Open Thread

There has been a lot of coverage in the papers today of the Vatican's decision to launch an inquiry into historic child abuse that occurred at Ealing Abbey (apostolic visitation). Monks and lay teachers from the abbey taught at a neighbouring school, and in 2009 a priest was convicted of sickening sex crimes.

Abuse survivors, however, are questioning the point of the "inquiry", especially given that its findings will remain secret.

'Pete Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said it was a public relations exercise and akin to "putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank".'

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/25/ealing-abbey-sexual-abuse-vatican

And on the same subject, the BBC reports that the former abbot has skipped bail and is probably hiding out in Rome:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15442914

Well rjb there you have it, at least cardinal Law has someone to keep him company.

PeterKlaver

The BBC report is more specific than simply "Rome":

"Fr Soper, who is wanted over alleged child abuse, is thought to be at a MONASTERY (my emphasis) in Rome."

So, on the one hand we have the apostolic visitation to investigate the goings-on at one monastery, and, on the other hand, we have the person wanted by the police believed to be at another monastery!

Should the Vatican not be doing all in its power to identify the whereabouts of suspected sex-criminal Soper and have him sent back to England to face justice?

It's been very quiet lately Will.

Apart from the manner of Gaddafi's death, I can't think of anything major in the world of religion or ethics.

Even the YEC thing appears to have died the death.

More fun and games at Dickie Dawkins expense;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIbyAqDlq-c&feature=player_embedded

And from Tim Stanley over at the Telegraph;

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/

mscracker, here's a little bit of light-hearted English history for you :)
The flying monk

Here is an interesting and moving story from India about more than 200 girls who were renamed. At birth, they were given the Indian name that means "unwanted". It disturbs me that a country's customs and practices act as such a great barrier to gender equality. Anyhow, I hope that I do not spoil anyone's Diwali celebrations with this!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15429531

Peter K

I've given up any hope of finding a shred of integrity amongst these hierarchs.

Wading thru the bad news & negative comments online I found these photos taken around Scotland. The red squirrel has to make your day a bit brighter.Creation's something we need to take time & enjoy more often, I think.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15401638

6. Ryan,
Thanks so much! I hadn't read about that saint before.Very interesting.
Here's another saint that flew-or levitated-but without wings:
St. Joseph of Cupertino


https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=72

There's a great film called "The Reluctant Saint" with Maximillian Schell playing Joseph of Cupertino.It's not an over-pious, treacly film but very funny & well done.Kind of on the theme of the verse in Corinthians about God using what the world considers foolish to shame the wise & self righteous.

7. newlach ,
Thanks! I thought that was a great article, too.

#9. mscracker’s link - photos from Scotland…


Thanks. Lovely. No, LOVE-ly.

More proof the grass IS greener on the other side. :-P



--Transmitted from hell...so no one needs to worry. It’s apparently livable!

Well, back to shovelling the coals!

@12.marieinaustin,
Gosh, sorry to hear that.
Here's another upbeat article I saw online.
One of my sons used to talk to the "special needs" kids before school started each morning instead of ignoring or harrassing them as did some of the "non-special needs" students.Because of this he was taunted & made fun of for not being "cool." He's his own person & could care less. He continues to hang out with folks that society sees as disposable. He saved up his earnings each week to take a homeless person out to eat in a nice restaurant. Not the safest thing for a teenager to do but he looked forward to it.


"A new photo of a young boy holding a sign talking about how he survived abortion as one of the 10 percent of Down syndrome children not victimized by abortion before birth has gone viral on Facebook today." Fukll Text in link below:



https://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/26/down-syndrome-kid-inspires-with-i-survived-abortion-sign/

Hi mscracker,

Oh, it’s not so bad (no agony of any kind involved, that is). No... Much loveliness of a different kind here in Austin, as well. I only had a coal theme going this morning.

I have outdoor plans today after work, at about the same time the clouds are to open up and release the blessed rain all over us!

Your son sounds like a good guy. Yay the good people!

13 mscracker

There are few issues as emotionally charged as that of abortion. No one can say for certain what might have become of an aborted foetus - a Mozart or a Charles Manson? In an ideal world women not wanting children would use contraception when having sex, but this world is far from ideal.

Today, serial killer Robert Black was convicted of murdering a beautiful 9-year-old girl in Northern Ireland. Had he been aborted his victims would be alive today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15445986

Newlach

An aborted foetus wouldn't become anything. It would turn to dust eventually. Are you suggesting that we abort everyone in case the odd Robert Black get through. How would anyone know what Robert Black would get up to when he was in the womb. Am I missing something here?

mscracker 10, sounds good, will have a look for the film :)
Thanks for sharing your Scottish picture link, used to live in Edinburgh for a while as a kid, probably my favourite place I've ever lived in :D

Today, serial killer Robert Black was convicted of murdering a beautiful 9-year-old girl in Northern Ireland. Had he been aborted his victims would be alive today.

Had Jennifer Cardy not been gifted a bike she wouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The obvious conclusion is that children should not be given bikes.

The Craig/Millican debate is now online;

https://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/10/william-lane-craig-vs-petermillican.html

I found Millican's presentation a little slapdash.

His venture into textual criticism was revealing;

1) to know the truth about the New Testament we should consult Vermes and Ehrman, who knew? As some may recall, I have 'issues' with Ehrman, if not for his arguments, then for his sweatshirt/jacket ensemble.

2) Millican is an apostate Christian who found the textual arguments extremely troubling. How many like him.

Andrew #19

Point (2) - "How many like him."

Shouldn't you end this particular sentence with a question mark? (I don't mean the one I just wrote, I did end it with a question mark, I mean the one you wrote, the one I quoted in italics.)

