Libri

 Libri che ho letto interamente quest'anno.

Mo Gawdat, Scary smart (2021)

Stephen Blendell, Pandemics: What Dr Hahnemann knew (2020)

Petra Bowden, Caring: gender-sensitive ethics (1997)

Lucy Burns, Larger than an orange (2021)

Mo Gawdat, Scary smart (2021)

Nicola Grana, Dimore del tempo (1996)

Jean Guitton, Unity through love, essays in ecumenism (1964)

John Kelly, Joyce the student (2021)

Jacques Lacan, Il seminario Libro VII (1986)

Francois Mauriac, La toga pretesta (1953)

D. J. Pratt Morris -Champan, Newman in the Story of Philosophy (2021)

Emily O’Reilly, Masterminds of the Right (1988)

Paul Shrimpton, The ‘Making of Men’ (2014)

Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Seung Choi, Do markets corrupt our morals? (2019)

Emily Thomas, The meaning of travel (2020)

What a new report reveals about the love-lives of Irish young people

 

A new ERSI report examines the lives of 20-year-olds in Ireland. Among other things, it finds that about half of them are currently in a romantic relationship and that the vast majority became sexually active from their late teens on. Almost 30pc of girls believe they should have waited longer to have sex for the first time. Unsurprisingly, very few plan to marry in the next five years.

The new research draws on “Growing up in Ireland”, a longitudinal study of children carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). The latest report looks at those born in 1998 and were 20 at the time when they answered the questionnaires, just before the Covid pandemic began.

The report addresses issues such as education, work, physical or emotional well-being, as well as relationships.

At the time they answered the questionnaires, only 2pc of 20-year-olds in Ireland were living with a romantic partner, 43pc cent were single and not dating, 40pc were in a relationship but not living with that person, and 14pc said that they were ‘casually dating but not exclusive’.

A third reported that they had not dated anyone in the previous year, over half (53pc) had dated one person, 15pc had dated two or more people.

Almost two-thirds of respondents who were in a relationship were dating someone aged 20-22 years.

Women were more likely to report that they were in a relationship than men (49pc versus 37pc). Those in employment rather than education were also more likely to be in a relationship (46pc versus 35pc).

Young adults tend more and more to delay marriage. Currently, the average age of brides is 35.7 while for grooms is 37.8. According to the ERSI research, 40pc of 20-year-olds who are in a relationship believed that in five years they would be living together but not engaged or married. Only 4pc said they see themselves married in five years, while 19pc thought they would be engaged.

When asked about the occurrence of their first sexual intercourse, 33pc responded they were 17/18 years old at the time, 51pc were between the ages of 18 and 20, while 16pc reported they had never been sexually active.

Three percent of respondents identify as gay or lesbian, and 6pc as bisexual. Nonetheless, 95pc of those who became sexually active for the first time did so with someone of the opposite sex.

Half were in a steady relationship when it happened, 34pc knew each other and 15pc said they had met for the first time.

When asked about the timing of their first intercourse, 28pc of girls said they should have waited longer and 8pc were not sure if it was the right time. In contrast, only 9pc of boys think they should have waited longer, and 14pc were not sure about it. The difference between the two sexes is significant and confirms similar research elsewhere.

Overall, a quarter of those who had sex before 17/18 thought that they should have waited longer, compared to 17 per cent of those who had sex later.

The survey was carried out just before the pandemic and it will be interesting, in a few years, to see how Covid has impacted the lives on young people, particularly with regard to relationships.

What it finds among 20-year-olds is probably little different from what it would discover among 25-year-olds. The report confirms the extent to which modern sexual norms have strayed from traditional ones and detached sex in many cases from strong commitments, never mind marriage.

This is, of course, one of the great drivers of the abortion rate. People become sexually active in their late teens, but don’t marry until they are in their 30s. Most women who have abortions are single and in their 20s.

Abortion is the price of our sexual freedom.

The extreme philosophy behind a new suicide machine

 

To lots of international publicity, a new assisted suicide machine gained legal approval in Switzerland last week called ‘Sarco’, short for sarcophagus. As the name implies, it is a coffin-shaped and sized container that is flooded with nitrogen when activated from inside by the suicidal person, killing them. The development caused remarkably little outrage because we are being conditioned to believe in assisted suicide as an acceptable response to suffering.

