Holocaust of womb
Ruth Wishart comments on the practice of aborting female children in India and China (May 14). For years, she and other favoured members of the Scottish commentariat have been trying to convince us that abortion represents a huge step forward for women's rights. Now, however, the penny seems to be dropping, and she is rightly using the words "carnage" and "slaughter" to describe the reality of abortion.
What seems to have convinced her is the practice of killing females in Asia. Perhaps she should reflect on the fact that the new tiger economies have taken their lead on "liberalised sexual health" from the west. In fact, the holocaust of Indian and Chinese girls in the womb has been western feminism's gift to the Third World. I hope Ms Wishart and the other "sisters" of the Pelvic Left are feeling pleased with themselves.
James MacMillan CBE,
Southbrae Drive, Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 10:04pm Wed 14 May 08
so you think by outlawing abortion, people will stop killing female babies? get real. you will have the blood of female mothers on your hands too.
so you think by outlawing abortion, people will stop killing female babies? get real. you will have the blood of female mothers on your hands too.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:11pm Wed 14 May 08
I agree ubergeek, a very naive letter indeed.
ps is that the James MacMillan I think it is ?
I agree ubergeek, a very naive letter indeed.
ps is that the James MacMillan I think it is ?
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 11:36pm Wed 14 May 08
Just what is so naive about it? If anything, it is exceptionally naive to sneer at Eastern cultures for abortion of female unborn, when Ruth Wishart et al seem to hold the "right to choose" as a given for themselves. Double standards or what?
Just what is so naive about it? If anything, it is exceptionally naive to sneer at Eastern cultures for abortion of female unborn, when Ruth Wishart et al seem to hold the "right to choose" as a given for themselves. Double standards or what?
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 11:59pm Wed 14 May 08
I think that there are many things about 'Western' society that are wonderful but ther are many things that leave you scratching your head with apparent contradictions. We wonder about the lack of good male 'role models' and why young male adolescents are going 'off the rails' but at the same time our focus in society seems to be all things 'feminine'. We are encouraged to 'get in touch with our feminine side' and health checks always seem to ignore male health problems or the fact that we die younger and work longer? We even now have a proposal in legilation to take men/fahters out of the picture when it comes to the right of the child to know who her/his father was. I long for the day when we stop running men down and see us as equal to women and not worth less.
I think that there are many things about 'Western' society that are wonderful but ther are many things that leave you scratching your head with apparent contradictions. We wonder about the lack of good male 'role models' and why young male adolescents are going 'off the rails' but at the same time our focus in society seems to be all things 'feminine'. We are encouraged to 'get in touch with our feminine side' and health checks always seem to ignore male health problems or the fact that we die younger and work longer? We even now have a proposal in legilation to take men/fahters out of the picture when it comes to the right of the child to know who her/his father was. I long for the day when we stop running men down and see us as equal to women and not worth less.
Posted by: Janet, Glasgow on 6:34am Thu 15 May 08
Choosing a male child in India and China has at least a rational basis - it is preferable in economic terms. Ruth believes that a western woman's 'right' to end her child's life is justifiable because it's not the 'right time' or is not convenient for her lifestyle and that it is definitely not carnage because it was never a child in the first place just an internal growth of some kind.
Choosing a male child in India and China has at least a rational basis - it is preferable in economic terms. Ruth believes that a western woman's 'right' to end her child's life is justifiable because it's not the 'right time' or is not convenient for her lifestyle and that it is definitely not carnage because it was never a child in the first place just an internal growth of some kind.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 9:40am Thu 15 May 08
Observer - yes I think it is. He's pretty loopy isn't he?
Observer - yes I think it is. He's pretty loopy isn't he?
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 11:52am Thu 15 May 08
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists.
The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller.
You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists.
The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller.
You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 12:05pm Thu 15 May 08
Meanwhile the irony of it all is that in many ante natal clinics here, the reasons that some health boards refuse to divulge the sex of an unborn child are
a: the risk of being sued if they get it wrong, but more importantly
b: the risk of the unborn child being subjected to a "selective abortion" if it is the "wrong" gender. "Freedom to choose" somehow selectively applied, methinks. The preserve of Western women, promoted by western men and women alike.
Meanwhile the irony of it all is that in many ante natal clinics here, the reasons that some health boards refuse to divulge the sex of an unborn child are
a: the risk of being sued if they get it wrong, but more importantly
b: the risk of the unborn child being subjected to a "selective abortion" if it is the "wrong" gender. "Freedom to choose" somehow selectively applied, methinks. The preserve of Western women, promoted by western men and women alike.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 12:09pm Thu 15 May 08
I should have added to that, in point "b" the risk that Eastern cultures may adopted a process of "selective abortion. This of course would never do in Western hospitals!
I should have added to that, in point "b" the risk that Eastern cultures may adopted a process of "selective abortion. This of course would never do in Western hospitals!
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:53pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Valentinus[/bold] wrote:
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists. The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller. You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.[/quote] OB1
What james MacMillan is that?
Does having a CBE make you more authorative on any subject at all, or just a snob.?
[quote]You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James....[/quote]
Hopefully but I think you'll find it's far from uninformed.
Perhaps you should have written:
[quote]You'll get the usual uninformed religionista, nonsensical, hysterical support for this James...from those for whom the truth is always a religous embarassment.[/quote]
Valentinus wrote:
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists. The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller. You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.
OB1
What james MacMillan is that?
Does having a CBE make you more authorative on any subject at all, or just a snob.?
You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James....
Hopefully but I think you'll find it's far from uninformed.
Perhaps you should have written:
You'll get the usual uninformed religionista, nonsensical, hysterical support for this James...from those for whom the truth is always a religous embarassment.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:53pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Valentinus[/bold] wrote:
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists. The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller. You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.[/quote] OB1
What james MacMillan is that?
Does having a CBE make you more authorative on any subject at all, or just a snob.?
[quote]You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James....[/quote]
Hopefully but I think you'll find it's far from uninformed.