A missing punctuation mark can raise all sorts of problems. To be honest, for me, it calls your whole existence into question.

Peter

Shouldn't you end this particular sentence with a question mark? (I don't mean the one I just wrote, I did end it with a question mark, I mean the one you wrote, the one I quoted in italics.)

Maybe you should write a book about it; 'The lost question mark: The battle for grammar and the sentence we never knew'.

A missing punctuation mark can raise all sorts of problems. To be honest, for me, it calls your whole existence into question.

You should question my existence. Obviously if you postulate an intelligent being you have to consider what kind of sentence an intelligent being would create, and when you look at the evidence, the sentences for which it is claimed this postulated being is responsible for creating, the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist, the problem of punctuation being a devastating defeater.

peterm2 (@ 20) -

A missing punctuation mark can raise all sorts of problems. To be honest, for me, it calls your whole existence into question.

16 pts

The point I am making is that abortion in certain circumstances is a good thing. I accept that there is no way of knowing that when Black was in the womb he would grow up to become a paedophile and murderer, but if we did not have millions of abortions each year in the world we would have more criminals.

Can you envisage no case in which it would be better for a woman to have an abortion than to go through with a pregnancy?

18 Andrew

There is quite a lot of difference between an abortion and a bicycle. I think it would be better to abort a foetus if there is evidence (e.g. mother is a drug addict or the child is unwanted) that the child's life is likely to be especially poor and that the child is likely to become a problem for society. Not giving bikes to children for fear that they might be abducted, raped and killed by paedophiles is simply a bizarre idea. Also, if it wasn't this beautiful little girl who fell victim to the paedophile Black it would have been another innocent child.

newlach (@ 23) -

I think it would be better to abort a foetus if there is evidence (e.g. mother is a drug addict or the child is unwanted) that the child's life is likely to be especially poor and that the child is likely to become a problem for society.

LSV

Can you not envisage any circumstances in which it would be better to abort a foetus than not?

newlach

You've lost this argument twice now, on both occasions with some of the most incredible statements I had ever read; and your question in #25 does nothing to improve your debating position.

newlach (@ 25) -

Can you not envisage any circumstances in which it would be better to abort a foetus than not?

Wee Jeffrey asked a question at PMQ as to whether Ann Widdecombe was right when she suggested that in the 21st century Hedgehogs have more rights than Christians.

I wonder does he know that she is a Roman Catholic as many in his party, those inextricably linked with the Free Presbyterian Church especially, would have a problem saying that catholics are Christians.

anyway I was wondering, if a hedgehog was accused of being a hedgehog, what evidence would need to be produced to secure a conviction?

and if a modern day Christian was accused of being a Christian, likewise what evidence would need to be produced to secure a conviction?

anyone?

I imagine in the first instance looking like a hedgehog, Acting like a hedgehog might be sufficient! Though some might add, evidence of it leading a hedgehog lifestyle would be ideal!

but what about the Christian acused??

The idea has resurfaced in my mind about Christianity and money. It seems everywhere I look Christians and Christian Organizations are asking for money. Not to mention (which is a self-contradicting phrase) churches are demanding money based on "biblical" warrant. How has it turned out that the Body of Christ that's Head came to serve, give to and benefit others is now one of the biggest money sucks? This is even with very orthodox Christians and groups. "Give us money to do this" and "Can you give me money to go do this?" phrases abound. It seems the sentiment that Paul left with the older Ephesians saints "I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” Acts 20:34-35

Does anyone want to chime in?

Gerry,

would the biggest problem not be the definition of a christian in order to create the benchmark against which to measure the accused. We understand fairly well what constitutes a hedgehog and how to map the attributes and behaviours of the suspect onto that understanding in order to gain a conviction (or not) but a christian - there's a movable feast.

For a group who's defence of heterosexual marriage seems to be based on 'you can't redefine the word marriage' they are very good at redefining the word christian when it suits and I would have thought the word christian was closer to the crux of their religion than marriage.

As for the Anne Widdecombe statement she clearly has lost it :

There are no hedgehogs in the House of Lords purely on the basis they are hedgehogs (as opposed to being selected on their contribution to society or on birthright)

Hedgehogs don't get tax breaks

Hedgehogs aren't allowed to marry (nor do they think they have the right to decide who else does)

Hedgehogs don't get asked to comment and judge on every aspect of peoples private lives

As for wee Geoffrey - he should stick to making tea and singing to old ladies.

Ooops - That's Daniel O'Donnell, I always get them mixed up.

The Catholic Church is embroiled in yet another controversy concerning a paedophile. This time it is a Catholic Church child safety coordinator who has been locked up. His job was to investigate sex abuse allegations!

'A Plymouth Crown Court judge said children who had confided in Jarvis would feel "sullied and let down".'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-15491833

27 LSV

Which part of my question did you not understand?

The Australian Bishops released a statement after their Ad Limina visit to Rome. (The statement was allegedly written for them by the Vatican, btw.) They justified the sacking of Bishop Morris - or, "fraternal correcting", as they put it. The following is Bishop Morris' response in which he accuses the Pope of lying.

https://www.twb.catholic.org.au/documents/bishop_morris_response_oct_2011.pdf

Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a Jesuit theologian who recently published a book entitled "Quest for the living God", has also written a response to the US Conference of Bishops after they attempted to have her excommunicated for the content of her book.

https://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/response-from-sister-elizabeth-johnson-to-us-bishops-committee-on-doctrines-latest-statement/

Either Bishop Morris and Sister Johnson are extremely ignorant people - which I doubt - or the Vatican and its high ranking associates are an extremely immoral group of men.

newlach (@ 31) -

27 LSV

Which part of my question did you not understand?