The man behind it is Exit International’s Philip Nitschke, the biggest organisation in the world promoting assisted suicide and euthanasia. Prominent Irish assisted suicide campaigner Tom Curran is one of its directors. Despite this Irish connection, Sacro has received almost no publicity here never mind critical scrutiny. Instead, the campaign to allow assisted suicide gathers pace.

Promoters say it will be restricted to limited cases, but Exit International makes no secret of its ultimate aim. It says, “every adult of sound mind has the right to implement plans for the end of their life so that their death is reliable, peaceful and at a time of their choosing.”

Once you are an adult and of sound mind, no other requirement is necessary to access assisted suicide, according to Exit International. In other words, a healthy 18-year-old would be allowed to avail of it. This is claimed as a ‘fundamental human right’.

On their website Exit International say that individuals have a right to “receive information about their end of life choices (especially during this time of pandemic)”. This last specification referring to the pandemic makes their philosophy even more disturbing.

Exit International does not provide individuals with illegal drugs or equipment but it “supports individuals’ right to procure drugs and equipment for end-of-life purposes.”

This organisation was founded in 1997 by Philip Nitschke.

Nitschke’s medical registration was suspended by the South Australian Medical Board of Australia in July 2014 after allegations he counselled a 45-year-old healthy man to take his life. The man was being investigated in connection with the death of his wife and disappearance of a former girlfriend. He may or may not have been suffering from depression.

Later, the Board lifted the suspension but imposed 26 conditions on Nitschke, including a ban on providing information on sedatives that are fatal at high doses. He was also precluded from advising the public about taking their lives and he was requested to refer suicidal patients to local mental health services.

Nitschke found those conditions too onerous, burnt his medical practising certificate and left Australia. He now lives in Amsterdam.

Speaking about Sacro, and exposing his extreme philosophy, Nitschke said, “We want to remove any kind of psychiatric review from the process and allow the individual to control the method themselves. … the person would do an online test and receive a code to access the Sarco.”

It is important to know the broad philosophy that inspires many assisted suicide campaigners, here in Ireland and abroad. Debates generally focus on extreme cases and alleged safeguards, but Exit International presents the suicide of mentally competent healthy adults as a fundamental right. The founder even wants to remove any psychiatric reviews!

This disturbing philosophy must be exposed and strongly rejected.

Sie wollen abtreiben? Warten Sie einen Moment…

 Die Bedenkzeit für Schwangere vor einem Schwangerschaftsabbruch, die in vielen Ländern gesetzlich vorgeschrieben ist, funktioniert tatsächlich in vielen Fällen. Den Beweis liefert Irland. Nach Angaben des Gesundheitsministeriums änderten etwa 20 % der Frauen, die zunächst eine Abtreibung beantragten, ihre Meinung.

Die irische Verordnung, die seit Januar 2019 in Kraft ist, sieht vor, dass zwischen der ersten Beratung und dem chirurgischen Eingriff zur Entfernung des Babys aus dem Mutterleib eine Bedenkzeit von mindestens drei Tagen liegen muss. Dies ist der Fall, wenn eine Abtreibung im ersten Trimester der Schwangerschaft beabsichtigt ist, d.h. innerhalb der gesetzlichen Frist, in der eine Abtreibung ohne besonderen Grund erlaubt ist. Für Schwangerschaftsabbrüche im zweiten und dritten Trimester, z. Bsp. wenn eine diagnostizierte Fehlbildung des Fötus oder eine Gefährdung der Gesundheit der Mutter vorliegt, schreibt das Gesetz keine Bedenkzeit vor.