Perhaps you should have written:
[quote]You'll get the usual uninformed religionista, nonsensical, hysterical support for this James...from those for whom the truth is always a religous embarassment.[/quote]
Valentinus wrote:
Thank goodness James Macmillan has called this one out. There is now abundant evidence that the developing societies to which we have bequeathed the poisoned chalice of abortion on demand are producing in later generations dramatic asymmetries in the ratios of men to women (800 women to 1000 men in the Punjab for example). This in turn intensifies young male competitiveness and aggression and drives 'unsuccessful' males into the arms of extremists. The point is not that female infanticide always existed in these societies (in fact, the phenomenon reduces with better education and prosperity). The bitter irony is that Western abortion technologies provide developing societies with a new form of 'progressive' ethical legitimation for the selective abortion of girls, lent credibility by the treacherous rhetoric of consumer choice and autonomy, and enhanced a thousandfold by the resources of medical intervention. See Hudson and Den Boer, 'A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States'; International Security, 26:4, 5-38. Plus the work of the anthropologist Barbara Miller. You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.
OB1
What james MacMillan is that?
Does having a CBE make you more authorative on any subject at all, or just a snob.?
You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James....
Hopefully but I think you'll find it's far from uninformed.
Perhaps you should have written:
You'll get the usual uninformed religionista, nonsensical, hysterical support for this James...from those for whom the truth is always a religous embarassment.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:24pm Thu 15 May 08
Hi Sam
I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism.
Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter.
In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
Hi Sam
I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism.
Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter.
In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 1:44pm Thu 15 May 08
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others.
Nothing here so far.
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others.
Nothing here so far.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:53pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Valentinus[/bold] wrote:
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others. Nothing here so far.[/quote] [quote]is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response?[/quote]
Yes, see if you can spot them, it's not hard, mainly around your poor attempt at sarcasm
Valentinus wrote:
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others. Nothing here so far.
is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response?
Yes, see if you can spot them, it's not hard, mainly around your poor attempt at sarcasm
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:53pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Valentinus[/bold] wrote:
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others. Nothing here so far.[/quote] [quote]is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response?[/quote]
Yes, see if you can spot them, it's not hard, mainly around your poor attempt at sarcasm
Valentinus wrote:
Sorry, Sam末but is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response? Or a refutation of any of the scholarship I have cited? I always look forward to being informed. On this issue as on all others. Nothing here so far.
is there a rebuttal of any of my points in this response?
Yes, see if you can spot them, it's not hard, mainly around your poor attempt at sarcasm
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:57pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Hi Sam I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism. Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter. In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers. [/quote] I know who you mean now.................
....
[quote]In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian,[/quote]
Don't worry OB1 they will be taken as sectarian by the usual erses.
[quote]It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.[/quote]
But they have a right to shout and ball about anything without criticism, because criticism of them is just sectarianism, nothing else, just sectarianism. Thye're always right you know. :o)
Observer wrote:
Hi Sam I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism. Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter. In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
I know who you mean now.................
....
In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian,
Don't worry OB1 they will be taken as sectarian by the usual erses.
It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
But they have a right to shout and ball about anything without criticism, because criticism of them is just sectarianism, nothing else, just sectarianism. Thye're always right you know. :o)
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:57pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Hi Sam I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism. Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter. In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers. [/quote] I know who you mean now.................
....
[quote]In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian,[/quote]
Don't worry OB1 they will be taken as sectarian by the usual erses.
[quote]It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.[/quote]
But they have a right to shout and ball about anything without criticism, because criticism of them is just sectarianism, nothing else, just sectarianism. Thye're always right you know. :o)
Observer wrote:
Hi Sam I think ,and HGlaswegian agrees, that this may be the James MacMillan (a musician/composer) who launched a fairly nasty attack on ''Scotland's shame'' that shame being, in his eyes, sectarianism. Now maybe it is a coincidence that we are seeing another attack on women's right to control their own fertility being launched at the exact same time as the embryology bill is being debated. But I think you would have to be pretty naive to think so. Somewhat like his letter. In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian, I would say the same about any religion that attacked abortion and medical research. It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
I know who you mean now.................
....
In the interests of clarity my comments are not sectarian,
Don't worry OB1 they will be taken as sectarian by the usual erses.
It just so happens that the body doing that in this case is the Catholic Church, and it's followers.
But they have a right to shout and ball about anything without criticism, because criticism of them is just sectarianism, nothing else, just sectarianism. Thye're always right you know. :o)
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 4:10pm Thu 15 May 08
Still missing something here, Sam. I have put forward a number of arguments based on recent anthropological studies of the effects of the introduction into Asian countries of Western-style abortion services on i) selective female foetal termination rates and ii) the resultant impact on levels of male violence and radicalisation among unattached men in the 17-30 age range. I have provided the necessary academic references.
Where are the rebuttals or refutations of this scholarship in your reply? Just point to them. Forgive me if I can't see them. Can anyone else?
Still missing something here, Sam. I have put forward a number of arguments based on recent anthropological studies of the effects of the introduction into Asian countries of Western-style abortion services on i) selective female foetal termination rates and ii) the resultant impact on levels of male violence and radicalisation among unattached men in the 17-30 age range. I have provided the necessary academic references.
Where are the rebuttals or refutations of this scholarship in your reply? Just point to them. Forgive me if I can't see them. Can anyone else?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 4:42pm Thu 15 May 08
''You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.''
If you think anyone on the pro choice side is going to bother digging out your academic references when you post stuff like that, you can think again.
You can find ''scholarship'' freely on the internet to back up any wacky theory you like.
Try putting forward your own argument, in your own words, and we might answer you.
''You'll get the usual uninformed winebar liberal stick for this James...from those for whom the truth is always an intellectual embarassment.''
If you think anyone on the pro choice side is going to bother digging out your academic references when you post stuff like that, you can think again.
You can find ''scholarship'' freely on the internet to back up any wacky theory you like.
Try putting forward your own argument, in your own words, and we might answer you.
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 6:00pm Thu 15 May 08
Dear oh dear, Observer. You are riled. So peer-reviewed academic journals such as International Security and American Anthropology (the Miller research: December 2001, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 1083-1095) are 'wacky', are they? The academic community will be intrigued to know that. So will the fieldworkers who did the empirical investigations across the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia..
