Colombia" story is simply a recycled statement from the country's Catholic-bigot president. There had already been cases reported last month, which the president had been told about.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 09:22 AM

and what will be the end product of social "liberalism", the anything goes society? Well we can see can't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 08:57 AM

"The upshot of that kind of attitude taken to extremes is ISIS, for example"

ISIS is the extreme end product of the sort of religious literalism demonstrated by some on this forum sometimes. As you know it's why we thunder to keep literalism and religion out of science classes.


"To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people"

I guess it's easier then using reason to figure out a moral code.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 06:24 AM

"To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people. The community bonding of a church, mosque, temple etc works for some too. Fair play to them "

Well it does, but what we end up with from this is not necessarily benign. We hear of "Catholic children" and "Muslim children" for a start, one of the wickedest notions thrown up by religious belief. We even send them to schools that have those titles. Far better to develop your moral compass along secular lines. It's just as easy, the evidence being that there are some excellent atheists (Carl Sagan) and some terrible devout believers (Francisco Franco). A secular-based moral code is far less likely to contain illiberal attitudes to issues such as abortion, to return tenuously to the thread topic. As a little lad I was told that heaven had only Catholics in it, the implication being that not being a Catholic here on earth was A Very Bad Thing. The upshot of that kind of attitude taken to extremes is ISIS, for example. What looks benign from the outside can have an insidious side that shows only when the surface is scratched.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 06:24 AM

Colombia: 3,177 Pregnant Women With Zika; No Microcephaly: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/06/world/americas/ap-zika-virus.html?_r=2

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 04:29 AM

"This term *unknowable* - I think it applies to the mysteries of life, like love and peace and death, and life itself. These are things we can experience, but we will never fully understand them. These mysteries are the realm of religious thought."

These subjects I would call knowable, and scientifically explicable too because natural selection and evolution probably play a major part in explaining them all. We are the way we are because characteristics have been selected as advantageous for our current environment, and our inability to avoid physical conflict and even death are explicable in the physical sense, and I'm not aware a jot of empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 16 - 03:38 AM

Genital /genial. iPhone autobloodycorrect strikes again.

Joe. No problem with religion asking the questions, it's the supply of answers that normal people find disturbing.

There was a time when said philosophers had God to fill in the gaps, which led to ascribing phenomenae to the god concept. This stifled and shackled discovery. (I said above, Galileo was an example.)

We have only begun to ponder and discover since we removed the absurd restraints of theological angles to topics. Even Einstein had problems with probability theory as it inferred the God he couldn't personally dismiss played dice. Newton wasted half his creative life assuming the ark of the covenant actually existed and went looking for it. Darwin hesitated till someone else made the link before publishing because it blew away the very foundations of superstition as a society institution.

I only have to go back as far as grandparents to find even my own family actually believing there is such a thing, real and independent of the fantasy of human brains called God. The explosion of discovery and the real benefits to society started taking off as intelligent people began to differentiate between traditional and absolute faith. To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people. The community bonding of a church, mosque, temple etc works for some too. Fair play to them.

But having a place in discovering "life, the universe and everything"? At long last we are not hampered by it.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM

Musket says he can't see how religion can ask questions. I think that's the essence of religious thought - pondering the mysteries of the universe, the things I call unknowable because they cannot be fully defined.
Yes there are authoritarian models that fit the stereotype musket & Mr. Shaw espouse; but other, more philosophical models of religion have existed for millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 09:26 PM

creationism...is not contrary to observational science.

I dunno, Steve - hard to tell if he's delusional or just a moron, or both.

Any road, you're right; duly filed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 06:49 PM

He's not worth it, Greg. File him along with Keith, akenaton and Teribus in the preferably-not-to-be-recycled bin.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 06:36 PM

Yes there is Greg. It is an apt word for dedicated followers of a belief they cannot substantiate. At least with ...creationism...though, it is not contrary to observational science.            More bluff and bluster from Steve , but not so wordy this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM

There's no such thing as "evolutionism", pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 05:17 PM

You're not happy to discuss anything with anyone. That's the instruction you get from your creationist masters. Evidence means nothing. Turn your back.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 03:57 PM

Bluff and bluster , and I trust not too hard to see for anyone not already a convinced evolutionism believer. I could just as easily dismiss you with the instruction to look it up to see that evolutionism is impossible and special creation the only alternative, but as you know, I presented my case with arguments , not dismissals and mockery. Steve says we believe things ...that cannot be true...      And why not ? We both have the same evidence to work with , and creation is in accord with the testable , observable data available to us.    And then Steve tries to portray the )real or perceived) evils of religion as a reason that God and creation are false.   I believe that is a logical fallacy. Another fallacy is called begging the question, which is what he does ...I believe. ..in claiming that creationist websites stand by to reject scientific evidence ...ie evolutionism..when it is that alleged evidence that is in question ! And it is scientific evidence that is presented to question the evolutionism claims.       Ain't it funny that despite my being the only biblical creationist here , the atheists here ( ie ,the vocal ones) just can't get by without looking for an argument . I don't get upset about it, but I,m happy to discuss , or counter the critics.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 02:35 PM

Bless you.