Auf Anfrage der Abgeordneten Carol Nolan, die sich sehr stark für den Lebensschutz engagiert, teilte das irische Ministerium mit, dass im vergangenen Jahr 6.455 Abtreibungen innerhalb der ersten 3 Lebensmonate des Kindes vorgenommen wurden, obwohl eine weitaus höhere Zahl von Schwangeren den Schwangerschaftsabbruch beantragt hatte: 8.057. Somit haben sich mehr als 1.600 werdende Mütter gegen eine Abtreibung entschieden und ihre Kinder zur Welt gebracht. Das sind fast 20 %, eine beachtliche Zahl, die zeigt, dass das geltende Gesetz zur Bedenkzeit seinen Zweck erfüllt.

Natürlich ist es möglich, dass einige dieser Mütter nach einer ersten Beratung in Irland dann im Ausland abgetrieben haben. Aber wenn dies der Fall ist, handelt es sich wahrscheinlich um einen sehr kleinen Prozentsatz, vor allem angesichts der Einschränkungen, die im letzten Jahr aufgrund von CoViD-19 sowohl in Bezug auf Reisen als auch auf den Zugang zu Gesundheitsdienstleistungen galten. Außerdem ist in Irland seit Beginn der Pandemie die Fernberatung durch Ärzte erlaubt und der Schwangerschaftsabbruch im ersten Lebensdrittel des Kindes wird in den meisten Fällen nicht chirurgisch in einem Krankenhaus oder einer Klinik, sondern durch Einnahme der Abtreibungspille RU486 zu Hause durchgeführt. Anders ausgedrückt, es gibt für Schwangere, die abtreiben möchten, kein wirkliches Hindernis, abgesehen von dieser Bedenkzeit.

Die vom Gesundheitsministerium veröffentlichten Daten sind wichtig, weil das irische Parlament in einigen Wochen die geltende Abtreibungsgesetzgebung und eventuelle Änderungen debattieren wird. Das Gesetz wird nämlich alle drei Jahre überprüft und zu den Bestimmungen, die die Abtreibungsbefürworter gerne abschaffen würden, gehört die obligatorische dreitägige Bedenkzeit, die ihrer Meinung nach ein belastendes Hindernis für die Entscheidung der Frau darstellt.

Die Daten zeigen jedoch genau das Gegenteil. Die dreitägige Denkpause dient dazu, die Gründe für eine Abtreibung abzuwägen und es sich manchmal anders zu überlegen, gerade weil eine solche Entscheidung (offensichtlich) irreversibel und tödlich ist. Da viele Frauen trotz starker Zweifel eine Abtreibung in Betracht ziehen, hilft ihnen das Innehalten und Nachdenken, Mut zu fassen und sich schließlich für das Leben und gegen den Tod zu entscheiden.

Eine solche Bedenkzeit ist in den Rechtsvorschriften vieler Länder verankert. In Italien zum Beispiel beträgt die Frist sieben Tage, mehr als doppelt so lang als in Irland. In Belgien sind es sechs Tage, in den Niederlanden fünf und in Spanien und Portugal drei. In Großbritannien hingegen gibt es eine derartige Regelung nicht, obwohl einer Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2017 zufolge 79 % der Bevölkerung die Einführung einer fünftägigen Frist befürworten würde.

Wer weiß, wie viele Leben durch eine übereilte Entscheidung beendet werden und wie viele Mütter ihre Entscheidung später bereuen und um ihre abgetriebenen Kinder trauern. Wenn, wie die Daten aus Irland belegen, ein Fünftel aller Schwangeren ihre Absicht nach der Erstberatung ändern, so ist dies gewiss auch auf die Bedenkzeit zurückzuführen. Die Abschaffung der Bedenkzeit würde bedeuten, allen die Entscheidungsfreiheit zu nehmen, auch denen, die Abtreibung für ein Recht halten.

Gerade die Frauen, die Abtreibung für ein Recht halten (und das ist nicht die gesamte Frauenwelt, ja vielleicht nicht einmal der Großteil), sagen, dass sie nicht „für Abtreibung“ seien, so dass eine Unterscheidung zwischen Pro-Life und Pro-Abtreibung irreführend wäre. Deshalb bezeichnen die Abtreibungsbefürworter sich selbst als Pro-Choice (als hätten Menschen, die Pro-Life sind, sich nicht für das Leben entschieden). Dieselbe Bewegung unterstreicht auch, dass alle, einschließlich derer, die Abtreibung für ein Recht halten, an sich für das Leben sind, nicht den Tod wollen und daher Abtreibung als eine Art letzten Ausweg betrachten. Sehr gut. Denn wenn das so ist, dann müsste doch die Frauenbewegung, die Abtreibung für ein Recht hält, die Bedenkzeit für Schwangere, die beabsichtigen, das Leben ihres Kindes im Mutterlieb auf irreversible Weise zu beenden, unbedingt befürworten. Und zwar eine möglichst lange Bedenkzeit.