I agree with you entirely that few on the pro choice side are going to bother digging out these references. Isn't that Mr Macmillan's point? Inconvenient facts consequent on their dogmas rarely detain ideologues for very long. Thanks for confirming that for readers. If I'd written it, no one would have believed me.
Dear oh dear, Observer. You are riled. So peer-reviewed academic journals such as International Security and American Anthropology (the Miller research: December 2001, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 1083-1095) are 'wacky', are they? The academic community will be intrigued to know that. So will the fieldworkers who did the empirical investigations across the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia..
I agree with you entirely that few on the pro choice side are going to bother digging out these references. Isn't that Mr Macmillan's point? Inconvenient facts consequent on their dogmas rarely detain ideologues for very long. Thanks for confirming that for readers. If I'd written it, no one would have believed me.
Posted by: Tim on 7:31pm Thu 15 May 08
The reaction of representatives of the "Pelvic Left" here, with its inability (and unwillingness) to factually rebut the scholarship provided by Valentinus (some of which reaction smacks of a Luddite attitude towards modern informational technology) and its adolescent comments on the letter-writer, was boringly predictable. Look for more follow-up abuse and name-calling as their inadequate substitutes for the use of reason.
The reaction of representatives of the "Pelvic Left" here, with its inability (and unwillingness) to factually rebut the scholarship provided by Valentinus (some of which reaction smacks of a Luddite attitude towards modern informational technology) and its adolescent comments on the letter-writer, was boringly predictable. Look for more follow-up abuse and name-calling as their inadequate substitutes for the use of reason.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 8:12pm Thu 15 May 08
I wasn't referring to Ms Miller's work as wacky, I was saying that the internet is a veritable treasure trove of information for posters who wish to cite whatever aspect they can find to prove a point that they cannot make themselves. These points frequently being wacky.
We are not at University, we are on a newspaper web site. If you have a point please make it, clearly, succinctly, and in your own words as much as possible.
I wasn't referring to Ms Miller's work as wacky, I was saying that the internet is a veritable treasure trove of information for posters who wish to cite whatever aspect they can find to prove a point that they cannot make themselves. These points frequently being wacky.
We are not at University, we are on a newspaper web site. If you have a point please make it, clearly, succinctly, and in your own words as much as possible.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 8:33pm Thu 15 May 08
I am not qualified to comment on the very esoteric arguments you make in a specialist field. I doubt that the fanatic James Mcmillan is either. I find his choice of words emotive and disgusting especially on second reading. His ad hominem attacks are worse than disgusting.
I can think of no institution that has a worse record than the Roman Catholic church on the best and most efficacious answer to abortion in the eastern world or indeed in any part of the world. I speak of course of effective contraception: repeat effective contraception. I have noticed that when it comes to abortion the church hates talking of contraception. Happily secular agencies are less shy!
As a study published in the journal International Family Perspectives shows, once the birth rate stabilises contraceptive use continues to increase and the abortion rate falls. In largely secular western Europe, where it becomes clear that abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies, it stands at 12 abortions per 1000 women. Central and S America where the Catholic Church holds greatest sway the rates are 25 and 33respectively
In the very conservative societies that Valentinus is most concerned with it's 39.
Unicef notes that in the Netherlands with the world's
lowest abortion rate a shrp reduction in teenage pregnancies was caused by"more open attitudes to sex and sex education." Hmmn.
A World Health Organisation report shows that almost half the world's abortions are unauthorised and unsafe. In East
Africaand Latin America where religious conservatives ensure that termination remain illegal they account for almost all abortions. I have lots more stats and numbers on this topic of contraception since you seem keen on them but the James McMillan's of this world never wish to talkof them. In "Bring on Apocalypse; Six Arguments for Global Justice" -George Monbiot discusses many more still.
So I agree that the west's intervention is not always
helpful especiallyy that of the Pope's and his merry men and it is usually men.
When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of this crisis - that thy should defend traditional values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions, or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme he condemns women to death. Come to think of it you haven't been exactly garrulous, Valentinus or have I missed it when the failure to provide contraceptives is blocked and euphemised with religious prattle and
replaced with back street foeticide?
Misery disease and death are offered by the self-styled pro-lifers Why is James McMillan shtum on all this or haven't you noticed? I must have missed the letter in the Herald.
I too deplore the high levels of abortion . That's why I'm such a passionate believer in contraception. Just wish the Pope was. Just wish you were Valentinus. but then maybe you are but just don't like to say so or at least behind your hand at best.
What's your take, Valentinus, assuming you have one? And if you don't why not?
I am not qualified to comment on the very esoteric arguments you make in a specialist field. I doubt that the fanatic James Mcmillan is either. I find his choice of words emotive and disgusting especially on second reading. His ad hominem attacks are worse than disgusting.
I can think of no institution that has a worse record than the Roman Catholic church on the best and most efficacious answer to abortion in the eastern world or indeed in any part of the world. I speak of course of effective contraception: repeat effective contraception. I have noticed that when it comes to abortion the church hates talking of contraception. Happily secular agencies are less shy!
As a study published in the journal International Family Perspectives shows, once the birth rate stabilises contraceptive use continues to increase and the abortion rate falls. In largely secular western Europe, where it becomes clear that abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies, it stands at 12 abortions per 1000 women. Central and S America where the Catholic Church holds greatest sway the rates are 25 and 33respectively
In the very conservative societies that Valentinus is most concerned with it's 39.
Unicef notes that in the Netherlands with the world's
lowest abortion rate a shrp reduction in teenage pregnancies was caused by"more open attitudes to sex and sex education." Hmmn.
A World Health Organisation report shows that almost half the world's abortions are unauthorised and unsafe. In East
Africaand Latin America where religious conservatives ensure that termination remain illegal they account for almost all abortions. I have lots more stats and numbers on this topic of contraception since you seem keen on them but the James McMillan's of this world never wish to talkof them. In "Bring on Apocalypse; Six Arguments for Global Justice" -George Monbiot discusses many more still.
