mercoledì, agosto 26, 2020
venerdì, agosto 21, 2020
martedì, agosto 18, 2020
Growing support among doctors for infanticide
The vast majority of pro-abortion doctors working in neo-natal units in Flanders, Belgium, support being allowed to kill a newborn baby if it has a serious disability. This can only be described as a further descent into barbarism as the culture of death strengthens its grip in that country.
A new survey of 117 physicians and paramedic professionals involved in late abortions (when the foetus is already viable) in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium found that almost 90% think that in the event of a serious non-lethal neonatal condition, administering drugs after birth with the explicit intention of ending the newborn’s life is acceptable.(95.6% of the respondents agree with late abortion in case of a serious but non-lethal condition.)
The percentage is higher among physicians (93.6%) than in paramedics (84.4%). This practice is currently illegal in Belgium but 87.9% of respondents agree that the law should be changed to make it possible.
These shocking results represent not all medical professionals as the survey is limited to doctors who are already involved in abortion. Still, one wonders, what kind of doctor would kill their disabled patients?
According to the survey, most healthcare professionals prefer infanticide above palliative care, in both lethal (57.8%) and in non-lethal foetal conditions (65.9%). Physicians, but not paramedics, prefer foeticide more in case of a serious non-lethal foetal condition (68.1%) than in case of a lethal condition (53.2%).
This could be explained by the fact that if a seriously ill newborn baby does not die, the physicians might be legally responsible for not discovering the disability before the child was born. Paramedics are less confronted with this situation. The introduction of euthanasia for newborns would take the responsibility off those doctors. At the moment, actively ending newborn life is not permitted in Belgium but there are no limitations on ending unborn life in such cases. The only country that has legalised neonatal euthanasia is the Netherlands, with the infamous Groningen protocol.
Last year, the same authors of this study published an article based on a similar survey about the attitudes towards perinatal (before and after birth) end-of-life decisions by all neonatologists and neonatal nurses working the same medical centres.
The study found that “actively administering medication with explicit life-shortening intention was considered acceptable by more than half of the neonatologists and three quarters of nurses and was even considered as a good treatment option in the hypothetical case in a third of neonatologists and two-fifths of nurses. This indicates a high acceptance of an end-of-life decision that currently falls outside the legal framework in Belgium and most other countries.”
In 2013, two Italian ethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published an article defending what they called “after-birth abortion”, which is in practice infanticide. They claimed that the “moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” The article provoked a strong reaction at the time but it is based on robust logic: if a baby can be killed just before birth, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be killed just after birth. And this makes even more sense if one accepts euthanasia.
What at the time appeared to be just a disturbing theoretical possibility is now something becoming accepted by the medical profession, at least by those involved in abortion, as the survey shows, and probably by part of public opinion.
We tend to think abortion and euthanasia happening at the opposite extremities of human life and they are not connected. What we hear from Belgium, instead, shows that the slippery slope is real and once those terrible things are legalised, soon or later the infanticide of disabled babies becomes more acceptable.
domenica, agosto 16, 2020
Do restrictive laws reduce abortion?
Questa è la versione per Soundcloud del blog che trovate qui sotto.
sabato, agosto 15, 2020
Il Covid ci ha reso vulnerabili, ma consapevoli
La pandemia di questi mesi ripropone un tema filosofico fondamentale: la naturale vulnerabilità e dipendenza che contraddistinguono la condizione umana. La cosa può dispiacere a chi coltiva ancora il grande sogno di diventare padroni incontrastati di noi stessi e di tutto ciò che abbiamo intorno, ma siamo “animali razionali dipendenti”, come recita il titolo di un celebre libro di Alasdair MacIntyre, vecchio di oltre vent’anni e attualissimo. Siamo animali dipendenti e fragili: un dato di fatto di per sé incontestabile, che però, dai greci ai giorni nostri, viene trascurato nella sua grande portata antropologica.
Aristotele, ad esempio, enfatizzava soprattutto l’individuo sufficiente a se stesso, il megalopsychos; molta filosofia moderna esalta il concetto di autonomia individuale; soltanto pochi pensatori si soffermano invece sulla umana vulnerabilità e sulle dipendenze dall’aiuto altrui che ne conseguono nelle diverse fasi della vita: l’infanzia e la vecchiaia in primis, ma anche le infermità e le malattie da cui tutti gli uomini possono essere affetti temporaneamente o per sempre. Di passaggio faccio notare che è precisamente questo il dato naturale sul quale MacIntyre costruisce la sua filosofia morale, tesa a mostrare come proprio le virtù che garantiscono un “agire razionale indipendente” hanno bisogno di essere accompagnate da quelle che egli chiama “le virtù della dipendenza riconosciuta”.