Voulez-vous avorter ? Attendez un moment…

 Le délai de réflexion que les lois de certains pays imposent aux mères avant l’avortement fonctionne dans un nombre important de cas. La confirmation vient d’Irlande. Selon les chiffres publiés par le ministère de la Santé, environ 20 % des femmes qui avaient initialement demandé un avortement ont changé d’avis..

La règlementation irlandaise, en vigueur depuis janvier 2019, stipule qu’il doit y avoir un délai de réflexion d’au moins trois jours entre la première consultation et l’intervention chirurgicale pour retirer le bébé de l’utérus. C’est le cas si vous avez l’intention d’avorter au cours du premier trimestre de la grossesse, c’est-à-dire dans le délais légal pendant lequel un avortement est autorisé sans motif précis. Pour les avortements au cours des deuxième et troisième trimestres, en cas de diagnostic de malformation du foetus ou de risque pour la santé de la mère par exemple, la loi n’exige aucun délai de réflexion.

Répondant à une question posée par la députée Carol Nolan, qui est très active sur le front de la protection de la vie, le ministère irlandais a révélé que l’année dernière, 6 455 avortements ont été pratiqués au cours du premier trimestre de la vie d’un bébé, alors qu’un nombre beaucoup plus élevé de femmes avaient demandé l’avortement : 8 057. Ainsi, plus de 1 600 femmes enceintes ont décidé de ne pas avorter et de finalement donner naissance à leurs bébés. Cela représente près de 20%, un chiffre significatif qui montre l’efficacité du délai de réflexion imposé par la loi actuelle.

Bien sûr, il est possible que certaines de ces mères aient avorté à l’étranger après une visite initiale en Irlande, mais si c’est le cas, il s’agit d’un pourcentage très faible, étant donné les restrictions mises en place l’année dernière en raison du CoViD-19, tant sur les voyages que sur l’accès aux services de santé. Depuis le début de la pandémie en Irlande, la consultation à distance du médecin est possible, et l’avortement au cours du premier trimestre de la vie de l’enfant est dans la plupart des cas effectué non pas chirurgicalement dans un hôpital ou une clinique, mais avec la pilule abortive RU486. En d’autres termes, il n’y a pas de véritables obstacles pour celles qui veulent avorter, même à domicile, si ce n’est ce délai de réflexion.

Les chiffres publiés par le ministère de la Santé sont importants, car dans quelques semaines, le Parlement irlandais remettra en question la législation actuelle sur l’avortement en vue d’éventuels changements. Tous les trois ans, la législation est révisée, et parmi les dispositions que les militants pro-avortement voudraient abroger figure celle concernant cette période de réflexion obligatoire de trois jours, qui selon eux, constituerait un obstacle pesant sur le choix des femmes.

Mais les données montrent exactement le contraire. La pause de réflexion de trois jours permet de réfléchir et parfois de reconsidérer le choix de l’avortement, précisément parce qu’un tel choix est (évidemment) irréversible et fatale. Etant donné que de nombreuses femmes envisagent d’interrompre une grossesse tout en nourrissant de forts doutes, la pause et la réflexion les aident à prendre le courage de choisir finalement la vie plutôt que la mort.

Une telle période de réflexion est prévue dans la législation de nombreux pays. En Italie, par exemple, la pause est de sept jours, plus de deux fois plus longue qu’en Irlande. En Belgique, elle est de six jours, de cinq jours aux Pays-Bas, et de trois en Espagne et au Portugal. En revanche, une telle règle n’existe pas au Royaume-Uni, même si un sondage de 2017 montre que 79 % de la population serait favorable à son instauration pour une période de cinq jours.