So I agree that the west's intervention is not always
helpful especiallyy that of the Pope's and his merry men and it is usually men.
When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of this crisis - that thy should defend traditional values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions, or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme he condemns women to death. Come to think of it you haven't been exactly garrulous, Valentinus or have I missed it when the failure to provide contraceptives is blocked and euphemised with religious prattle and
replaced with back street foeticide?
Misery disease and death are offered by the self-styled pro-lifers Why is James McMillan shtum on all this or haven't you noticed? I must have missed the letter in the Herald.
I too deplore the high levels of abortion . That's why I'm such a passionate believer in contraception. Just wish the Pope was. Just wish you were Valentinus. but then maybe you are but just don't like to say so or at least behind your hand at best.
What's your take, Valentinus, assuming you have one? And if you don't why not?
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 8:37pm Thu 15 May 08
im afraid the devil is in the detail when it comes to quoting studies. Just becuause it appears in peer reviewed journals doesnt mean it is the Truth. I remember another study suggesting abortion has reduced crime rates in the US. What you have to prove is how banning abortion stops female infanticide, and doesnt result in needless maternal deaths. You dont seem to have an answer that works alongside human nature. Much like replacing contraceptive use with "abstinence". As i said before, get real.
im afraid the devil is in the detail when it comes to quoting studies. Just becuause it appears in peer reviewed journals doesnt mean it is the Truth. I remember another study suggesting abortion has reduced crime rates in the US. What you have to prove is how banning abortion stops female infanticide, and doesnt result in needless maternal deaths. You dont seem to have an answer that works alongside human nature. Much like replacing contraceptive use with "abstinence". As i said before, get real.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:19pm Thu 15 May 08
ubergeek, glasgow
Well said. Don't get me going on abstinence. And whatever happened to the rhythm method? Maybe Jame McMillan could write a "piece for side drums" on that. Or should that be a "piece on the side drums"? Thank God most Tims ignore this bilge when it comes to their own sex lives. I'm sure Valentinus knows the source material which demonstates it.
ubergeek, glasgow
Well said. Don't get me going on abstinence. And whatever happened to the rhythm method? Maybe Jame McMillan could write a "piece for side drums" on that. Or should that be a "piece on the side drums"? Thank God most Tims ignore this bilge when it comes to their own sex lives. I'm sure Valentinus knows the source material which demonstates it.
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 11:28pm Thu 15 May 08
Yes, Chris. It's heartening to see someone admit that they are not qualified. Being qualified is such a bore, I know. Not quite sure about what you are implying, other than ad hominem desperation, about the use of aliases. But the site moderators will be able to assure you that I am neither James Macmillan (though I do like his music very much末assuming it is he) nor Tim, whoever he is.
As for my 'take'? I hold no brief for Mr Macmillan, his religious views (which are of no interest to me) or the teachings of the Catholic Church about contraception末thoug
h it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place. I was simply concerned to point out that the Western liberal export of abortion on demand stands in a long line of such imperialist gestures: demonstrating no sense of its likely impact on traditional cultures and now wreaking a kind of havoc on the gender politics of the Asian region末indeed, helping to maintain the supply of young male recruits to the politics of fanaticism. That is what a respected body of anthropological scholarship now unequivocally shows. Unfortunately, providing traditional societies with Western liberal abortion rights does not produce Western liberals. Observing the dismay of Western liberals when they see the ingrates of the Third World misuse in this way the enlightened reproductive ethics so benevolently passed on to them from us would be amusing, were it not so tragic for everyone. We told them abortion was a woman's right over her body. Surprise surprise末they get rid of girls and continue to produce lots of boys (in rural China, female foetuses are 14 time more likely to be terminated than males).
You'll appreciate that my main target is uninformed humbug of the 'well that's what I think and no amount of evidence will persuade me otherwise' kind. Ironically, the same thing applies to legendary Dutch sex education. The teenage pregnancy rates of the Netherlands (which, of course, supports a Catholic schools system uncannily like Scotland's) have next to nothing to do with sex education (in fact, the good sex-education=low teenage pregnancies relationship exists nowhere). What counts in Holland is family structure and effective parenting. See KJ Zullig, RF Valois, ES Huebner, JW Drane - Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2005 (oh sorry, that might be another internet ufo sighting citation.....let me check...)
Yes, Chris. It's heartening to see someone admit that they are not qualified. Being qualified is such a bore, I know. Not quite sure about what you are implying, other than ad hominem desperation, about the use of aliases. But the site moderators will be able to assure you that I am neither James Macmillan (though I do like his music very much末assuming it is he) nor Tim, whoever he is.
As for my 'take'? I hold no brief for Mr Macmillan, his religious views (which are of no interest to me) or the teachings of the Catholic Church about contraception末thoug
h it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place. I was simply concerned to point out that the Western liberal export of abortion on demand stands in a long line of such imperialist gestures: demonstrating no sense of its likely impact on traditional cultures and now wreaking a kind of havoc on the gender politics of the Asian region末indeed, helping to maintain the supply of young male recruits to the politics of fanaticism. That is what a respected body of anthropological scholarship now unequivocally shows. Unfortunately, providing traditional societies with Western liberal abortion rights does not produce Western liberals. Observing the dismay of Western liberals when they see the ingrates of the Third World misuse in this way the enlightened reproductive ethics so benevolently passed on to them from us would be amusing, were it not so tragic for everyone. We told them abortion was a woman's right over her body. Surprise surprise末they get rid of girls and continue to produce lots of boys (in rural China, female foetuses are 14 time more likely to be terminated than males).
You'll appreciate that my main target is uninformed humbug of the 'well that's what I think and no amount of evidence will persuade me otherwise' kind. Ironically, the same thing applies to legendary Dutch sex education. The teenage pregnancy rates of the Netherlands (which, of course, supports a Catholic schools system uncannily like Scotland's) have next to nothing to do with sex education (in fact, the good sex-education=low teenage pregnancies relationship exists nowhere). What counts in Holland is family structure and effective parenting. See KJ Zullig, RF Valois, ES Huebner, JW Drane - Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2005 (oh sorry, that might be another internet ufo sighting citation.....let me check...)