15.At 17:38 27th Oct 2011, newlach wrote:
13 mscracker

There are few issues as emotionally charged as that of abortion. No one can say for certain what might have become of an aborted foetus - a Mozart or a Charles Manson? In an ideal world women not wanting children would use contraception when having sex, but this world is far from ideal.

Today, serial killer Robert Black was convicted of murdering a beautiful 9-year-old girl in Northern Ireland. Had he been aborted his victims would be alive today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15445986
****
I can think of replies to this skewed logic but I think in light of the tragic events surrounding this little girl's death & recent trial it would be insensitive & disrespectful.

Newlach

There is quite a lot of difference between an abortion and a bicycle.

That's true, but how is that difference relevant? The parallel doesn't rely on the similarity between the two.

You say, if Robert Black had been aborted his victims wouldn't have been murdered.

I said, if Jennifer Cardy hadn't been gifted a bike she wouldn't have been murdered.

So if it is sufficient to say that abortion is justified because it would prevent murder then the same follows for not gifting bicycles.

Not giving bikes to children for fear that they might be abducted, raped and killed by paedophiles is simply a bizarre idea.

Here's the thing, by parity of logic it's no more bizarre than your statement. Of course, I don't actually believe not gifting bicycles to children prevents murder but apparently you believe abortions do.

Also, if it wasn't this beautiful little girl who fell victim to the paedophile Black it would have been another innocent child.

I'd actually anticipated this objection but I thought I'd let you make it first.

What you're suggesting is that since Robert Black would have murdered another child it doesn't then matter if Jennifer Cardy had been given a bicycle or not. Yes, no bike might have prevented her murder but not the murder of another child. But here I think you're making a mistake. There's actually several possible response but I'll stick with one.

The test, on your terms, is not whether abortion or bicycle denial would prevent a cardinal number of murders but whether they would prevent murder, specifically child rape/murder. They are incommensurable.

Of course there's more than one way to make a 'better off not born' argument but, as Shooter McGavin well knows, one has to play the ball as it lies.

35 Andrew

"You say, if Robert Black had been aborted his victims wouldn't have been murdered.
I said, if Jennifer Cardy hadn't been gifted a bike she wouldn't have been murdered."

I think your logic is flawed because you do not seem to recognize that Robert Black murdered children and that bicycles do not. If Black had been aborted he would definitely not have murdered Jennifer. If Jennifer had no bike Black may still have murdered her. Of course, there is still the possibility that Jennifer may have been murdered by someone else had Black been aborted, but this possibility is very small indeed.

"Here's the thing, by parity of logic it's no more bizarre than your statement. Of course, I don't actually believe not gifting bicycles to children prevents murder but apparently you believe abortions do."

I do believe that abortion can reduce the number of murders, and there is a strong evidence to support my belief. When abortion was legalised in the United States the states that first introduced abortion were first to see a fall in crime.

https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

"What you're suggesting is that since Robert Black would have murdered another child it doesn't then matter if Jennifer Cardy had been given a bicycle or not."

This is not what I wished to suggest. I was merely making the point that had the murderous paedophile Black been aborted he would not have murdered the children he did or any other children. He may have murdered Jennifer regardless of the bike.

newlach (@ 36)

If Black had been aborted he would definitely not have murdered Jennifer.

LSV

In post 33 you admitted to a lack of understanding, now you demonstrate poor reasoning. Your example is poor because you draw a comparison between Black (the agent) and those who died in the World Trade Center attack (the patient).

29 Gshipman

"The idea has resurfaced in my mind about Christianity and money."

The idea of Christianity and taxpayers' money has long been in my mind. Taxpayers money supports various Christian organisations, but in many cases non-Christians who could do the important work required are effectively and lawfully excluded from the posts. I'm thinking specifically about chaplains and social work.

newlach (@ 38) -

In post 33 you admitted to a lack of understanding, now you demonstrate poor reasoning. Your example is poor because you draw a comparison between Black (the agent) and those who died in the World Trade Center attack (the patient).

newlach -

In post 33 you admitted to a lack of understanding

newlach,

I'm no fan of late term abortion and if a woman is using it as a means of contraception simply because she (and some guy involved) has been careless, then I find it rather appalling, as it does come so close to destroying a human being. At the other end of the spectrum, I think those who claim the use of the morning after pill to be murder are oh so stupid. And I think there are legitimate cases (e.g. if it is clear the baby would be still born or would die shortly after birth) where late term abortion is still justified.

So while I would like there not to be any abortions (I don't think anyone is 'a fan' of it) I would describe myself in favour of the option being available in many cases. So I should be receptive to what you are trying to argue for in this thread. Yet I think you really mucked it up with your 'If this murdered had been aborted....' argument. It is as invalid as it is stupid. I would recommend to cut your losses on this one rather than digging yourself still deeper.

Newlach

I think your logic is flawed because you do not seem to recognize that Robert Black murdered children and that bicycles do not.

But how is this relevant? Your initial argument was predicated on prevention not culpability; if something could prevent murder then that is sufficient justification for that something.

Having no bike was just an example, in principle you could stipulate anything that could conceivably have prevented this murder or any other. So if you don't like the bike use your imagination.

When abortion was legalised in the United States the states that first introduced abortion were first to see a fall in crime.

The Donahue & Levitt study mentioned is contested. I don't know enough about it or the responses to say more than that.

The structure of the argument, however, seems to be different than what I have being responding to, which I have outlined above.

I would agree with Peter K on this one, not a fan but see the need for it.