Qui sait combien de vies sont fauchées à cause d’une décision hâtive et combien de mères, regrettent plus tard leur décision, et pleurent leurs enfants avortés. Si, comme le montrent les données irlandaises, un cinquième des femmes changent d’intention après une première visite, c’est aussi grâce à cette période de réflexion. L’abroger reviendrait à priver tout le monde de la possibilité de choisir, même ceux qui considèrent l’avortement comme un droit.

Les femmes qui considèrent l’avortement comme un droit (et ce n’est pas l’ensemble des femmes, peut-être même pas sa majorité) affirment qu’elles ne sont pas “pour l’avortement”, de sorte que la distinction entre pro-vie et pro-avortement serait trompeuse. C’est pourquoi les défenseurs de l’avortement se définissent comme pro-choix (comme si les personnes pro-vie ne choisissaient pas la vie). Ce même mouvement ajoute également que tous, y compris ceux qui considèrent l’avortement comme un droit, sont en eux-mêmes pro-vie, ne veulent pas la mort, et considèrent donc l’avortement comme une sorte de dernier recours. Pourquoi pas. Mais si tel est le cas, alors le mouvement des femmes qui considèrent l’avortement comme un droit, devrait définitivement accepter le délais de réflexion pour les femmes enceintes qui entendent mettre un terme irréversible à la vie de leur enfant. Un délais aussi long que possible.

New ERSI report on disability ignores eugenic abortion

The number of Irish people with disabilities will decline over time, a new report from by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) says. This will be due to the general decline in fertility rates, it states. No doubt that will be a big factor, but it leaves out another key element, namely the growing prevalence of eugenic-based abortion, that is, terminations which selectively target the disabled in the womb through the increased use of screening programmes.

The report examines the current and future need of children suffering from all sorts of disabilities, from blindness and deafness, to learning difficulties or psychological conditions. It is intended to inform future policy and planning.

Even assuming the best scenario in terms of fertility rates, the number of children with disabilities is projected by the study to trend downward in the years to come. There are geographical variations, with Dublin changing less than other parts of the country, but there is little doubt that fewer children will need support in the future.

There are many factors leading to disabilities and some of them can be detected before birth. When a case of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities is found through prenatal tests, the outcome is often abortion. What was inconceivable in the past is now becoming standard practice.

A study published last year in the European Journal of Human Genetics found that Ireland has the highest population of people with Down Syndrome in Europe: 13.9 per 10,000 inhabitants. The European average is 5.6.

This is explained by Ireland’s strong pro-life culture, something is now eroding fast, especially since the repeal of the 8^th amendment.

The data used in the European Journal of Human Genetics article refer to the 2011-15 period. We await to see if Ireland will continue to respect the right of life of unborn children with disabilities more than other European countries, but it is hard to the optimistic. In 2018, 17 children with Down Syndromes were aborted by Irish women in England. Their number grew in the following years: 27 in 2019 and 35 in 2020.

The same study found that without selective abortions, the number of people with Down Syndrome would be 27pc higher in Europe.

The effect of pre-natal selection on birth rates of children with medical conditions is an issue that should be addressed not only from an ethical point of view, but also in terms of policies and long term consequences. It has an impact on how children with disabilities are perceived and accepted by society. We often hear that parents expecting children diagnosed with certain conditions often feel pressure to abort them, as if this is now is the default choice.

It is disappointing that the new ESRI report on future policy and planning about children with disabilities overlooks such a significant factor. 

10.000

 Questa settimana questo blog ha ricevuto oltre 10.000 visite. Grazie a tutti.

Ireland’s birth rate falls off the cliff

 

Thanks mainly to Covid-19, Ireland saw a huge drop in the number of births in the second quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. At 14.6pc, it was the second biggest fall in Europe, and would have been even worse were it not for the number of non-Irish nationals having babies here. We are headed for a demographic cliff.

Vital statistics for the second quarter of 2021 released by the CSO last week show that 11,551 babies were born from April to June this year, whereas in the same period in 2020 there were 13,527 births. That is a drop of 1,976, the equivalent of -14.6 pc. An enormous reduction. The fertility rate is now well below replacement level.

