BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM

What bigoted statement? Why are you so bitter?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 11:28 PM

I suppose that's true, Steve. You're not an absolutist. You're far more manipulative circular than that. You make a bigoted statement, then you deny having said what you said, and then you say it again.

In the end, it's the same result. Bigotry and stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:36 PM

Er, Joe, I don't know why I bother to be careful when you come out with bollocks like that. I was careful to say religion, not religious people. I've told you a million, twenty or eight times now (I forget how many) that I don't attack individuals merely for having faith. I do express the general opinion that faith equals delusion, but I can't avoid that. I attack people who attempt to spread it all around, which they should not do as they have no evidence for their beliefs and because indoctrination of vulnerable people is wicked. I try to make the distinction in the hope that, one day, you'll realise that I'm not an absolutist. In fact, if you see my carefully-considered post as sweeping, I think you're being a little, er, absolutist, if you don't mind my saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:33 PM

I have no doubt that Oscar Romero and many others like him were murdered by members of the "Catholic Church and the moneyed elite [that] have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America."

But where do Romero and all those others fit into your stereotype, Jack? The forces on both sides are Catholic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:25 PM

Ah, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Campin are so adept at making sweeping condemnations. No doubt, what they say applies some of the time to some of the people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:58 PM

This is not a situation where there are differing opinions within a tolerant society and the contesting parties just have to learn to get along. The Catholic Church and the moneyed elite have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America. They will tolerate no dissent at all, and there have been tens of thousands of dissenters murdered over the last generation to make the point.

But - they are in no way opposed to abortion. They are only opposed to abortion for poor women. If you're rich enough the Church can always be bought off.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:54 PM

Well the point is that we absolutists (he means me, so I may as well wear the mantle with pride) see religion as a phenomenon that has led to mass delusion. The organisers of religion use its tenets as instruments of control, fear of reprisals in the afterlife being high on the list. Religion may well lead to gatherings of well-meaning people being sociable or doing good works. That's fine, but some of us do good works too, and some people of religion also do very bad things, often with a veneer of pious immunity that other bad guys may not enjoy. But my main beef with religion is its penchant for keeping people ignorant. By imposing a facile "explanation" of the universe and all therein, religion invites people to settle for egregious falsehood instead of encouraging them, through science, to seek what's really true. Germane to this thread, religion seeks to keep people ignorant about the joys of their own sexuality, treating most of its aspects as sinful, discouraging real education about sex and human relationships. The dishonesty of religion apropos of abortion is staggering. It promotes the very teachings that make abortions far more likely to be needed, yet seeks to ban abortion. That's just wickedness. To say that religion is a force for evil is strong language. It's certainly a force for some very bad impositions on billions of people. And it certainly doesn't deserve to be respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:34 PM

Richard Bridge sez: Damn the church. It is a force for evil.

No, it is not. There are certain people within churches who may be "forces for evil," perhaps - but the same applies to every group of people. Almost universally, churches are organized to be forces for good. Almost all human endeavors fall short of their lofty goals.

When an organization or individual does not believe as the speaker believes, it is often described as evil. That's not the case - it's a differing opinion, a reality to be dealt with. Opposition to abortion or gay marriage or whatnot is not necessarily a "force for evil" - it is a differing opinion to be contended with. It's what some people think.

The most effective way to deal with differing opinions is to acknowledge and honor them, and find a way to accommodate a diversity of thinking. I realize that's impossible for absolutists - and I admit that there are many absolutists among church people.

Lately, I've been finding that there are just as many absolutists among people who like to think of themselves as enlightened humanists.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:05 PM

Important at this stage to say that sexual transmission is a possibility, not yet confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 06:48 PM

Case just reported in Texas. It was sexually transmitted to the partner of a guy who returned to the US from South America. And there have been six cases repoorted in California in the last three years.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 07:07 AM

"I think there's value in having some groups that question the morality of abortion. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, and somebody should voice the negative aspects of making such a decision."

Unfortunately, many of those groups also oppose proper sex and relationships education, contraception and contraceptive advice, and that includes the Catholic Church. Those groups should be questioning their own very dubious morality before attacking women's freedom of choice. Voicing the negative aspects is one thing. Suggesting genuine ways of getting unwanted pregnancy numbers down is entirely another, and we simply don't hear enough of it from those groups, quite often instead just a bit of nonsense about rhythm methods or abstinence. Their policies could almost have been designed to keep abortion numbers high. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness around this issue.

"And I'm not convinced that abortion is the only appropriate response to the Zika virus. I'm also not convinced that is it necessary to abort all children who have birth defects."

Unfortunately, you're far from being the best judge of that. For one thing, unlike your bishop, you have balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 06:44 AM

Well said Joe.

From Jack....""Pregnant women who have been exposed to Zika virus should be counselled and followed for birth outcomes based on the best available information and national practice and policies."