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:46am Fri 16 May 08
Valentinus
Anybody who reads what I have said on these threads, or indeed in my many letters in the Herald over a very long time, will concede that I have never attacked knowledge. I consistently refer on these boards to Orwell's dictum that "Ignorance is Strength" sardonically. let me say that again: sardonically.
If you ever dare say, as I did in my post above to you, that I do not have the specialist competence you possess then you open yourself up to the supercilious reaction that you consistently display towards all - a sneering reference to you own putative superiority.
When knaves such as Tim. who is mentally unbalanced and worse, rush to support you, it arouses my suspicions as to the intrinsic worth of what you espouse. Knowledge is multi faceted and multi-dimensional. You self-evidently lack skills in other sciences or go to some trouble to conceal them where they do not coincide with you ideological take on abortion. I use the word ideological with some care. In the context of a thread headed up by a well-known Catholic zealot (I assume) and embracing the word 'Holocaust' - there'#s scientific imprimatur for you - you chose to ignore any reference to 'contraception' and its relation to the awful rates of abortion and thus partly the responsibility of the Catholic Church. To me that is ridiculous - concern for abortion without reference to contraception is an oxymoron. That's why other morons, such as Tim who has many aliases, rally to your cause.
My own science is that of civil engineering and its concomitant 'art' of urban planning. These functions have taken me around the world and even won me some peer-group success. Acclaimed by the American Water Association for a paper on Water re-use being one of them. "Harnessing the forces of nature for the benfit of mankind," the motto of the Institution of Civil Engineers, was inspirational to me as a young man. It also allowed me to interface with sciences such as epidemiology and thus to understand them.
I have seen war and pestilence up close so I'm well aware of human suffering where white liberals have trodden a path. I witness the warm embrace of the Catholic church of a war criminal and his equally warm embrace of that religion: it tends to make me physically sick, esp the very public apostasy.
Perhaps one day we will have a discussion on my experiences and my scientific backdrop. I hope you will bring to it an undoubted knowledge base you have, albeit sadly incomplete and thus very flawed. A scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part would help also. Persuasion of others depends on it. Meanwhile I repeat: "Ignorance may be Strength" for some. Ask Tim. It will never be for me.
Valentinus
Anybody who reads what I have said on these threads, or indeed in my many letters in the Herald over a very long time, will concede that I have never attacked knowledge. I consistently refer on these boards to Orwell's dictum that "Ignorance is Strength" sardonically. let me say that again: sardonically.
If you ever dare say, as I did in my post above to you, that I do not have the specialist competence you possess then you open yourself up to the supercilious reaction that you consistently display towards all - a sneering reference to you own putative superiority.
When knaves such as Tim. who is mentally unbalanced and worse, rush to support you, it arouses my suspicions as to the intrinsic worth of what you espouse. Knowledge is multi faceted and multi-dimensional. You self-evidently lack skills in other sciences or go to some trouble to conceal them where they do not coincide with you ideological take on abortion. I use the word ideological with some care. In the context of a thread headed up by a well-known Catholic zealot (I assume) and embracing the word 'Holocaust' - there'#s scientific imprimatur for you - you chose to ignore any reference to 'contraception' and its relation to the awful rates of abortion and thus partly the responsibility of the Catholic Church. To me that is ridiculous - concern for abortion without reference to contraception is an oxymoron. That's why other morons, such as Tim who has many aliases, rally to your cause.
My own science is that of civil engineering and its concomitant 'art' of urban planning. These functions have taken me around the world and even won me some peer-group success. Acclaimed by the American Water Association for a paper on Water re-use being one of them. "Harnessing the forces of nature for the benfit of mankind," the motto of the Institution of Civil Engineers, was inspirational to me as a young man. It also allowed me to interface with sciences such as epidemiology and thus to understand them.
I have seen war and pestilence up close so I'm well aware of human suffering where white liberals have trodden a path. I witness the warm embrace of the Catholic church of a war criminal and his equally warm embrace of that religion: it tends to make me physically sick, esp the very public apostasy.
Perhaps one day we will have a discussion on my experiences and my scientific backdrop. I hope you will bring to it an undoubted knowledge base you have, albeit sadly incomplete and thus very flawed. A scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part would help also. Persuasion of others depends on it. Meanwhile I repeat: "Ignorance may be Strength" for some. Ask Tim. It will never be for me.
Posted by: Tim on 12:18pm Fri 16 May 08
Valentinus' comment "it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place." is extremely well taken. As is his reference to the "ad hominem desperation" ("putative superiority"!!! "a scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part"!!!) of a self-serving poster on this board in that person's predictable attacks on the Catholic Church. To paraphrase: you can take the anti-Catholic bigot out of his/her particular Scottish backwoods (and even teach him/her to look up big words in the dictionary and have him/her travel the world) but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot.
The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death show a breathtaking arrogance in their treatment of those who live in continents like Asia. Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues. Beliefs which will result in, for example, their mother country (the core of the former Soviet Union--an imperialist of the first order) losing one third of its population in the next half century. This is "progressive" thinking at its most benighted, which the "loony left" wishes to gift to those who live in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia .
Valentinus' comment "it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place." is extremely well taken. As is his reference to the "ad hominem desperation" ("putative superiority"!!! "a scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part"!!!) of a self-serving poster on this board in that person's predictable attacks on the Catholic Church. To paraphrase: you can take the anti-Catholic bigot out of his/her particular Scottish backwoods (and even teach him/her to look up big words in the dictionary and have him/her travel the world) but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot.
The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death show a breathtaking arrogance in their treatment of those who live in continents like Asia. Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues. Beliefs which will result in, for example, their mother country (the core of the former Soviet Union--an imperialist of the first order) losing one third of its population in the next half century. This is "progressive" thinking at its most benighted, which the "loony left" wishes to gift to those who live in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia .
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 12:26pm Fri 16 May 08
Yes, yes. I have no real interest in anyone's credentials (or their lifestory for that matter) on this issue末religious, professional or anything else. Hence I have made no reference to my own. That I should be criticised for the strangers on a website who support me or for my imagined lack of scientific skills (whatever that means) seems as redundant as it is gratuitous. It is of no consequence to me. It is the arguments that count. Let's imagine the letter came from Joe Macmillan an atheist electrician from Peebles. Deal with it.
I was interested simply in endorsing James Macmillan's view of the misguided promotion of Western liberal abortion rights in societies which then respond to them in ways blinkered liberals might just have foreseen had they possessed the insight actually to look at these cultures from the inside (as anthropologists do).
I made no reference to the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because it has no bearing of any kind on this argument. Alas, however, the intercultural evidence will simply not support the equation of contraceptive services, low abortion rates and low levels of unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, the strongest demographic trend in the literature shows close correlations between rising availability of contraception and rising levels of abortion. Availability of contraception does not reduce abortions, especially in developing countries, and especially where abortion services are themselves actively promoted as part of a contraceptive, family planning regime (interesting case study of this in Nepal and Thailand, where the Catholic presence is negligible).. Even the WHO has accepted this. To repeat末I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception. Indeed, the recent research literature on selective female foetuscide has focused in the main on societies that are predominately Islamic, animist or communist.
Yes, yes. I have no real interest in anyone's credentials (or their lifestory for that matter) on this issue末religious, professional or anything else. Hence I have made no reference to my own. That I should be criticised for the strangers on a website who support me or for my imagined lack of scientific skills (whatever that means) seems as redundant as it is gratuitous. It is of no consequence to me. It is the arguments that count. Let's imagine the letter came from Joe Macmillan an atheist electrician from Peebles. Deal with it.
I was interested simply in endorsing James Macmillan's view of the misguided promotion of Western liberal abortion rights in societies which then respond to them in ways blinkered liberals might just have foreseen had they possessed the insight actually to look at these cultures from the inside (as anthropologists do).
I made no reference to the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because it has no bearing of any kind on this argument. Alas, however, the intercultural evidence will simply not support the equation of contraceptive services, low abortion rates and low levels of unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, the strongest demographic trend in the literature shows close correlations between rising availability of contraception and rising levels of abortion. Availability of contraception does not reduce abortions, especially in developing countries, and especially where abortion services are themselves actively promoted as part of a contraceptive, family planning regime (interesting case study of this in Nepal and Thailand, where the Catholic presence is negligible).. Even the WHO has accepted this. To repeat末I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception. Indeed, the recent research literature on selective female foetuscide has focused in the main on societies that are predominately Islamic, animist or communist.
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 12:28pm Fri 16 May 08
Yes, yes. I have no real interest in anyone's credentials (or their lifestory for that matter) on this issue末religious, professional or anything else. Hence I have made no reference to my own. That I should be criticised for the strangers on a website who support me or for my imagined lack of scientific skills (whatever that means) seems as redundant as it is gratuitous. It is of no consequence to me. It is the arguments that count. Let's imagine the letter came from Joe Macmillan an atheist electrician from Peebles. Deal with it.
I was interested simply in endorsing James Macmillan's view of the misguided promotion of Western liberal abortion rights in societies which then respond to them in ways blinkered liberals might just have foreseen had they possessed the insight actually to look at these cultures from the inside (as anthropologists do).
I made no reference to the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because it has no bearing of any kind on this argument. Alas, however, the intercultural evidence will simply not support the equation of contraceptive services, low abortion rates and low levels of unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, the strongest demographic trend in the literature shows close correlations between rising availability of contraception and rising levels of abortion. Availability of contraception does not reduce abortions, especially in developing countries, and especially where abortion services are themselves actively promoted as part of a contraceptive, family planning regime (interesting case study of this in Nepal and Thailand, where the Catholic presence is negligible).. Even the WHO has accepted this. To repeat末I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception. Indeed, the recent research literature on selective female foetuscide has focused in the main on societies that are predominately Islamic, animist or communist.
Yes, yes. I have no real interest in anyone's credentials (or their lifestory for that matter) on this issue末religious, professional or anything else. Hence I have made no reference to my own. That I should be criticised for the strangers on a website who support me or for my imagined lack of scientific skills (whatever that means) seems as redundant as it is gratuitous. It is of no consequence to me. It is the arguments that count. Let's imagine the letter came from Joe Macmillan an atheist electrician from Peebles. Deal with it.
I was interested simply in endorsing James Macmillan's view of the misguided promotion of Western liberal abortion rights in societies which then respond to them in ways blinkered liberals might just have foreseen had they possessed the insight actually to look at these cultures from the inside (as anthropologists do).
I made no reference to the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because it has no bearing of any kind on this argument. Alas, however, the intercultural evidence will simply not support the equation of contraceptive services, low abortion rates and low levels of unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, the strongest demographic trend in the literature shows close correlations between rising availability of contraception and rising levels of abortion. Availability of contraception does not reduce abortions, especially in developing countries, and especially where abortion services are themselves actively promoted as part of a contraceptive, family planning regime (interesting case study of this in Nepal and Thailand, where the Catholic presence is negligible).. Even the WHO has accepted this. To repeat末I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception. Indeed, the recent research literature on selective female foetuscide has focused in the main on societies that are predominately Islamic, animist or communist.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 5:08pm Fri 16 May 08
Valentinus
"I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception, says Valentinus". It's the "remotest" that fascinates me. That's what you said. Then you go on in the next sentence to express one, always on one ideological side. I'm afraid that this forms a leitmotif in your posts as well as the "ad hominem" attacks, similarly patterned. You may not be concerned about the evil imbecile who so passionately supports your analysis. Again, I am. And so are many others. We wonder about what and who it is which can attract the support of a lunatic. I suspect he has helped kill your thread and why you have switched your "ad hominem" and odious attacks (on Professor Shaw) to another thread. Or is personal abuse your normal behaviour as a scientist?
"You don't have an interest etc" but I have and the science I personify, since I believe that there is a key umbilical link (pardon the pun) between contraception and the abortion issues you raise, and which framed the debate here. Nor do I need your permission to raise and conflate these elements and issues. You may own your arguments and you are welcome to your much ventilated faux-superiority and one-man fan club. You are not the owner nor even the rentier of the thread.