As for the potentiality argument, again I agree it is pointless. Reminds me of one of the arguments put forward (I think by mother Teresa) against contraception - using a condom could stop the next pope being born. Even though I would think that that is reason enough on it's own to use one I recognise the daftness of the argument.

42 PeterKlaver

We have been here before!

I think it unfair of you to assert that my argument is as invalid as it is stupid, especially when I have linked to an authoritative report on the matter which demonstrates a link between increased levels of abortion and reduced levels of crime.

In the UK we have 120,000 very dysfunctional families, according to government figures. Children born into these families are likely to suffer considerable neglect and abuse. These children will grow up into adults who will likely abuse and neglect their children and so a destructive cycle is born - criminality is part and parcel of it. I believe that children should not have to endure a life of abuse and neglect and for this reason I believe that abortion is often the best option. I further believe that government has a duty to seek to minimise social harms, therefore it should seek to minimise the birth of children who are likely to be neglected and abused and who, in turn, are likely to become criminals. Additionally, a "problem household" can cost taxpayers up to £330,000 a year.

So, what has the last paragraph got to do with Black? Perhaps, nothing. But had Black's mother fallen into the "problem family" category, and had she been dissuaded from having children, then Jennifer Cardy would probably be alive today. If the government can identify problem families it has a duty to stop these problem families from getting worse.

Let me make it clear: I do not see anything INTRINSICALLY good about abortion.

40 LSV

You use of exaggeration to attempt to discredit my argument fails. Your example is invalid because I have not advocated anything so indiscriminate.

When deciding whether or not an abortion should be carried the individual circumstances of the mother must be considered. If I had advocated mandatory universal abortion your example would hold - but I didn't.

One other difference worth noting is that had Black had been aborted it is almost certain that Jennifer would not have been murdered. If the the hijackers had been aborted it is less certain that there would been no attack on the World Trade Center.

Here is an interesting story about a church deacon who tried to poison his wife and who tried to hire a hitman to kill her. A right nasty piece of work.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054790/Stand-man--pays-hitman-kill-Wifes-incredible-forgiveness-church-going-husband-jailed-trying-murdered.html

Andrew

I'll have to do a bit of scrolling up and down, but I'll get back to you!

newlach -

It's obvious what I am trying to say. You are using a quite ridiculous argument from hindsight, which deserves nothing but the kind of scorn which I have applied to it. My question to you is this: how on earth would you have known, when he was a foetus, that Robert Black was going to grow up to be a murderer?

Can you predict the future? And, in fact, even if you could predict - with 100% accuracy (which justice demands) - that he was going to become a murderer, does that justify executing him before he has committed any crime? I assume that you believe in capital punishment? But this takes the idea of capital punishment to a level which is barbaric beyond comprehension.

Any fool can make an argument with the benefit of hindsight. What I am asking, is for you to just try to begin to comprehend a fundamental concept of "justice" - i.e. not judging people BEFORE they have done anything wrong. Is that really too hard for you?

newlach (@ 47) -

Here is an interesting story about a church deacon who tried to poison his wife and who tried to hire a hitman to kill her. A right nasty piece of work.

I think it would be better to abort a foetus if there is evidence (e.g. mother is a drug addict or the child is unwanted) that the child's life is likely to be especially poor and that the child is likely to become a problem for society.

We tend to think that spiritual writing is confined to religion. I see some of today's travel writing as being the most spiritually alive writing that is currently being produced. At its best it mirrors the inner journey on which at least some of us are travelling. I recommend especially Tahir Shah's latest book, 'Travels with Myself' which is available through lulu.com.

I thought Dr. David Toombs spoke well on the program today. I don't think he has published on that subject has he?

on Open thread,

Jesus Christ - the Super Star - The Musical

Woops I see the Free P's have another thing they are against, something else that offends them.

Is there anything they are For rather than against?

Is it not a sign of Insecurity in personal belief to be offended by what others say and do?

billallen175

I agree with you that he spoke eloquently. What happened to Gadaffi was no one off in war. It is a disturbing subject that I have not heard much discussed before on radio - apart from the widespread rape of Bosnian women by Serbs and similar such in various African conflicts. I know nothing about his publications, unfortunately.

I found the interview with Ruth Gledhill (religious correspondent of the Times) talking about her alcoholism an eye-opener. She associated the effects of her first drink of communion wine with a religious experience and it was all down hill from there.

43 Andrew

"But how is this relevant? Your initial argument was predicated on prevention not culpability; if something could prevent murder then that is sufficient justification for that something."

You are right to say that my argument was based on prevention, prevention of a murdering human agent being born. No Black: no murder of Jennifer. By substituting Black for a bicycle you have created a false parallel. The "something" you substitute does not prevent the murder - it is of a different category to Black.

"Having no bike was just an example, in principle you could stipulate anything that could conceivably have prevented this murder or any other. So if you don't like the bike use your imagination."

One could not conceivably stipulate anything that could have prevented this murder. You ask me to use my imagination, well, when I do an awful lot of things enter my mind that do not change the outcome. If a pilot dies at the controls of a fully-functioning aircraft it is another human that will determine whether the plane lands safely, not another part. In certain situations human agency cannot be replaced by an object to prevent particular outcomes.

newlach (@ 53) -

You are right to say that my argument was based on prevention, prevention of a murdering human agent being born. No Black: no murder of Jennifer.

Newlach

You are right to say that my argument was based on prevention, prevention of a murdering human agent being born.

No, no. I'll quote you again;

Had he been aborted his victims would be alive today.

in principle you could stipulate anything that could conceivably have prevented this murder or any other

55 Andrew

"The object, according to your initial argument, was the prevention of murder, not the prevention of a murdering agent being born. Preventing a murdering agent from being born is sufficient to prevent murder but it is not necessary."