Those born in the second quarter of this year were conceived in third quarter of last year, that is, between July and September when the air was still thick with fear of Covid.

If we compare births for the first quarter of this year with the first quarter of last year (before the pandemic got a grip on the country), there was a fall of 3.3pc, not too out of line with trend for the last few years. But as Covid got a grip, conceptions, and then births, nosedived.

With the exception of Moldova, Ireland has had the highest drop in Europe in 2021 so far.

Not surprisingly, the number of marriages plunged as well.

Some 2,558 weddings took place in the second quarter of 2021 in Ireland. About half (50.8pc) compared to 2019.

The Irish birth rate in quarter 2 of 2021 was the lowest ever recorded: 9.2 per thousand population, equivalent to a total fertility rate (average number of children a woman would have in her life) of 1.4. No doubt this will recover somewhat, but even before the pandemic the TFR has dropped well below replacement levels. In 2019, it was 1.7.

It is worth noting that In April-June last year, 77.5pc of babies were born to women with an Irish nationality. Non-Irish nationals represent 12.9pc of the total population, but accounted for 22.5pc of births. They are having more children per head than the Irish.

Our low fertility rate should be a cause of national debate, but mysteriously is not, despite its dire, long-term consequences.

Vuoi abortire? Aspetta un momento…

Il periodo di riflessione che le leggi di alcuni Paesi impongono alle mamme prima di abortire funziona in un numero significativo di casi. La conferma arriva dall’Irlanda. Secondo i dati diffusi dal ministero della Sanità, circa il 20% di donne che inizialmente avevano fatto richiesta per abortire ha poi cambiato idea.

La legge irlandese, entrata in vigore nel gennaio 2019, prevede che tra la prima consultazione e l’eventuale intervento chirurgico di soppressione del bambino nel grembo della propria mamma debba intercorrere un periodo appunto di riflessione di almeno tre giorni. Questo qualora si abbia intenzione di praticare l’aborto nel primo trimestre di vita del bimbo nell’utero materno, cioè quando la legge consente l’aborto per un motivo qualsiasi. Infatti, per gli aborti previsti nel secondo e nel terzo trimestre, cioè quelli che vengono praticati in caso di diagnosticata malformazione del feto o di pericolo per la salute della madre, la legge non richiede alcun periodo di riflessione.

Rispondendo a una interrogazione presentata dal deputato Carol Nolan, molto attiva sul fronte pro life, il Ministero irlandese ha rivelato che nel Paese lo scorso anno sono stati praticati 6.455 aborti nel primo trimestre di vita del bimbo a fronte però di un numero di donne che ne aveva fatto richiesta molto più alto: 8.057. Quindi oltre 1.600 mamme hanno desistito e dato alla luce i propri figli. Si tratta quasi del 20%, un dato significativo che mostra l’efficacia del periodo di riflessione imposto dalla legge in vigore.

Certo, è possibile che alcune di quella mamme abbiano abortito all’estero, dopo una prima visita in Irlanda, ma qualora fosse, si tratterebbe di una percentuale molto piccola, viste le restrizioni in vigore lo scorso anno a causa del CoViD-19, per quanto riguarda sia i viaggi sia l’accesso ai servizi sanitari. D’altronde l’Irlanda, proprio dall’inizio della pandemia, consente la consultazione a distanza con il medico e l’aborto nel primo trimestre di vita del piccolo viene effettuato nella maggioranza dei casi non chirurgicamente in ospedale o in clinica, bensì mediante la pillola abortiva RU486. Non vi sono cioè ostacoli veri per chi voglia abortire, anche a casa, tranne quel periodo di riflessione.

I dati diffusi dal ministero della Sanità sono importanti giacché fra qualche settimana il parlamento irlandese metterà in discussione l’attuale legislazione sull’aborto, in vista di possibili, probabili cambiamenti. Ogni tre anni, infatti, la legislazione viene revisionata e tra le disposizioni che gli attivisti pro choice vorrebbero abrogare c’è proprio quella riguardante detto periodo obbligatorio di riflessione di tre giorni, che, a loro dire, sarebbe un inciampo oneroso alla scelta della donna.