(May all your mutilation be genial.)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 02:31 PM

And that my friends is the reason why you don't put a Morris dancing perspective to a debate concerning interior decorating. It just doesn't fit.

As pete ably demonstrates, neither does pseudo mumbo jumbo superstition when debating reality. Sadly, religion involves abusing people merely to control them so of course they will try to inject their wicked fairy tales into debate over morality. That morality is nothing to do with their immoral crusade is irrelevant to them. Pontificating on abortion, genial mutilation and injecting unnecessary guilt into your life is what they are about.

Fuck 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM

but as ever without ever saying what this abundant evidence is.

Look it up yourself, pete. Its easy to find.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 01:37 PM

Suppress might have been a better word. It's what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 01:35 PM

The modus operandi of all creationists is to have their story ready to reject all scientific evidence. It's on all their websites. In fact, creationism is just one end of the spectrum of religious belief. If you believe the first few verses of Genesis then you are anti-science. If you believe that you were created in God's image (rather odd as you don't know what he looks like), you could be a mainstream Catholic but you're still a creationist of sorts. If you believe that God started the Big Bang off then just let it all flow, or that he kick-started evolution and is the underlying driving force, you are just as anti-science as the worst creationist. You are believing in things that can't be true and for which there is no evidence, a complete perversion of scientific thinking. You can't think like that and still embrace science. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's very valiant of you to seek accommodation with science, but you're doing that because we are long past the time of Galileo when you could repress true progress and reality and still look good in the eyes of your flock. Science has no interest in you but is closing in on you all the same, so you need to try to make love to it. No dice! And pete, the evidence for evolution is easy to access. You want me to produce it. Really? So that you can turn your back on it with a wave and carry on your own sweet way? I really do have better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 12:55 PM

Steve keeps going on about the supposed abundant evidence for evolutionism , but as ever without ever saying what this abundant evidence is. Perhaps he needs to keep repeating the assertion to bolster his faith in what cannot be substantiated. Perhaps it is a " deliberate and dishonest ploy" on the part of the evolutionary faithful to assert their belief as fact since they cannot demonstrate it to be so!.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 05:48 AM

It's typical of religious thinking to see unknowability in love, peace, life and death. These are multifaceted phenomena and many of their facets yield to investigation. Yes there are spiritual angles, no doubt, but quite often we get into woolly, romanticated notions that amount to no more than just cloudy thinking. There is an unfortunate tendency for the religious to staple these phenomena opportunistically to God in any way they can, thereby releasing cod-unknowable sides. Well I'm neither up for that, neither am I up for stapling them to Mr Spock. Let's all revel in their delicious mysteries whilst keeping our brains fully functioning. That way we might learn more and leave the waffle behind.

And there is irreducible conflict between religion and science, which is foisted on us by religion's need to ignore evidence and propose (in many cases, impose) explanations that not only don't have evidence for them but which can't themselves be explained, a deliberate and dishonest ploy. The best we can hope for is that those scientists who also believe in God can build a stone wall between the two in their brains. There are no grounds for accord. The conflict is fundamental. Hitch your notions to some other wagon. There's no respectability to be gained by hitching them to science, except in the minds of the deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Feb 16 - 03:25 AM

Joe. I fail to see how religion can start asking questions. The best it can do is reinterpret old scripture.

The equivalent would be to reinterpret and factor in Fred Hoyle's steady state universe.

The beauty of reality and scientific advancement is that it is unrestrained by theology or mumbo jumbo belief. There is no belief, just process. That alone begins to answer the questions theology poses but never adequately explains.

I think you are mixing up personal belief with stance of organised attempts to control others. Grabbing medieval "certainties" is the only way such structures can claim to be relevant to the gullible.