I agree with this, but I do not see how the object necessarily invalidate my argument about preventing a murdering agent from being born. Had I written: "Had Black been aborted a murdering agent would not have been born and his victims would be alive today" would you be challenging me on the point as you are?

"But I didn't substitute Black with a bicycle, in fact I didn't substitute anything for Black."

You are right, I misrepresented what you wrote about substituting Black for a bicycle. My point is that the bicycle may have made no difference to Jennifer's fate (she might reasonably have been walking) whereas had Black been aborted Jennifer would almost certainly be alive today. Jennifer's not having a bicycle is a much less significant factor in her death than the existence of Black, and I fail to see how you can not see this.

"How about if children were kept indoors all day and locked in stair cupboards at night, until they get their letter from Hogwarts? Would that be acceptable? If not, why not?"

When I used my imagination I rejected some bizarre examples because one must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. Keeping a child in the stair cupboard would be child abuse and certainly not acceptable - even if there was a Hogwarts!

PK and LSV - "That which does not kill me me makes me stronger", or so I have read!

LSV

"Please explain how you judge whether a child will grow up to be a murderer."

No one can tell whether a child will grow up to be a murderer or not, but there is strong evidence to show that abortion reduces crime. If certain women are identified by the state as being likely to have criminal offspring it would be better that these women did not have children. Ideally, they would use contraception, but where they fail to do so and get pregnant abortion is justifiable.

The 120,000 very dysfunctional families in the UK should be encouraged not to have any more children for the sake of the children and society. No one is being executed.

"then it follows - according to your appalling logic - that it would be a good preventative measure to kill absolutely anyone!"

The above is nonsense on stilts! It is the problem families that the government has identified that I believe should not have more children.

"So, without the benefit of hindsight, how do know that Black would have become a murderer, and how do you know that Jennifer would not have become one?"

There is no way of knowing if any particular foetus could develop into a murdering human, but what is wrong with the government choosing to target 120,000 very dysfunctional families in the country and preventing them from having any more children? It seems like a very good social policy idea to me.

57. newlach:
"..., but what is wrong with the government choosing to target 120,000 very dysfunctional families in the country and preventing them from having any more children? It seems like a very good social policy idea to me."
***
Eugenics was also popular here in the US even into the first half of the 20th Century.Thankfully some of the victims took their cases to court & we've progressed, but I think eugenics still has support. It's just presented differently nowadays.And as in the 19th/20th Century versions, there tend to be deep racial/socio-economic biases behind the reasoning.

“...what is wrong with the government choosing to target 120,000 very dysfunctional families....”

newlach,

Your trust in government might be proportional to my distrust in government.

@59 marieinaustin:
My thoughts, too.

Newlach,

You are in very problematic areas.

I agree with your assertion (and certainly the evidence supports it) that availability of abortion can have an effect on levels of crime in deprived areas. I can't accept that that is a case for the government taking action to prevent people from having children. The government has no role in actively promoting abortion for social engineering purposes especially if it is targeted at particular groups who the government believe are 'problematic'.

I think the problems we have, in no insignificant part, derive from the removal of natural population control ie it is easier to conceive children, take them to full term and more of them survive past infancy. We as a society have not reacted to that by changing our approach to having children and it is still seen as the be all and end all of existence for some as well as being promoted, paid for and idealised by government and promoted as duty by religious dogma.

We need to move away from the mindset of needing to have children, and as many as possible in order to continue the human race, to a situation where children are only born when planned, wanted and can be both supported financially and emotionally by the parents. In order to achieve that contraception would need to become the default position except when those conditions are met. However only the individuals involved can make that decision but we should be encouraging that default in sex education and backing it up from the government not throwing money at families every time a kid is born.

Large parts of society have made that transition already as can be seen by the shrinking size of families so it is possible. There are other parts of society (generally those you have been referring to) who continue to have kids like shelling peas.

So the government can encourage that movement which has happened, change it's stance on promoting the value of having kids and the churches could try and tell people that there is more to life that kids.

I can support education, I can support making family planning and the availability of contraception the norm, I can support (though not be a fan of) early abortion if the mother decides that they do not want a child, I can support the government hauling back on the benefits given to parents (especially when they continue to have kids while not being able to support what they have) but I just can't get to supporting the stance you seem to have regarding abortion being used as a social engineering tool by the government in the particularly discriminatory way you have expressed it.

Maybe I am missing what you are trying to say.

61, well said Dave. This is all about parents taking responsibility for their kids and society working towards...

.. a situation where children are only born when planned, wanted and can be both supported financially and emotionally by the parents.

Dave

I know I am in problematic areas, and I agree with virtually everything you have written.

Unfortunately, the belief that we need to have lots of children is one encouraged by particular religious leaders who are unlikely to change their views. I remember, for example, the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks recently telling us all to have more of them and calling us selfish for not doing so (the fact that the rival Charedi [ultra- Orthodox] who average 7 children per family are predicted to outnumber Orthodox Jews within 50 years in Britain had nothing to do with his remark!).

I am in favour of more emphasis on sex education, greater use of contraception and fewer state incentives for mothers to have lots of children that they cannot afford to keep - children should not be seen simply as a means to increase income. But where the parents persist in having children which they cannot look after, and where the children are abused and neglected, I believe there comes a point when the state must step in - and, of course, the state does step in.