Ma i dati mostrano appunto il contrario. La pausa serve a ponderare e, a volte, a riconsiderare la scelta di abortire, proprio perché tale scelta è (ovviamente) irreversibilmente letale. Dato che diverse donne prendono in considerazione l’interruzione della gravidanza nutrendo comunque dubbi forti, la pausa e la riflessione le aiutano a prendere coraggio per scegliere alla fine la vita piuttosto che la morte.

D’altronde un periodo di pausa così è previsto dalle legislazioni di molti Paesi. In Italia, per esempio, la pausa è di sette giorni, più del doppio che in Irlanda. In Belgio è di sei e cinque nei Paesi Bassi, mentre tre in Spagna e Portogallo. Non esiste invece nel Regno Unito, anche se un sondaggio del 2017 mostra che il 79% della popolazione sarebbe favorevole a istituirlo per un periodo di cinque giorni.

Chi sa quante vite vengono stroncate per una decisione affrettata e quante madri, poi pentite, piangono i propri figli abortiti. Se, come dimostrano i dati irlandesi, un quinto delle donne cambia intenzione dopo una prima visita, è anche grazie a questo periodo di riflessione. Abrogarlo significherebbe togliere un’opportunità di scelta a tutti, anche a chi considera l’aborto un diritto.

Proprio il mondo femminile che considera l’aborto un diritto (che non è la totalità del mondo femminile, che non è forse nemmeno la sua maggioranza) afferma che nessuno è “a favore dell’aborto”, dunque che distinguere fra pro life e pro aborto sarebbe capzioso. Tant’è che il mondo filoabortista si autodefinisce pro choice (come se invece chi è pro life non scegliesse la vita). Quello stesso mondo aggiunge pure che tutti, compreso chi considera l’aborto un diritto, è di per sé a favore della vita, non vuole la morte e ritiene dunque l’aborto una sorta di extrema ratio. Bene. Allora dovrebbe essere per primo il mondo femminile che considera l’aborto un diritto a volere a tutti costi una pausa di riflessione per le mamme che hanno intenzione di agire in modo irreversibilmente letale per il bimbo che portano in grembo. Una pausa quanto più lunga possibile.

Tags: AbortoIrlanda

Video: A harsh light is shone over the fertility industry

 

Odysee

Il mio canale su Odysee, costantemente aggiornato:  https://odysee.com/@angelo.bottone:9

L'inno all'amore

 

Hate crimes against Christians on the rise in Europe

 

Hate crimes against Christians have risen dramatically in recent years, according to a newly published report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE). These include violent attacks on individual Christians, on churches and on holy objects.

To mark “International Day for Tolerance”, last Tuesday the OCSE presented its annual report on hate crimes in Europe. (By ‘hate crime’ is meant a criminal offence motivated by bias against a particular group.)

Each year the OCSE collects data from 42 participant States, 136 civil society groups and also from international organisations.

The recent 2020 report documented 7,181 hate incidents. Christians were the victims of more than 980 of those violent and threatening incidents. This represent a significant increase compared to the previous year, when 595 cases against Christians were reported.

Last year, 56 known cases were violent attacks against people, 55 involved threats and 871 of those incidents were attacks against property, include arson attacks against churches, desecration, robbery of holy communion hosts, vandalisation, etc.

Three churches were vandalised in Ireland last year.

The highest number of reported cases (250) happened in Poland. Churches and groups of faithful have been attacked for their pro-life views, particularly after the government and the Polish Constitutional Court took put restrictions to the current abortion laws.

In France, according to official police numbers, almost 25pc of all hate crimes are against Christians. In the last few years, there have been a growing number of arsons against churches. In October 2020, three people were fatally stabbed in the Basilica of Notre Dame of Nice.

In Spain, four churches and a monastery were vandalised on International Women’s Day by feminist activists. Masses were also interrupted on the same day.

The OCSE list is not comprehensive as only 11 States reported on hate crimes against Christians, so their possible number is much higher, aside from unreported incidents.

