timeimmortal

Count Roland writes in with a commentary on this CBC article, in which birth control advocates claim that “millions” need access to “family planning” and safe access to information about contraception…and that in the absence of this information, the result will be millions of deaths.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/14/f-birth-control.html

“Millions of mothers” die because there are no birth control pills? The quoted figure of “one per minute” only yeilds 525K [deaths per anum].

And contraception is not necesarily a part of ‘essential health services’ — how about we make sure there are the antibiotics and other drugs needed, qualified health professionals, and sanitation services rather than ’safe contraception’?

That would, O Reader, be smart. Indeed, much could be done in e.g. Africa if the average African male could be persuaded to remain faithful to a single sexual partner (this would also do wonders, as has been seen in the case of Uganda, to reduce the spread rate of e.g. HIV and AIDS — two birds, one stone!).

But then, it might be too generous to label most birth control activists as “smart”, wouldn’t it? They are, at least, too ignorant to realize that they are solving (or attempting to solve) the wrong problem, as the good Count points out; adequate health care and access to effective medication would do as much — if not much, much more — to reduce the mortality rate associated with pregnancy in the poorer countries on the world than access to birth control ever could hope to.

Personally, I find this little quoted tidbit of information to be particularly odious, as it is reflective of a reasoning that is becoming more and more common in the birth control industry and lobby:

Birth control can prevent 2.7 million newborn deaths each year.

This is classic Screwtape. Okay, yes, technically it is probably true that birth control could prevent over two million infants from dying each and every year. But hidden in this vague truth is a more terrible truth: the method of prevention has nothing to do with properly caring for those infants and seeing that they are given adequate nutrition, and in fact has everything to do with preventing the infants themselves from ever existing in the first place.

And therein is the lie.

The other day, my wife was looking to buy some particle board (long story, don’t ask). She bought one sheet at a cost of just over $5, but had to go back for a second sheet. The second sheet didn’t have a price tag, and eventually the clerk must have found a product SKU he could use…and the sheet rang in at $34.99. Thinking this couldn’t possibly be correct, my wife followed things up with the store’s manager, and he actually let her have it for $1. I joked that were this a Dilbertian office, she could claim on her achievement report that she had just saved the company $33.99.

Of course, that would hardly be truthful…but that’s exactly the sort of logic that is being employed in the above argument for birth control: let’s prevent over two million deaths by preventing over two million births!

On one hand, it is good that the pro-contraception lobby can be shown up as liars without much effort. On the other hand, far too many people are being swayed by what are obviously flimsy lies that crumble under even the slightest analysis (remember: one death per minute does not yield millions of deaths each year: in a typical year, it yields 525,600 deaths…and arguably, most of those deaths are not due to a lack of access to birth control either — they are probably due to lack of nutrition and lack of access to normal, effective pre-natal medical care).

Update: Welcome, UnAborted readers!

What an unsurprising thing is this!

How convenient it would have been for liberals if, as predicted by many in the 1980s, AIDS had spread like wildfire among Western heterosexuals. But it didn’t.

It would also have been very convenient if the introduction of condoms had significantly reduced infection in African countries, so the practice of self-indulgent sexual “grazing” could have escaped moral judgment.

But alas for all those non-judgmental AIDS do-gooders: What has worked best and most rapidly to reduce HIV infection among both homosexuals and promiscuous Africans is partner reduction.

…

Following sustained public information campaigns, [Helen Epstein] notes, gay sex with multiple sex partners declined by 60% between 1984 and 1988 in San Francisco. New cases of AIDS plummeted from a peak of 2,400 in 1984 to fewer than 600 in 2000.

And then there’s Uganda, where Epstein’s postdoctoral work at the Uganda Cancer Institute sparked her interest in HIV/AIDS. Even though condom use rose throughout the ’90s all over Africa, the HIV rate also kept climbing — everywhere but Uganda, which had actually begun the decade with the highest rates of new HIV infection. As Fumento noted in his column, the proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plummeted in the 1990s from 21% to 6%.

When the data was crunched by AIDS researcher Daniel Halperin (as noted in a review of Epstein’s book in the June 23 issue of The Weekly Standard), this startling decline was not found to correspond to the increase in the use of condoms, but rather to the decrease in the proportion of casual sex with numerous partners.

For as much as post-Christian sexual morality is touted as somehow superior to the prudish ways of the West’s Christian past, time and again it seems to be the case that applying some good, old fashioned Christian sensibility to one’s sex life is still the best insurance against contracting all manner of STDs. Few people indeed have gotten sick and died from having remained faithful to one sexual partner for the duration of their adult life, especially when that partner has remained faithful to them as well.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja really, really doesn’t like Jews — so much so, in fact, that he would rather that Theodor Herzl’s proposal that all Jews convert (or be converted) to Christianity had gone through back in its day.