Children in some cases are taken into care, but this creates another major problem. Just today the Prime Minister said that "of the 3,600 children under the age of one in care, only 60 were adopted last year". I believe that in certain cases when the state steps in it would be better for it to direct that the mother have an abortion rather than that she be allowed to give birth to a baby that will be taken from her straight away. Also, the total cost to taxpayers of our country's 120,000 problem families is estimated at £8 billion per year - more than double the annual budget of the BBC. If this group is not targeted with policies aimed at reducing the number of children they have the problem will continue to grow.

Newlach,

I agree with what you have said up to the point where you use the word 'directed'. I cannot accept that the state taking on the power to direct a person to have an abortion (except in extremely rare occasions eg the mothers mental and physical life are at stake and she has not the mental capacity to understand or cope) is a power I would like the state to have.

For someone to have decided for themselves that they want an abortion is one thing but to be directed against their will is another.

We have to make it more of a personal responsibility than a state one to finance children, make contraception the norm and stop peddling the nonsense that it is a duty to breed more of any particular religion or none.

The churches have a role and if they had any social responsibility then perhaps they would realise this. There are many couples who lead fulfilled lives without children either through necessity or choice but to many religions they are to be pitied for not going forth and multiplying.

Newlach

I agree with this, but I do not see how the object necessarily invalidate my argument about preventing a murdering agent from being born.

I didn't say it did invalidate your argument.

Had I written: "Had Black been aborted a murdering agent would not have been born and his victims would be alive today" would you be challenging me on the point as you are?

I would, yes. But I would have used a different parallel.

Enforced sterilisation is justified because it could prevent a murdering agent from being born. Or;

Enforced castration is justified because it could prevent a murdering agent from being born. Or;

Government controlled pregnancy is justified because it could prevent a murdering agent from being born.

My point is that the bicycle may have made no difference to Jennifer's fate (she might reasonably have been walking) whereas had Black been aborted Jennifer would almost certainly be alive today.

As I said, if you think not having a bicycle is a bad example I'm happy to set it aside.

Keeping a child in the stair cupboard would be child abuse and certainly not acceptable - even if there was a Hogwarts!

You have presented the prevention of murder as moral justification for abortion. But here you seem to be saying that even if keeping a child in the stair cupboard would prevent the child from being murdered that could not function as a moral justification for the action. This seems to me to be inconsistent. If the prevention of murder justifies abortion why not caging children?

If it follows that abortion is morally justified because it could prevent murder then it also follows that caging children is morally justified because it, also, could prevent murder. So if you wish to assert one and not the other, you must provide reasons why preventing murder justifies abortion but not child abuse.

And that is something your initial argument does not provide for; one can simply stipulate any action which would have prevented the murder of Jennifer Cardy.

It's not the weekend yet, but I've been to the library again, so here's a film recommendation-Iranian movie with beautiful scenery & a glimpse into lives not portrayed on the evening news:

The Fish Fall In Love (Mahiha Ashegh Mishavand)


https://www.globalfilm.org/lens08/fish_fall_in_love.htm

I’m due for positive output, so here’s a report of today’s promising youth:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Teen-rowers-give-up-medal-dreams-to-help-capsize?urn=highschool-wp7953

65 Andrew

"I would, yes. But I would have used a different parallel."

The examples of means to prevent murder that you give (sterilization and castration) differ from abortion in one very important respect. With abortion there is an intervention after an unwanted outcome (a woman's pregnancy). Those in the "problem families" category should be given the freedom, support and encouragement to do the right thing without the need to undergo invasive surgical procedures. Certainly, sterilization and castration would achieve the same ends as abortion, but I would question the ethics of employing such measures. In certain circumstances sterilization would be appropriate but I would reserve castration for certain categories of sex offenders.

"If the prevention of murder justifies abortion why not caging children?"

If there was evidence that the children were criminals then perhaps they should be caged! To cage children in general, however, as a means of protecting them from such an unlikely event as murder would be most unacceptable. Human beings deserve to be treated with kindness and fairness, and to cage children would be unnecessarily cruel. If, on the other hand, it was a case of caging a particular child for a specific period of time to prevent its being murdered I would cage the child.

A modest proposal;

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

I suppose it is modest - by biblical standards.

Such a wit!

before I go to bed can I give my tuppence worth to the above dispute ref ''57. newlach:
"..., but what is wrong with the government choosing to target 120,000 very dysfunctional families in the country and preventing them from having any more children? It seems like a very good social policy idea to me"

It should be worth noting that the cost of raising a child from birth to 21 has now risen in the UK to £210,000

a short breakdown is shown as :-

Parental spending throughout a child's first 21 years is:

1st year: £9,491

Years 1 to 4: £53,586 (£13,397 a year for these years)

Years 5 to 10: £56,856 (£9,476 a year)

Years 11 to 17: £47,820 (£6,831 a year)

Years 18 to 21: £43,094 (£14,365 a year)

As things stand at the moment with dysfunctional families who cannot afford to have children, but continue to have them is a form of prostitution, they have the sex, they have the fun, they have the pleasures, we, the tax payer pay for the sex, we dont enjoy the sex, but we pay for it. As for as I know that is what prostitution is, sex for money.

If I had my way, I would get the government to bring in a law which states, If at the time of conception knowingly not having at least £8000 per year to spend on that child, is a criminal offence of deliberately bringing a child into this world to live in Child Poverty.

my view

Andrew

That is brilliant piece of satire which I find hard to believe was written almost 300 years ago - it reads so well. I do not think, however, that his proposal would get past the Treasury because he assumes an average birth weight of 12 pounds!

Archbishop calls for NHS bill to cover spiritual health

This bit stood out to me:

"Visits from a GP, psychiatrist and psychologist did little to help, he said, but then he said a prayer, anointed the girl and lit a candle on his visit.