Somebody's getting their arm twisted by the anti-abortion cultists. No way in hell is that what they really want to say."

You may be right Jack, but you have more or less the same situation with HIV and the health agencies.....they know what needs to be said but cant say it for fear of a "liberal" outcry.

Our health services are hog tied by rights legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 02:34 AM

I would submit that the Catholic Church and Catholic bishops are not as hard-line against abortion as the so-called "pro-life" movement. One bishop I know, has said privately that the anti-abortion people are the ones that give him the most grief. I have been known to say that the bishop has no balls, but be that as it may.

Still, it's unlikely that the Catholic Church will approve abortion. The best one can hope for, is that it will back off on pressuring government to criminalize abortion. I think that's possible.

I think there's value in having some groups that question the morality of abortion. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, and somebody should voice the negative aspects of making such a decision.

And I'm not convinced that abortion is the only appropriate response to the Zika virus. I'm also not convinced that is it necessary to abort all children who have birth defects.

Of course, the best solution would be to find a way to prevent Zika virus infection, or to reverse the effects of such an infection on pregnant women.

There are many factors, and I think all of them should be considered. I don't think there are absolute answers at this time.

And again, if you disregard or ridicule the sentiments of those who oppose abortion, you will most certainly lose any chance of forming an alliance with them that could solve the problem. A solution to the problem that saves lives, is far more important than winning battles or demeaning opponents.

Opposition to abortion is a reality in many areas where the Zika virus is present. Those who wish to make progress, must find a way to accommodate that opposition instead of declaring an impasse and giving up in disgust.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM

Thanks, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:37 PM

To stray slightly, we now have the good news that research will be able to be done on donated human embryos (from IVF recipients) which should increase the understanding of the early development of embryos and enable better investigation into infertility and miscarriage. Embryos may not be manipulated beyond 14 days, approximately the 250 cell stage, and may not be implanted. In spite of those tight safeguards we already have denizens of the Department of Pseudo-ethics from the University of Intolerant Mysogyny crawling out of the woodwork. We have scaremongering about designer babies, eugenics, GM babies and the threat to humanity in general. Here's a couple of them, from a Guardian article:

Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, said: "This is the first step in a well mapped-out process leading to GM babies, and a future of consumer eugenics." He claimed the government's scientific advisers had already decided they were comfortable with the prospect of so-called "designer babies".

Anne Scanlan, from the anti-abortion organisation Life, said: "The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology. It has ignored the warnings of over 100 scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure that could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings."

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 08:36 PM

Has anyone read whether or not the UN has declared this outbreak an international public health crisis?

You are probably thinking of the World Health Organization, which has declared an emergency.

statement 1 Feb 2016

"Pregnant women who have been exposed to Zika virus should be counselled and followed for birth outcomes based on the best available information and national practice and policies."

Somebody's getting their arm twisted by the anti-abortion cultists. No way in hell is that what they really want to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 06:40 PM

Well, let me be the first. The principal reason why abortion is almost unobtainable in South America is the church, and in South America that is almost wholly the RC church. The repressive phallocratic reactionary laws are the fault of the church. The impending tidal wave of genetically human beings with no capacity for rational thought or action is therefore the fault of the church. Damn the church. It is a force for evil. If enough people suffer, perhaps the people will rise against their oppressors. May they do the same in Eire and Northern Ireland too.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 05:50 PM

Has anyone read whether or not the UN has declared this outbreak an international public health crisis? I understand there was a meeting about it today.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 06:37 PM

Well, Jack, I've just heard a brief interview on the Beeb news channel with the auxiliary archbishop of Rio de Janeiro. There is absolutely no prospect of any move to ease the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church in Brazil, no matter what happens. The Church is putting up severe resistance to any discussion of a change in the law. In Brazil, it's already next to impossible to get an abortion.


Joe...?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 01:40 PM

Chapter and verse on that, please, pete. As it stands, it's an unsupported accusation, and we have to bear in mind your penchant for misrepresentation. Christians aren't supposed to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 11:39 AM

You volunteering to adopt a microcephalic baby, then?

This is only incidentally about Catholicism. The state religion in most of Latin America is moneyed hypocrisy, and the fact that its ceremonies involve a lot of incense and statues of the BVM is rather incidental. But it does at present use Christian doctrines as a tool of repression, so discrediting those doctrines can only help, at least in the short term until the wealthy come up with some other ideological tool for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 11:10 AM

"........from whatever you give birth to.."      I remember awhile ago ,Dawkins posted on social media devaluing the disabled and there was such a media storm he apologised..... of sorts.   Of course , jim is small fry, so hardly anyone will notice his inhumanity to fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

Yes, those rich Saudis are notorious for the massive piss-ups in their palaces as well!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:52 AM

The reolution of that challenge believed by most anti-abortion cultists is pretty simple and logical.