Let's start with Galileo and take it from there eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 10:48 PM

I am also amazed by the accomplishmens of science - within the realm of science. But I also think that religious thinkers have come a long way, especially within the last 75 years. For one thing, they have learned that there is no reason why they need to contradict science. For the most part, science and religious thought should be in accord. I think that religous thinkers have learned that they have no need for certainty, that their task is simply to explore the questions and the alternatives.
This term *unknowable* - I think it applies to the mysteries of life, like love and peace and death, and life itself. These are things we can experience, but we will never fully understand them. These mysteries are the realm of religious thought. When religion grabs onto certainty and stops asking the questions, then it has failed.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM

We're getting into deeply philosophical terrain here, Stu! I think I'm saying that science can't admit to unknowability in the natural word (I keep having to add in that qualification so as to exclude the supernatural). The advances we've made in the last fifty or a hundred years have been staggering, completely unpredictable a century ago. If there's a philosophy behind science, a large part of it must be stating that the quest for finding out what's really true will never end as long as there are human beings with brains. That's the beauty of science, and, implicitly, it also defines the ugliness of religion, which possesses certainties that science never wants to possess and, worse, which stop people from searching for what is really true. So you may be right that there are unknowable things that will never be known. But I'm not certain, and I doubt whether humanity will let the notion hinder the search for truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 06:43 PM

" So Steve , you think it fair game to mock creationists and label us all idiots. Hardly a scientific argument ! "

Au contraire, we have abundant evidence. You deny everything that is undeniable to the rational mind. No scientific evidence makes the merest dent in your blind certainties. You walk away from any discussion thinking that you've won, whereas the truth is that you haven't been in the discussion at all. You are all idiots and worse. Just as you deny science and turn your back on it, I deny any argument that you're not idiots and turn my back on it. I'm only doing what you're doing, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM

I do believe, stu, that I have googled scientific method before, and I,m pretty sure it has included in it ,observable, testable, repeatable experiment .....all of which is not available to origins investigation. Yes you can make calculations but they are worldview interpreted and not unassailable fact.                   So Steve , you think it fair game to mock creationists and label us all idiots. Hardly a scientific argument ! , but when you are not able to defend your own faith position , I guess argument by derision is all you have to work with.                         And acme, I would argue that creationists do not dismiss science, and in fact use what is known in science to dismiss evolutionism...or rather demonstrate how it don't stack up.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 08:33 AM

"To suggest that there are elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable is to turn that scientific uncertainty on its head."

I'm not sure I agree. It's possible there will be elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable to us, and this could be for any number of reasons; some things may just be beyond our cognitive and intellectual ability to understand or even recognise for what they are. Or perhaps the human race might reach a point when we do understand everything in the known universe, but then... would this universe be the limit of our experience? Might we be unable to access other universes if they exist? They would be a natural part of the cosmos but could be inaccessible to us, perhaps physically, perhaps conceptually? Would we even recognise them as existing? How could they be knowable?


"So you always have the disclaimer that "science" can never be 100% certain"

Pete, we've been over this a thousand times. You're not interested in what we've got to say mate. If, perchance, you do actually want to know Google "scientific method" and read away. These regurgitated old tropes really add nothing to the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 07:53 PM

" ....and yet the atheists here feel certain enough to mock the Christians here , and the more so if they are creationist."

No-one mocks Christians merely for being Christian. Christians who try out loud to claim merit for their beliefs, or who justify malpractice such as forcing religion on children, or who post on secular websites offering or asking for prayers, or who moralise at people, about abortion for example, in the name of God, are fair game for mockery, and, if mockery's all they get, they should consider that they've been let off lightly. Creationists are all idiots and they deserve mockery just for being creationists. No religious belief deserves any respect at all. The best that honest-to-goodness believers should hope for is silence from critics as long as they themselves keep their beliefs strictly to themselves. That's a respectable stance, even though their beliefs are not respectable.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 07:30 PM

Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science.

That "observable testable science" is ONLY important to you, Pete, when you dismiss science. You can't use the concept to dismiss the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:33 PM

Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science.

Yes pete, the creationists do, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM

Er.. pete.. It's the certainty of superstition that is mocked.

Women have nothing to seek forgiveness for as there is nothing to be forgiven. Each pregnancy has an individual human story attached. To ask a wicked kiddie fiddler for forgiveness for being raped? No wonder less than 1% of the country see semi literate old men as people to respect.

Unless and until churches, mosques, temples whatever stop defending and hiding criminals, nobody, I repeat nobody is answerable to them for any reason.

And if any of the bunch of control freaks ever do get their house in order, respect has to be earned from that minute on.