Shortly after, he received a phone call saying the girl was no longer terrified and was talking again."

Maybe the archbishop knows of a clinical study into the effect of spiritual health treatment that shows anything statistically significant beyond placebo effect?

Though he might well argue that that should not be a requirement for clergy quacks to fleece the NHS. After all, some homeopathic medicines are covered by the NHS too.

72. gerry :
We have "official" reports on the annual cost of childrearing each year in the States.Your's may differ but our's are hugely inflated, assuming that all families use infant formula,store bought baby food & disposable diapers,& that all clothing,furniture,etc is newly purchased.There's little basis in reality, especially these days when many parents purchase things second hand or use hand-me-downs from relatives.
I believe in giving children a secure,healthy, & loving environment, too but I wouldn't give much credence to those cost reports.

74.At 14:30 3rd Nov 2011, PeterKlaver :

Though he might well argue that that should not be a requirement for clergy quacks to fleece the NHS. After all, some homeopathic medicines are covered by the NHS too."
**
We have homeopathic medicine "grandfathered-in" here in America, meaning it's still considered legitmate through a legal loophole. I've never understood why, either, since it's strictly a placebo effect with absolutely no modern science behind it.
We agree on something....

75 mscracker, I think Gerry's £8,000 per annum is conservative. The sad fact is most parents feel it necessary to invest much more in their children to offer them the best possible chance in life- so that their child's isn't enslaved by this society.

My partner & I spoke about this quite recently & worked out it would need an investment of around £1m+ to give a child the best possible chance to be a 'free person' in this society & not a slave

74 PeterKlaver

Immediately before Sentamu spoke in the debate Baroness Murphy mentioned the Lunacy Acts of 1845 - after hearing him speak I wonder if they still apply!

My concern is that Sentamu would like Christian GPs to direct patients to Church-run spiritual retreats (at the expense of taxpayers, of course). Not long ago William interviewed a GP accused of proselytizing to a vulnerable patient, and GPs like this would be all in favour of "injecting" more Christianity into patients. Some patients would want this, but it is not something taxpayers should be paying clerics to do.

I do not deny that the Church could get a lot of people to say how god healed them, but the spending of the NHS on treatments must be based on reliable evidence. What about, for example, the many people who have recently claimed that Pope John Paul II performed a miracle and cured them - utter tosh!

newlach #73

"...which I find hard to believe was written almost 300 years ago - it reads so well."

What on earth can that possibly mean?

On the Archbishop story...

I think I'm going to have to share the unease of 'the atheists' (if I can put it that way!).

I'm not at all sure what Archbishop Sentamu (and I like him as an Archbishop) has in mind. What does he mean by "human beings are psychosomatic spiritual entities"? Does he mean that prayer becomes one of the emergency services? How does the NHS provide 'spiritual' care? I can already see my minister if in hospital and if necessary.

Christians should, of course, be able to play their full part in all aspects of society, that need not be under debate at all; but, to be honest, if I needed to see a doctor, and the doctor offered to pray for me, I'd say no.

I think the world will be a better place when healthcare is automated & cuts out the need for middlemen doctors :p Doctors already bring enough baggage without the addition of proselytizing

Here's a provoking address on health by Wendel Berry;

https://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berryhealth.html

On second thoughts, many hospitals you'd be lucky to get out alive , so maybe the offer of prayer isn't so out of place afterall lol

peterm2,

Christians should, of course, be able to play their full part in all aspects of society

77.At 16:54 3rd Nov 2011, _Ryan_ wrote:
75 mscracker, I think Gerry's £8,000 per annum is conservative. The sad fact is most parents feel it necessary to invest much more in their children to offer them the best possible chance in life- so that their child's isn't enslaved by this society.

My partner & I spoke about this quite recently & worked out it would need an investment of around £1m+ to give a child the best possible chance to be a 'free person' in this society & not a slave"
**
Living across the water, I'm in no position to comment on what it costs to raise a child in NI, but just curious, are you adding in university fees or ?? The figures given in post#72 don't breakdown totals by expense categories (food,clothing,etc.) And just commonsense would figure that any non-consumables could be passed down to child #2, so subsequent children would cost a fraction to raise.
Just my thoughts-& lots of experience economizing.
I'd want my child to have the best opportunities as well, but some of the most important things parents can give their children are free.

82.At 18:40 3rd Nov 2011, Andrew wrote:
Here's a provoking address on health by Wendel Berry;

https://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berryhealth.html
**
Thanks. It was good reading. Something about Wendell Berry I've always found a teeny bit annoying-not sure why-but he has some good points here.
I agree that health & healing flourish better within the community & home setting. Hospitals have a role to play but can be so disconnecting to patients & family.Recovery can be as difficult as the surgery & hospital environs often work against it.

peterm2 @80.
“...if I needed to see a doctor, and the doctor offered to pray for me, I'd say no.”
---------------------

I think when the doctor offers to pray for you, it’s a bad sign. :-D

85, I agree in many ways, but the reality is children often lead robust lives. Once they're finished with a pair of trainers & clothes they're usually not fit to bestow on younger siblings. They also have to be the same sex and even the most ardent of economisers might struggle to look after more than 2 children in today's world. It would be a full-time job in of itself. Time is a commodity and this should also be factored in. I feel £8k per annum, per child is a conservative estimate if people are absolutely honest & don't fudge the numbers. On the mainland, £8k would only cover 1 term of school fees for many parents wanting to offer the best start they can.

Given the present situation, whatever money I have is better directed at children's & animal welfare charities. Even If I wanted kids, I couldn't in all good conscience bring them into a world like this

mscracker

Something about Wendell Berry I've always found a teeny bit annoying-not sure why-but he has some good points here.