Valentinus
"I have not the remotest interest in the Catholic Church's view of artificial contraception, says Valentinus". It's the "remotest" that fascinates me. That's what you said. Then you go on in the next sentence to express one, always on one ideological side. I'm afraid that this forms a leitmotif in your posts as well as the "ad hominem" attacks, similarly patterned. You may not be concerned about the evil imbecile who so passionately supports your analysis. Again, I am. And so are many others. We wonder about what and who it is which can attract the support of a lunatic. I suspect he has helped kill your thread and why you have switched your "ad hominem" and odious attacks (on Professor Shaw) to another thread. Or is personal abuse your normal behaviour as a scientist?
"You don't have an interest etc" but I have and the science I personify, since I believe that there is a key umbilical link (pardon the pun) between contraception and the abortion issues you raise, and which framed the debate here. Nor do I need your permission to raise and conflate these elements and issues. You may own your arguments and you are welcome to your much ventilated faux-superiority and one-man fan club. You are not the owner nor even the rentier of the thread.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 6:00pm Fri 16 May 08
[quote][bold]Tim[/bold] wrote:
Valentinus' comment "it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place." is extremely well taken. As is his reference to the "ad hominem desperation" ("putative superiority"!!! "a scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part"!!!) of a self-serving poster on this board in that person's predictable attacks on the Catholic Church. To paraphrase: you can take the anti-Catholic bigot out of his/her particular Scottish backwoods (and even teach him/her to look up big words in the dictionary and have him/her travel the world) but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot. The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death show a breathtaking arrogance in their treatment of those who live in continents like Asia. Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues. Beliefs which will result in, for example, their mother country (the core of the former Soviet Union--an imperialist of the first order) losing one third of its population in the next half century. This is "progressive" thinking at its most benighted, which the "loony left" wishes to gift to those who live in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia . [/quote] ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
[quote]but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot.[/quote]
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
[quote]The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death[/quote]
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
[quote]Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues.[/quote]
Unlike religions
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
[quote] As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia .[/quote]
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
Like you saying there is a god
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
Tim wrote:
Valentinus' comment "it is interesting to see how standard Scottish anti-Catholic animus soon impinges on a debate where it had no place." is extremely well taken. As is his reference to the "ad hominem desperation" ("putative superiority"!!! "a scintilla of Socratean modesty on your part"!!!) of a self-serving poster on this board in that person's predictable attacks on the Catholic Church. To paraphrase: you can take the anti-Catholic bigot out of his/her particular Scottish backwoods (and even teach him/her to look up big words in the dictionary and have him/her travel the world) but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot. The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death show a breathtaking arrogance in their treatment of those who live in continents like Asia. Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues. Beliefs which will result in, for example, their mother country (the core of the former Soviet Union--an imperialist of the first order) losing one third of its population in the next half century. This is "progressive" thinking at its most benighted, which the "loony left" wishes to gift to those who live in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia .
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
but you can't take the backwoods out of a sectarian bigot.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
The left-wing practitioners of the Culture of Death
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
Rather than giving them the necessities of life, like clean drinking water and adequate food, they insist on pushing down their throats their perverted beliefs on life issues.
Unlike religions
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
As one example of such thinking: it's not too long since Margaret Sanger's grandson (he of that vast money-making enterprise called Planned Parenthood) was heard to say that his life's goal was to be able to lease a 747 plane and drop condoms on Bolivia .
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
Like you saying there is a god
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah haha haha
Posted by: Valentinus, Glasgow on 6:07pm Fri 16 May 08
Dear oh dear.
Please point out to me any ad hominem attacks on you or anyone else in my posts, Chris. I believe I have consistently pressed home arguments and refuted others. It does not concern me whether the writer is a Civil Engineer, a composer, a philosophy professor or a street sweeper. Indeed, the only individual routinely personally attacked in this thread is 'Tim' (I am not far behind, at least in your posts, but no matter). And mostly by you末despite your hopeful 'we's' and 'so many others'. I suggest you review dispassionately the abusive language you have used to describe him (without materially addressing any of his points), including swear words and references to mental incapacity. That he supports my position neither strengthens nor undermines my case. I have no notion of who he is or what he has written before on other topics. Nor, frankly, does it concern me whether the thread lives or dies. It isn't mine.
The Catholic Church's account of contraception rests upon a religious worldview I do not share. Hence the detailed rationale for it does not occupy me. However, the standard liberal assertion of the relationship between the Catholic objections to contraception and the prevalence of abortion is an empirically mistaken one, falsified in study after study. You can persist in believing what you like, about anything really, and without anyone's permission. That doesn't detain me either. But believing something doesn't make it true末that is the essence of Socratic rationality as recorded in Plato's repudiation of the sophists in the Gorgias
I believe I made no personal attack on David Shaw. I pointed out the ethical incoherence in his argument in favour of embryological experimentation, which, I believe can be used perfectly to justify painless infanticide for the medical advantage of others. Please show if and where my analysis of his position is incorrect. So far, no one has.
Dear oh dear.
Please point out to me any ad hominem attacks on you or anyone else in my posts, Chris. I believe I have consistently pressed home arguments and refuted others. It does not concern me whether the writer is a Civil Engineer, a composer, a philosophy professor or a street sweeper. Indeed, the only individual routinely personally attacked in this thread is 'Tim' (I am not far behind, at least in your posts, but no matter). And mostly by you末despite your hopeful 'we's' and 'so many others'. I suggest you review dispassionately the abusive language you have used to describe him (without materially addressing any of his points), including swear words and references to mental incapacity. That he supports my position neither strengthens nor undermines my case. I have no notion of who he is or what he has written before on other topics. Nor, frankly, does it concern me whether the thread lives or dies. It isn't mine.