This the twenty first century for fucks sake. It's sad that impressionable people like pete had an education that failed him, but like that teacher who tweeted creationist fantasy last week, society shouldn't pander to personality disorder. It's abuse to perpetuate medieval brain washing.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 01:38 PM

So you always have the disclaimer that "science" can never be 100% certain ....and yet the atheists here feel certain enough to mock the Christians here , and the more so if they are creationist.    Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science.    It is also contrary to the claim that everything is provisional and open to new truth so you can never know if you have arrived at "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:20 AM

As scientists, Stu, we revel in the knowledge that nothing can be 100% certain. But problems to solve are not single-dimensional. Things unknowable to Darwin, because the science of genes was not available to him, are knowable, in the sense of being ripe for exploration, to us today. To suggest that there are elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable is to turn that scientific uncertainty on its head. We plough on in the expectation that we will always want to confront whatever's apparently unknowable, once we have the tools to do so. The only truly unknowable things that will be unknowable forever are those inventions of the over-ripe human imagination that are tendentiously put beyond science. God, for example. I would certainly agree with those members of the God Squad who say that he is unknowable. Too bloody right he is!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:01 AM

"Stu, "unknowable" is defeatist."

No it's not. None of us have any absolute answers. As scientists, how can we be 100% certain everything is knowable?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 07:19 PM

Yes, pete, but the point is that it isn't the woman who should be asking for forgiveness, is it. It's the Church, whose teachings encourage the ignorance and the restrictions which lead to unwanted pregnancies. The popes, the bishops, the evil sainted nuns, the right-wing hangers-on, they're the ones who should hang their heads in shame. The true champions of high abortion rates. They won't, of course. It will always be the woman who's the murderer, won't it, pete. Shame on you. You make me ashamed to be a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 06:39 PM

Not that a priest is needed for forgiveness.....but unless the woman wants forgiveness she is not going to seek it , or to be absolved of any guilt , so nothing so shocking in the statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 07:08 PM

From Peter's link.

"Last year, the pope announced that for a duration of the current "year of mercy", women who had abortions could be absolved as long as they expressed contrition and sought forgiveness from a priest. "

You couldn't make it up, could you. This amazing Pope, Joe's current hero, a celibate man in a frock, coming out with this patronising guff. As long as they say they're sorry and seek forgiveness from a man in a frock who hasn't got a bloody clue about anything to do with real life, the Church will let you off. Well how nice of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 01:15 PM

Says it all really.

Brazil, due to the malign influence of the catholic cult, drives abortion underground and largely unregulated and Joe tries to sell it as lack of influence by his church.

There you have it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 10:24 AM

Link corrected:

Concern grows at Catholic church's silence over Zika virus crisis - Guardian article

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 10:05 AM

And as I've said, most of the authorities in the Catholic Church are not extremists, and they can be open to reason

Well, Joe, in the U.S. the "authorities" have been presented with reason since 1973 & Roe v. Wade - they don't seem to have changed their position on birth control & abortion one whit in 43 years. How many more centuries of reason should we give 'em?
.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 09:37 PM

Dragging kicking and screaming people rarely works, Greg. It merely creates martyrs. The anti-abortion extremists thrive on martyrdom. It's an excellent recruiting tool. Reason and persuasion and compromise work far better. And as I've said, most of the authorities in the Catholic Church are not extremists, and they can be open to reason - but not to attack.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 09:23 PM

an army of enlightened atheists

And no, Joe, its not down to atheists. There are plenty people of faith who oppose the ridiculous strictures of the Catholic Church regarding birth control and abortion.

Its way past time the Catholic Church was dragged - kicking and screaming, if need be - out of the fifteenth century into the 21st, instead of waiting another couple of centuries to come to its senses.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 09:17 PM

OK, that's Brazil, Joe. What about the other Central and South American countries under the thumb of Roman Catholic Orthodoxy?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 08:57 PM

The alternative, Greg, is to send an army of enlightened atheists from England and the U.S. to use military force against the government of Brazil and force them at gunpoint to change their laws.

I think the only reasonable solution is the political process. And yes, that will take time. It may be that fear of the Zika epidemic will speed the process. I hope so. Brazil has already legalized abortion as a remedy for one sort of birth defect. Why not another?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 08:02 PM

there may well be a growing trend toward approval of legalized abortion, even in Catholic Brazil.

A "growing trend", Joe, is going to condemn thousands to death.

If I may quote Phil Ochs:

"Some say they've passed their darkest hour
Those moderates are back in power.
Oh, they listen close with open ears
They'll help us out in a couple a hundred years.
But don't push 'em...whatever you do...
Else you'll get those extremists back in!"

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM

Yes, Greg, and you are correct that "back room abortions" are a serious risk that must be eliminated by the legalization of abortion. No question there.

But my point was that there may well be a growing trend toward approval of legalized abortion, even in Catholic Brazil. In most places on this earth, Catholics obtain abortions at a rate higher than the rate of non-Catholics. So, it seems to me that Catholics DO ignore the authority of Rome in significant numbers.

Sorry for the misattribution, Steve. I was agreeing with at least part of what was said. I should have known it didn't come from you.

-Joe-