I don't always agree with him but Berry is always worth hearing.

88. &.89. Ryan,
Thanks for your replies!
Sounds like you all have a higher cost of living?
Perhaps children in the States are less active.Most folks I know pass down trainers-or tennis shoes-here from child to child.Their feet often grow so quickly shoes fail to wear out.Maybe we have bigger feet? :)
I think every generation looks about & wonders about bringing children into the world but I don't think the answer is to give up hope.

Andrew #82

Thank you for the Wendell Berry article; as yet I have only scanned it, but shall return to it when I have more time; there are, however, a couple of ‘stand-out’ comments so far:

“We speak now of "spirituality and healing" as if the only way to render a proper religious respect to the body is somehow to treat it "spiritually."

What I'm arguing against here is not complexity or mystery but dualism. I would like to purge my own mind and language of such terms as "spiritual," "physical," "metaphysical," and "transcendental''-all of which imply that the Creation is divided into "levels" that can readily be peeled apart and judged by human beings. I believe that the Creation is one continuous fabric comprehending simultaneously what we mean by "spirit" and what we mean by "matter." ”

Perhaps this is what the Archbishop meant to say, or something like it; but Berry says it better; and he says it in his poetry and fiction too, at least in that which I have read.

Incidentally, odd as it might seem, this lack of understanding of the ‘community’ he speaks of is one of the reasons I would say, ‘no’, to ‘prayer on the NHS’.


Dave #84

”I would agree with you if they let people who are diverse from them do the same, unfortunately they do not.”

There is a breadth to your use of the word ‘they’, and a definitiveness to your use of the word ‘not’, which makes conversation difficult.

Instead of posting open threads, why doesn't Will just post alternative titles:

i) Abortion is a good thing! - discuss

ii) Abortion is a bad thing! - discuss

Has there ever been an 'open thread' that didn't descend into the debate on abortion?

What's the fascination with this subject? I don't get it.

peterm2

Very good point! What I meant to say was that it was a good read.

newdwr54

What do you want to discuss apart from abortion?

82
"Do you need a hug?"
"Yes"
And the nurse gave her a hug.
Which brings us to a starting place

Amazing how important a cuddle can be & probably something only 1% of healthcare professionals are capable of giving

93.At 23:17 3rd Nov 2011, newdwr54 wrote:
Instead of posting open threads, why doesn't Will just post alternative titles:

i) Abortion is a good thing! - discuss

ii) Abortion is a bad thing! - discuss

Has there ever been an 'open thread' that didn't descend into the debate on abortion?

What's the fascination with this subject? I don't get it."
**
Possibly because it is an issue of deep moral/ethical significance, involves life,death,& basic human rights.
Why use "descend" into the debate?
I've noticed other issues come up, too on a regular basis.

My doctor is one of the best here. I know he’s considered a super-blessing for many women. I accidentally found him 20 years ago. There was a time I didn’t have insurance, and I paid out of pocket to see him.

He always hugs me. But he’s also very scientific, straightforward and keeps abreast of the latest. His kindness, directness and ‘good medicine’ are the reasons I’ve stayed with him.

Every patient should be so lucky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deep root of the abortion and child-rearing topics is the treatment and perception of women. If the root was addressed, the biggest problems in the world would work themselves out.

We want everyone to be the same (not different), but we want to be different. The truth is we’re different, but we don’t appreciate it. There’s fear.

E.M.Forster’s Margaret said: “It is part of the battle against sameness. Differences – eternal differences, planted by God in a single family, so that there may always be colour; sorrow perhaps, but colour in the daily grey.”

@97. marie:
Thanks.
We used to have a dr. who would ask if he could pray with us when I brought in a sick child.That meant a lot to me.Another dr. would hold free clinics for patients with no insurance.20 yrs ago our country dr. only charged $3.00 per visit including medications.Before he retired the price had gone up to $5.00.And we had an older dentist back then who had an office on his farm.You could see his cows thru the window from the dentist chair.He refused to charge for any treatment.I guess he'd made enough $ back in the day & he just enjoyed serving his community.

Peter

'What I'm arguing against here is not complexity or mystery but dualism. I would like to purge my own mind and language of such terms as "spiritual," "physical," "metaphysical," and "transcendental''-all of which imply that the Creation is divided into "levels" that can readily be peeled apart and judged by human beings. I believe that the Creation is one continuous fabric comprehending simultaneously what we mean by "spirit" and what we mean by "matter." '

Here I disagree with Berry, at least in part. I'm happy to affirm dualism albeit I'm not dogmatic on what kind of dualism. But I don't think affirming dualism entails a rejection of Creation as 'one continuous fabric comprehending simultaneously what we mean by "spirit" and what we mean by "matter"'.

Perhaps this is what the Archbishop meant to say, or something like it; but Berry says it better; and he says it in his poetry and fiction too, at least in that which I have read.

I'm not sure if that is what the Archbishop meant to say or not but when I read the report I was reminded of this essay because Berry does make his points so well.

Incidentally, odd as it might seem, this lack of understanding of the ‘community’ he speaks of is one of the reasons I would say, ‘no’, to ‘prayer on the NHS’.

Darryl Hart is a big fan of Wendell Berry, and I remember him saying somewhere that a good way for a Christian to read Berry is to substitute the word 'church' for 'community'. I quite like that idea.

Here is a disturbing case of a mother who had to tell a nurse to shut up when she (the nurse) started begging for Jesus to help. The mother's baby had suffered a heart attack.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057543/Nurse-threw-hands-air-begged-Jesus-help-baby-suffered-heart-attack-struck-off.html