Got that? A radical Muslim so hates the Jews that he would rather they had all been converted into infidel Christians, instead of being allowed to remain Jews.

And why?

Speaks Shaukat:

The history of the world would have been so peacefully different if the propsed mass Baptism of European Jewry had gone through.

Because clearly, Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world, right?

How much more true would Shaukat’s statement be, I wonder, were it modified to allow for the possibility that Muhammad had been killed in a tribal skirmish just prior to his first “visitation” from whatever demonic entity decided to temporarily assume the identity of Gabriel?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update - the Meltdown: I seem to have touched a nerve, as Shaukat has now done two things. He had begun by demonstrating the maturity I have come to expect from him now, on par with that of a twelve-year-old casting angry aspersions from atop a playground. But following that up, he says a couple of…well, to be honest, his statements are gems in their own right.

For example:

Without going into Biblical treatment of Jews, which quotes contempt coming from Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul - I wonder why Jews were expelled from almost every European country — England topping the list — expulsion of Jews for almost 350 years. Could it be interpreted as a sign of Christians’ love or hatred towards Jews - and for what reasons???

Poor grammar aside, it is interesting that Shaukat chose to mention Moses — the man who, arguably, was the instrument by which God established the foundations of Judaism — as an example of one who has only demonstrated “contempt” for Jews. I suppose a narrow reading of, for example, the Book of Exodus could lead one to think that, since Moses does spend quite a bit of time castigating the Hebrew people for their sinfulness.

But then, the Hebrew people did sinful things in the desert, not the least of which was to build a golden calf and worship it. Humanity as a whole regularly sins, and periodically needs to be corrected, sometimes harshly. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul both give example of this, as did Moses in his day.

Following Shaukat’s odd statement, though, is a list of dates in history that supposedly demonstrate Christian persecution of Jews. And, to be fair, many of the dates he lists do in fact accurately mention instances of persecution of Jews by Christian religious authorities. Other dates he lists, however, do not belong on the list.
Read the rest of this entry »

Dinesh D’Souza talks about his debate with atheist Peter Singer, who is an advocate for what could be called “post-term abortion” and, bizarrely, animal rights. Singer’s arguments in favour of abortion and the legalization of infanticide are infused with comparisons between the unborn (or the newborn) human and different animals at similar stages of development. Working from the conclusion that, “at any stage of pregnancy,” the “calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus,” Singer demonstrates what D’Souza terms an exploration of “the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian Morality.”

And indeed, I would argue that Singer’s various assertions are certainly, shall we say, logical outcomes of atheist thought, especially as applied to morality. If, after all, the human being is just another animal driven primarily by instinct, then things like abortion and infanticide aren’t rights, nor should they be illegal — they’re just facts of being, about as strange in humans as they are in other species that are sometimes known to eat or kill their young in certain circumstances.

And indeed, as both D’Souza and Singer point out, some human societies — certain African animist tribes, for example — practice that reality, occasionally killing unwanted children.

One could go into a lengthy discussion of how Singer’s reasoning is also self-destructive, since it bestows on the religious majority the “right” to remove, by any means necessary, the irreligious element within its midst free from legal or moral consequence. It is fortunate for Singer, then, that he is ultimately incorrect.

But I’m not going to elaborate on that point, because something else struck me today which I would prefer to remark upon. As noted, Singer and D’Souza mention that certain African tribes — who adhere to primitive, animistic religions — engage in child-murder and infanticide on occasion. One is led to believe that the ancient (pagan) Spartans also engaged in such practice.

And indeed, in modern times, while most atheists do not slaughter their own children when some perceived “need” for it arises (save in cases of abortion, of course), the same cannot be said, it seems, for many who follow the Islamic faith. And yes, I know that honour killings are supposed to be a cultural thing, not a religious thing. Heck, a day after this story was printed, the same newspaper (the Guardian) ran a story denying the link between Islam and honour killing.

And yet:

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city’s Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. ‘They are men and know what honour is,’ he said.

Rand, who was studying English at Basra University, was deemed to have brought shame on her family after becoming infatuated with a British soldier, 22, known only as Paul.

…

‘Death was the least she deserved,’ said Abdel-Qader. ‘I don’t regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his Religion,’ he said.

Now let’s do a little compare-and-contrast, shall we?

Here’s Peter Singer:

“My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

Here’s Abdel-Qader Ali, father of the murdered girl:

‘If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her.’

Do I perceive an agreement between the ideals of these two men, at least in passing?

I know that Christianity has its s