Continua qui.
venerdì, agosto 14, 2020
Ancora LBRY
Sto aggiornando il mio profilo su LBRY quotidianamente con immagini, registrazioni audio e video, blog. Vi consiglio di iscrivervi utilizzando questo collegamento: https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@angelo.bottone:9
Oltre al canale principale, ho un canale chiamato Amazing https://lbry.tv/@Amazing:8b dove conservo ciò che trovo di interessante.
giovedì, agosto 13, 2020
mercoledì, agosto 12, 2020
Do restrictive abortion laws reduce the abortion rate?
A new study claims that more restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the incidence of abortion. In fact, the opposite may be the case, it says. If true, this would be a big blow to the pro-life movement which obviously fights for more restrictive laws. But a closer look at the study shows no such simple conclusion can be drawn. In fact, if you add up the figures differently you could conclude the restrictive laws do, in fact, reduce the incidence of abortion.
The authors arrive at their conclusion by leaving out the two most populous countries in the world, China and India, both of which have permissive abortion laws. When you include them, it turns out that abortion is lower in countries with more restrictive laws.
In the period 2015-19, in countries where abortion is broadly legal, the abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-49 was 40. The rate was 36 where abortion is restricted. In the same period, 70% of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion in countries where it is broadly legal, while in countries where it is restricted, this happens only in 50% of the cases, according to the study.
This indicates that where more restrictive laws are in place, both the abortion rate and the number of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion are lower, compared to countries with more liberal abortion regimes.
There is no simple cause and effect between legislation and those two rates, of course, as they are determined by a complex number of factors (socioeconomic conditions, quality of the health system, culture, etc).
When the authors leave out China and India, they find that the abortion rate in countries where abortion is legal decreases from 40 per 1,000 women to 26 per 1,000 women, meaning it is lower than in countries with restrictive regimes.
The authors believe including China and India skews the figures.
What do these very different conclusions about the abortion rate and the law show? They show that it is very hard to compare countries that are culturally and economically very different.
What we do know, however, is that here in Ireland, the number of abortions increased substantially last year, post-legalisation. Under the conditions of the 8th amendment, Ireland had a low abortion rate compared with basically every other Western country. The figures are now moving firmly in the wrong direction.
martedì, agosto 11, 2020
lunedì, agosto 10, 2020
domenica, agosto 09, 2020
Newman a Livorno
San John Henry Newman soggiornò, convalescente, a Livorno dal 5 al 20 giugno 1879. Una targa commemorativa lo ricoda. Qui maggiori dettagli.
venerdì, agosto 07, 2020
A debate on how to tackle a shrinking population is long overdue
The world population will peak and then decline by the end of this century, according to a new study. Countries with low fertility rates will suffer economically.
A new major study published by The Lancet, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, presents a new model to forecast the changes in the world population. The study projected the global population to peak in the year 2064 at 9.73 billion people and then decline to 8.79 billion by the end of the century. In 2017, the world population was estimated at 7.64 billion but, the study claims, this figure could go as low as 6.28 billion by the end of the century, if certain measures will be implemented.
The paper forecast population changes from 2018 to 2100 for 195 countries and territories and found that all regions, except sub-Saharan Africa, will have substantial population declines in the next eighty years.
These estimates invalidate some of the predictions based on other models, particularly the model from the United Nation which is the most commonly quoted. The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat (UNPD), in their last forecast claimed that in the year 2100 the global population will be 10.88 billion and the sub-Saharan Africa will be 3.78 billion.
Demographic forecasts are based on a complex series of variables but there are two key factors at stake: the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa and what happens to countries with fertility levels below replacement rate. 2.1 children per woman is considered the minimum rate for generational replacement. When the total fertility rate (TFR) goes be below 2.1 some countries experience declines followed by upturns, while others stagnate at very low levels.
The study developed 5 different scenarios. The “reference scenario” is the one more likely to happen, in their view, and it is the one I will refer to. Other four possible alternatives are also presented and they reflect two faster and two slower trajectories for key drivers such as education of women and access to birth control.
For instance, the Irish population was 4.86 million in 2017. It will peak 5.77 in the year 2057 and decrease to 5.44 by the end of the century, according to the reference scenario. Nonetheless, it might go well below the current figures in the fastest pace scenario. (In some countries the decline will be dramatic. Italy will go from 60 to 30 million, Spain from 46 to 23).
The global total fertility rate (TFR) will drop below the replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in 2034, reaching 1.66 in 2100. By then, 183 out of 195 countries will have a TFR below replacement level.
Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region with the highest TFR in the world, will stay above replacement level until 2063 and then drop.
The only regions forecast to have higher population in 2100 than currently are sub-Saharan Africa, north Africa and the Middle East.
This means that after a peak, the global population will likely continue to decline, even in the next century.