The Catholic Church's account of contraception rests upon a religious worldview I do not share. Hence the detailed rationale for it does not occupy me. However, the standard liberal assertion of the relationship between the Catholic objections to contraception and the prevalence of abortion is an empirically mistaken one, falsified in study after study. You can persist in believing what you like, about anything really, and without anyone's permission. That doesn't detain me either. But believing something doesn't make it true末that is the essence of Socratic rationality as recorded in Plato's repudiation of the sophists in the Gorgias
I believe I made no personal attack on David Shaw. I pointed out the ethical incoherence in his argument in favour of embryological experimentation, which, I believe can be used perfectly to justify painless infanticide for the medical advantage of others. Please show if and where my analysis of his position is incorrect. So far, no one has.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 7:23pm Fri 16 May 08
Valentinus
if you don't believe you made a personal attack on Professor Shaw and his professional judgement I suggest you return to the relevant thread. As to what constitutes a personal attack let me say this.
If somebody made repeated attacks upon you calling you a homosexualised person over weeks and weeks of such sexuaised homophobic and misogynistic stuff, including your diabetes, and non-existent alcoholic problems, followed by sneering calumnies re friends who had been murdered, my friends, in Iraq where I lived, and culminating in a direct statement that you were suffering from Alzheimers, woud you consider these deeply injurious attacks offensive? Would Alzheimers enhance your scientific reputation?
Please answer the questions and try to avoid sliding elliptically into non-answers to which you seem prone. The fact that they were perpetrated anonymously, just as you are anonymous, and under several pseudonyms serves only to add to their deeply abusive nature. Do you also agree? This sad creature, Tim/Lou/ Tom posing first as a man, then a woman, and finally as a transvestite (?), was asked to remove himself from these threads by one of the Herald's most respected posters, Brian Finch, who called him accurately "repellent". You don't know Brian either I suppose?
You, Valentinus, were giving us all a lecture on these threads about "ignorance". Now you confess your own unawareness of the background before using your total ignorance in an empathetic defence of this creature. Suddenly to repeat, and charateristically, your ignorance becomes a shield for this reprobate. That is very bad science and non-evidence led. Tut Tut. Two of my children are specialist lawyers. They would argue that it is not possible to make "ad hominem" attacks legally on a non-person. I believe Tim to be a non-person in as much as he is many, ducking and diving his way through life. I have never come across a creature so vile on these threads. With or without your permission I will continue to expose him until two things hapen. First off, that he apologises to me and all Alzheimers victims and those who care for them, publicly, on the perfidious Alzheimers claim. Secondly, do.do. for his sneering mockery of my dead Iraqi friends, murdered by his hero Blair. When he does both, but only then, I will leave him alone to get on with his sad little life.
Finally, I disagree strongly with your claim - and there you go again - that the Catholic Church is off-the-hook on the correlation between contraception and abortion. Or your ridiculous assertion that false study after study assertion shows this to be true. For they do no such thing. I have quoted a study from the journal International Plannining Perespectives. I didn't mention the Guttamacher Institute nor the united Agency Unicef except in relation to Holland. Nor did I cite the work of the World Health Organisation. I did mention George Monbiot's Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice which I suspect you haven't read. Why not do so now before straying into contraception politics again? I am content to accept Monbiot's work before yours.
When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of the crisis - that they should defend traditional family values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme, he condemns women to death. If it is bigotry to condemen this then I plead guilty as charged. He spreads misery, disease and death. I listen to the Pope. Sadly, so do the people, his acolytes, to whom he speaks. The awful rate of abortions in the world is partly his responsibility. Why not acknowlege this terrible truth?
Valentinus
if you don't believe you made a personal attack on Professor Shaw and his professional judgement I suggest you return to the relevant thread. As to what constitutes a personal attack let me say this.
If somebody made repeated attacks upon you calling you a homosexualised person over weeks and weeks of such sexuaised homophobic and misogynistic stuff, including your diabetes, and non-existent alcoholic problems, followed by sneering calumnies re friends who had been murdered, my friends, in Iraq where I lived, and culminating in a direct statement that you were suffering from Alzheimers, woud you consider these deeply injurious attacks offensive? Would Alzheimers enhance your scientific reputation?
Please answer the questions and try to avoid sliding elliptically into non-answers to which you seem prone. The fact that they were perpetrated anonymously, just as you are anonymous, and under several pseudonyms serves only to add to their deeply abusive nature. Do you also agree? This sad creature, Tim/Lou/ Tom posing first as a man, then a woman, and finally as a transvestite (?), was asked to remove himself from these threads by one of the Herald's most respected posters, Brian Finch, who called him accurately "repellent". You don't know Brian either I suppose?
You, Valentinus, were giving us all a lecture on these threads about "ignorance". Now you confess your own unawareness of the background before using your total ignorance in an empathetic defence of this creature. Suddenly to repeat, and charateristically, your ignorance becomes a shield for this reprobate. That is very bad science and non-evidence led. Tut Tut. Two of my children are specialist lawyers. They would argue that it is not possible to make "ad hominem" attacks legally on a non-person. I believe Tim to be a non-person in as much as he is many, ducking and diving his way through life. I have never come across a creature so vile on these threads. With or without your permission I will continue to expose him until two things hapen. First off, that he apologises to me and all Alzheimers victims and those who care for them, publicly, on the perfidious Alzheimers claim. Secondly, do.do. for his sneering mockery of my dead Iraqi friends, murdered by his hero Blair. When he does both, but only then, I will leave him alone to get on with his sad little life.
Finally, I disagree strongly with your claim - and there you go again - that the Catholic Church is off-the-hook on the correlation between contraception and abortion. Or your ridiculous assertion that false study after study assertion shows this to be true. For they do no such thing. I have quoted a study from the journal International Plannining Perespectives. I didn't mention the Guttamacher Institute nor the united Agency Unicef except in relation to Holland. Nor did I cite the work of the World Health Organisation. I did mention George Monbiot's Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice which I suspect you haven't read. Why not do so now before straying into contraception politics again? I am content to accept Monbiot's work before yours.
When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of the crisis - that they should defend traditional family values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme, he condemns women to death. If it is bigotry to condemen this then I plead guilty as charged. He spreads misery, disease and death. I listen to the Pope. Sadly, so do the people, his acolytes, to whom he speaks. The awful rate of abortions in the world is partly his responsibility. Why not acknowlege this terrible truth?
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (39)