If you have enough money you afford to either buy an abortion regardless of what the law says, or you can pay a peon to spend her life taking the bites and punches and cleaning up the excreta from whatever you give birth to.

And having that much money means God loves you.

Whereas if you don't have enough wealth to ignore the law, God obviously hates you enough to insist that you follow it. You're probably damned anyway.

(Dunno what Catholics call that - it's the "prosperity gospel" in Protestantism. There's probably an Islamic name for it as adapted to the Saudi elite, too).

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM

"...but on the emotional level, suffering, whether via Mosquitos or otherwise, is a challenge to faith, even to creation believers.."

Well it certainly must be, though I'm sure you can concoct a tortuous explanation around it. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 03:33 AM

With the demise of "Team Musket", the hate quotient has diminished.
Soon we will be able to discuss all subjects as adults.

There are only about three or four people left who like to act as the Mudcat Thought Police.......the strange thing is, that they all claim to be liberals?

When I started using "liberals", I was referring to the people like those mentioned by Joe above.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 07:22 PM

Well, to give them credit, at least in Brazil they do seem to be doing something positive, i.e. nothing. Whether this is a deliberate decision we don't know yet.

The possibility of cases of brain injury that are not detectable with a tape measure is the most worrying development. The only reliable test for viral exposure is by using PCR, which is way too expensive, and even that could only be a preliminary screening test to show the mother had had an an infection that might have damaged the foetus, not that the foetus definitely was damaged.

The Brazilian study Joe cited describes 35 cases that the researchers investigated in detail. Of course they didn't follow up every case in the country, and their summary says:

historical birth prevalence of microcephaly in Brazil, approximately 0.5 cases per 10,000 live births, calculated from birth certificates, was lower than expected estimates of 1–2 cases per 10,000 live births (9), which might indicate general underascertainment of microcephaly in Brazil. However, during the second half of 2015 alone, >3,000 suspected cases of microcephaly (approximately 20 cases per 10,000 live births) were reported to the MoH through the special notification protocol, suggesting a sharp increase in birth prevalence.

That is, Zika seems to have increased the prevalence of microcephaly by a factor of 10 to 20 (and that's just the damage detectable with a tape measure).

Here are the World Health Organization figures:

http://www.who.int/csr/don/8-january-2016-brazil-microcephaly/en/

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 07:05 PM

Joe, I was replying to stu and Steve , but on the emotional level, suffering, whether via Mosquitos or otherwise, is a challenge to faith, even to creation believers , though believing the biblical account of its beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 06:30 PM

What evidence, Joe? Let me assure you that a positive response from the Catholic Church to the issue of victims of the virus potentially urgently needing abortions will get a very positive reaction from me. Neurosis will get you nowhere. Stop being so bloody belligerent.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:21 PM

Now that is proper irony ......Jim!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:18 PM

Yeah, Peter, but the existence of mosquitoes is a serious test of my faith....

Another test of my faith is when Steve claims he's not finger-pointing and the evidence says otherwise...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:00 PM

If you know the bible at all you will know there was no death or suffering before the fall , so if it was there at the beginning it had a benign purpose. I know you don't believe that, but since you mentioned it........

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:00 PM

I keep trying to tell you, Joe, no-one is finger-pointing.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:30 AM

This report seems to indicate that 35 cases of microcephaly were reported in Brazil in 2015, but it's unclear.

This NPR report speaks of thousands of cases in Brazil, but only a few were Zika-related.

And then there's the question whether the appropriate cure in every case is abortion. I'd still contend that open discussion of the entire issue is necessary, without finger-pointing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM

Ah, but did he evolve them? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM

"The Church did not invent the virus or the mosquito."

But God did.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:19 AM

Fingers are not quite being pointed as yet. The Church did not invent the virus or the mosquito. But the Church in the areas concerned does have massive influence. But by the Church's fruits in the coming months shall we know it. You're being watched, deservedly so. Let's hope the right thing is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 08:43 AM

In today's NPR presentation on the Zika virus in Brazil, it was stated that a total of fewer than ten microcephalic babies have been born there,

The World Health Organization's estimate of additional microcephalic births is somewhere near 4,000. Whoever NPR gave their mike to was a bullshit artist.

There are recent suggestions that the figure has been slightly overstated by the diagnostic methods used, but also that the virus may be causing cases of brain damage which are not reflected in decreased cranium size, so the casualty count may well be even higher.

Factors that make this a social catastrophe:

1. the virus
2. the mosquito vectors
3. the anti-abortion cult
4. the class system.

1: we aren't going to get any medical technology that affects the virus for years.

2: some measures against the mosquitoes are feasible and desirable, but the more drastically effective they are the worse the consequential environmental damage.