All five scenarios forecast substantial changes in the age structure of the population. People will live longer and the proportion of adults will also increase. The number of children under 5 will decline from 681 million in 2017 to 401 million in 2100 (-41%) while individuals over 80 will increase form 141 million to 866 million.
In 1950, 25 births occurred for every person turning 80. In 2017 the number was 7 and in 2100 there will be only one birth for every 80-year-old person.
There will be significant differences between countries, according to their fertility rates.
In Ireland, the over 65 will account for about 30% of the population by the end of this century. The Italian figure is projected to be 37%. In Nigeria, instead, where the general population is expected to grow from 206 to 790 million, the over 65 will be 18.6% of the total. In other words, Nigeria like many countries of that region, will be a nation of mostly young people, in contrast to the “old” European countries.
In society experiencing such demographic contractions, the whole health and welfare system has to be reconsidered.
“Although good for the environment, population decline and associated shifts in age structure in many nations might have other profound and often negative consequences”, the article says. “In 23 countries, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, and Ukraine, populations are expected to decline by 50% or more. … These population shifts have economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging. With all other things being equal, the decline in the numbers of working- aged adults alone will reduce GDP rates”.
In the eighty years, India will have the largest working-age (over 15) population of the world, followed by Nigeria and China. Inevitably, some of those will emigrate to countries where there is more demand for labor forces.
On the other hand, countries going through a demographic decline will also lose economic and geopolitical power. This is why population forecasts are essential to plan and manage public policies, but they are also crucial for business and NGOs.
In order to estimate the need for services, for investments, for the allocation of resources, it is vital to know the characteristics of population in short-term and mid-term scenarios.
The Lancet study suggests four options to stop the “demographic winter”: increasing the fertility rate creating a supporting environment for mothers, restricting access to birth control and abortion, increasing labor force participation, promoting immigration.
A debate about which of these options – or any other option – is preferable is urgently needed.
martedì, agosto 04, 2020
Irish museum 'cancels' racist eugenicist
IRISH MUSEUM ‘CANCELS’ RACIST EUGENICIST
DUBLIN (ChurchMilitant.com) - A Dublin museum dedicated to Irish emigrants will remove a prominently displayed photograph of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger after a Catholic philosopher complained about her racist and eugenicist beliefs.
"When I heard that Planned Parenthood had removed references to Sanger from their facilities, I simply asked EPIC, the Irish emigration museum, if they would do the same," Dr. Angelo Bottone told Church Militant in an exclusive interview Sunday.
Seen on the Street
Bottone, a philosophy lecturer at University College Dublin said he passes "by the EPIC museum almost every day. A big picture of Sanger is displayed on one of the external windows on its facade at the Custom House Quay (CHQ) building in Dublin's docklands."
"I have never been inside the museum because there was never a proper occasion but also because it is quite 'woke.' It hosts exhibitions or book launches with a clear 'progressive' message and I don't like that," observed Bottone, a member of the Irish Philosophical Society.
Bottone said he was aware that the museum had an exhibition dedicated to Sanger, both of whose parents were Irish, and that an American visitor had complained to the museum about the racist eugenicist in 2018.
The complainant expressed "amazement" over EPIC's "displays about the rainbow movement regarding homosexuality/gay marriage and another about Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist who tried so desperately to rid the U.S. of those most undesirable through the introduction of abortion into poor areas with minority populations."
"Many poor areas had lots of Irish, it should be noted!" the complainant added, noting that the "unnecessary information was an assault and disappointment to those of us who visited the museum expecting to be more informed about the tragic situations experienced by the Irish as they tried to survive the extermination method (starvation) being used by the British against them."
Initial Pushback
However, in a 500-word response, the museum defended the exhibition on Sanger, "who advocated for the use of contraception" as an emigrant of Irish descent "leading political and social change around the world."
"We are aware that she held controversial views on eugenics. We do not advocate for those views, but we share her story in our museum as a member of the diaspora," the museum management replied.
On July 21, Bottone tweeted: "Will the @EPICMuseumCHQ in Dublin remove the large portrait of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger from their window?"
Bottone's initial complaint was followed by a Twitter exchange with museum authorities. On July 22, the museum told him they would take a decision soon.
"After a week I asked them about the decision. They replied that the 'photograph on our front vaults will be removed.' They said nothing about the exhibition but, to be fair, I only asked about the picture," Bottone said.
Pleased But Cautious
"I was delighted and a bit surprised by their reaction," the philosopher, who is also a research officer at the Iona Institute, told Church Militant.
Bottone emphasized he was not in favor of the "cancel" culture. "I would be cautious about the renaming of venues or the removal of statues of historical figures who held views that we now consider controversial but were generally adopted in their time."
"That would be anachronistic and it should be done only after a proper public debate, never by a mob," he stressed.
Planned Parenthood Disavows Founder
"Nonetheless, this is different because Sanger, who only died in 1966, actively promoted eugenics, which was opposed by many in her own time. There is no excuse here. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledged this," Bottone explained.
On July 23, Church Militant reported that Planned Parenthood in Manhattan was dropping Sanger's name because of her "her public support for the eugenics medical philosophy, which was rooted in racism, ableism and classism."
The abortion giant stopped issuing the Margaret Sanger Award after 2015. The award was conferred on contraception advocates and pro-abortion politicians, including Hillary Clinton in 2009 and fake Catholic Nancy Pelosi in 2014.
'Recontextualizing'
Nathan Mannion, senior curator at Epic, confirmed to The Times that Sanger's poster had been placed there "temporarily," but would be taken down because it was an "uncontextualized image, with no accompanying background or material."
Mannion said the museum is "going through everything with a fine-tooth comb" in light of the recent controversies over slavery and racism to decide if any exhibits need to be "recontexualized."
"We want to make sure that we are getting it right, and everything is up to date," Mannion commented. "This does not mean there will be dramatic changes. We don't want to shy away from contested histories. A museum is not a sanitized space, and the past is as complex as society today."
EPIC, which tells the story of Irish emigration over 1,500 years, has exhibits related to 340 Irish emigrants. It seeks to explain why 10 million people left the historically Catholic island nation.
Bottone, originally from Italy, has published works on John Henry Newman, Paul Ricoeur, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Étienne Balibar. He also lectures at the School of Arts of the Dublin Business School and is involved in pro-life activism.
domenica, agosto 02, 2020
Birth-control icon Margaret Sanger blanked by Dublin's Epic museum for ‘racist past’
Epic, the Irish emigration museum, is to remove a photograph of Margaret Sanger from the front of its building after a complaint about her racist and eugenicist views.
Sanger, both of whose parents were Irish, was recently “cancelled” by Planned Parenthood, the US birth- control organisation she helped to establish. Its clinic in Manhattan removed Sanger’s name, saying her “racist legacy” and “deep belief in eugenic ideology” could no longer be denied.
Following the announcement, Angelo Bottone, a University College Dublin philosophy lecturer and a research officer at the Iona Institute, asked Epic whether it would remove a poster of Sanger from its facade at the CHQ building in Dublin’s docklands.
Epic tweeted back to Bottone on July 22 that it would “review this as a matter of priority and make a decision soon”. Last Wednesday it told him Sanger’s photo would be removed.
Nathan Mannion, senior curator at Epic, said the poster had been placed there only “temporarily”, but would be taken down because it was an “uncontextualised image, with no accompanying background or material”.
The decision followed the Shelbourne hotel’s removal of four statues from the front of its premises following suggestions that they depicted slave girls in shackles. Some art historians pointed out that the “manacles” might in fact be ankle bracelets.
Mannion revealed that the Epic emigration museum is conducting a detailed audit of its exhibition, “going through everything with a fine-tooth comb” in light of the recent international debate about slavery and migration. Curators are to decide whether any exhibits need to be “recontexualised”.
“We want to make sure that we are getting it right, and everything is up to date,” Mannion said. “This does not mean there will be dramatic changes. We don’t want to shy away from contested histories. A museum is not a sanitised space, and the past is as complex as society today.”
Epic has exhibits related to 340 Irish emigrants. These include people who were involved in the transatlantic slave trade, but also some who campaigned against it, and others who were indentured slaves in the Caribbean. Mannion said the museum’s aim is to ensure the stories it tells are properly representative and not one-dimensional, and amendments will be made if necessary.
Removal of an exhibit or story would be a “nuclear option” and curators would prefer that all the information about a person was presented to visitors. “We accept there is a contested history and most people are not heroes or villains, but have a greyer existence,” he said.
Two years ago some visitors to Epic took issue with Sanger’s entry in the museum, and it was changed to emphasise the more controversial aspects of her birth-control philosophy.
Born Margaret Higgins in New York in 1879, Sanger opened America’s first birth-control clinic in 1916. Five years later she founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation. Its “highest honour” is the Margaret Sanger Award, recognising leadership in the reproductive health movement. Previous recipients include politicians Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, and actors Jane Fonda and Kathleen Turner.
Though still a feminist icon, Sanger’s support for eugenics is now increasingly criticised. In 1921 she wrote that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective”. In removing her name from its Manhattan clinic, Planned Parenthood cited Sanger’s “harmful connections to the eugenics movement”, which at the time promoted selected breeding among black and disabled communities.
Karen Seltzer, chair of Planned Parenthood in New York, said the removal of Sanger’s name from the building was “both a necessary and overdue step” to acknowledge the organisation’s contributions “to historical reproductive harm within communities of colour”.