3: there are no excuses for an organization abusing its power so as to waste women's lives dealing with miserable pieces of human wreckage that should never been born. The shits responsible for the oppressive anti-women legislation on the books in most of Latin America are never going to be allies of most of the human race, and attacking them is every bit as rational as killing mosquito wrigglers in the places where they pose most risk.

4: the class inequalities pervasive in Catholic countries invariably mean that "morality" is only for the poor. The elite will never suffer the consequences. Obliterating the system that imposes that distinction is going to take longer than dealing with the virus.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 08:42 PM

I've heard very rational discussions of both abortion and the Zika virus on National Public Radio in the U.S. over the last couple of weeks. I was pleased and surprised that there was no mention of religion in the discussion - it just presented the issues logically without referring to any groups doing this or that.

The problem with pointing fingers at groups, is that you then force all members of that group into the the "enemy" box. Even if they agree with you on the issue, members of that group will have a hard time forming an alliance with you, because you have attacked and excluded them.

If you really want to make progress on an issue, then attack the issue rationally. Don't attack your potential allies.

In today's NPR presentation on the Zika virus in Brazil, it was stated that a total of fewer than ten microcephalic babies have been born there, while there are 8,000 babies born in Brazil every day. The Zika virus is a serious concern, but so far it has done little damage.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:25 PM

Well, Guffers, as ever you have this arse about face. On the whole, religion is a sort of elective thang, though I know the buggers make it damned hard for you to leave the club. On the other hand, unless you're Michael Jackson you're a bit stuck with your skin colour. If you know what I mean, which you almost certainly don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 03:21 PM

Steve Shaw: "Well no-one here is attempting to demonise people of faith. As for attacking religion, well that is always justified and there isn't anywhere near enough of it."

It falls into the same category as attacking someone for their skin color!!
Try...just try, to stop being a bigot, and hiding behind your 'political persuasion' excuse to do it!!

That being said, some people CAN distinguish between spirituality and religion, just like some people can distinguish between liberals and 'so-called liberals'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM

They are mobilizing the army against standing water, I'm all in favor.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:14 PM

Can anybody tell me what akenaton is waffling on about? Preferably not akenaton?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:10 PM

The Vatican's angle on the story:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/who_warns_of_risk_of_zika_virus_in_the_americas/1203543

The fact that they've made no comment either way about the implications for abortion policy is somewhat encouraging - and fairly consistent with the way Francis has tended to play contentious issues. If he can persuade the Latin American hierarchy to just STFU and leave social policy to the state, that would be the best possible outcome, though it may not be a very likely one.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 11:47 AM

Come on Steve....don't act stupid    2+2 =.........remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 08:58 AM

Movement for change in Brazil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35435684

but two months to submit a petition to the supreme court? There are doubtless reasons for that, but something has gone wrong if it takes that long.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

And that has exactly what to do with this discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:23 AM

In the last discussion we had concerning abortion, most said that the decision should be left entirely up to the mother in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:20 AM

Well no-one here is attempting to demonise people of faith. As for attacking religion, well that is always justified and there isn't anywhere near enough of it. But I for one do not want to have the arrival into the world of thousands of deformed babies for a stick to beat religion with. Let's all hope it doesn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:13 AM

So here's the problem, Joe. From Time:

In all of Central and South America, there are only three countries where abortion is broadly legal (those countries are Uraguay, Guyana, and French Guiana.) Everywhere else in the region, abortion is only allowed in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk, depending on the country. Only Mexico, Colombia, and Panama allow mothers to terminate pregnancies because of a fetal impairment...

...And some countries, like El Salvador, forbid abortion in all cases, even when the mother has been raped or her life is at stake. Despite the public health recommendations to avoid pregnancy, deputy health minister Eduardo Espinoza told Buzzfeed News that the government will have to uphold the anti-abortion laws, "whether we like it or not," but noted the public health crisis may trigger a debate that could revise the law. But experts seem skeptical that the anti-abortion laws, which have been repeatedly passed by mostly-male governments in Catholic countries, will be changed any time soon...

...Even for women who aren't already pregnant, contraception is hard to come by in these countries. According to the World Health Organization, 18% of births in Latin America are to teenage mothers, and Amnesty International estimates that more than 50% of the pregnancies in the region are unplanned. "They don't have access to information, they don't have access to contraception, and they don't have access to the option to terminate a pregnancy," Demant says, noting that contraceptive use among Latin American women is among the lowest in the world, and that emergency contraception is often expensive and difficult to access, if not illegal.

If this turns into the humanitarian disaster that we all dearly hope it won't, a very large finger will be pointing at the Catholic Church, which rules the roost in much of Central and South America and which preaches against both contraception and abortion and which discourages real sex education (the sort that leaves morals at the door and eschews ludicrous notions such as abstinence). Let's all hope it doesn't happen.