“Medially and politically, hatred of Christians is hardly noticed as an increasingly obvious social problem. The OSCE report reflects only part of this trend, which we have been documenting for years, and yet it is a loud wake-up call against indifference and fashionable Christian-bashing,” said Madeleine Enzlberger, head of “Observatory of Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians”.

Attacks on Christians is a world-wide phenomenon. Eighty percent of all acts of religious persecution are committed against Christians, according to Aid to the Church in Need, an organisation assisting Christian communities that face hostility and discrimination.

From today until November 26th, Aid to the Church in Need in Ireland and elsewhere will celebrate the “Week of Witness for suffering and persecuted Christians”. This initiative will involve talks and exhibition to highlight the persecution of Christian believers. On Wednesday, prayer vigils will be held around Ireland in spiritual union with those who suffer because of their faith in Christ.

You can find more details here: https://www.acnireland.org/witness

L’Azerbaigian invade l’Armenia. «Come può l’Occidente restare a guardare?»

 

«L’anno scorso la comunità internazionale ha ignorato l’aggressione dell’Azerbaigian e della Turchia nel Nagorno-Karabakh contro l’Artsakh ed ecco il risultato: ora anche l’Armenia è in pericolo». Così il ministro degli Esteri della Repubblica dell’Artsakh, Davit Babayan, commenta a Tempi il violento attacco di martedì da parte dell’esercito azero contro le postazioni armene, che ha causato circa 40 morti.

L’invasione azera dell’Armenia

Martedì 16 novembre, secondo quanto dichiarato dal premier dell’Armenia Nikol Pashinian, l’esercito azero ha consolidato l’occupazione di 41 chilometri quadrati di territorio armeno, invaso a partire dal 12 maggio nei pressi del corridoio di Lachin consolidando le proprie posizioni 41 chilometri quadrati di territorio. Almeno 17 soldati dell’esercito azero sono morti nell’aggressione, mentre Erevan ha dichiarato che 13 soldati armeni sono stati rapiti e altri 24 sono scomparsi. Eduard Aghajanyan, a capo della commissione parlamentare per le relazioni internazionali, ha parlato invece di 15 morti. Grazie alla mediazione della Russia, nella serata di martedì si è arrivati a un cessate il fuoco.

A un anno dalla fine della guerra del Nagorno-Karabakh tra Armenia e Azerbaigian, la terza della sua storia, Baku lancia dunque una nuova offensiva. A differenza dei 44 giorni di guerra che nel 2020 hanno permesso al regime di Ilham Aliyev, grazie al fondamentale sostegno della Turchia di Recep Tayyip Erdogan, di conquistare i tre quarti del Nagorno-Karabakh, strappandoli alla Repubblica dell’Artsakh, non riconosciuta a livello internazionale, questa volta è l’Armenia stessa a finire nel mirino.

Continua qui.

La campionessa dei droni: "Non cammino, so volare"

 

As expected, UN pressures us to liberalise our abortion law even more

 

• Ireland appeared before the UN Human Rights Council last week
   
• As expected, several countries asked us to liberalise our abortion law even more
   
• Even totalitarian North Korea and China lectured us on our human rights record

As we mentioned in a previous e-letter, Ireland was due to appear before the UN Human Right Council. That took place last Wednesday and, as we anticipated, pressure was exerted on Ireland to further liberalise its already very permissive abortion law. Pressure was applied to push us in a more socially liberal direction in other areas as well.
 

The Irish delegation was headed by the Minister for Children, Roderic O’Gorman. After having considered the national report submitted by Minister O’Gorman, each country representative on the Council presented recommendations, for a total of 260. (They can be found here)

We will consider some of them under a number of headings.

 Abortion

The delegates from Austria, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland all urged us to use the upcoming three-year review of our abortion law to make it even easier to obtain a termination.
 

For example, the Austrian representative said: “Ensure that the three-year review of the Health Act 2018 on the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy is comprehensive and focused on providing a human rights-compliant framework for abortion, including by identifying and eliminating barriers impacting marginalized groups”.
 

The Danish delegate told us: “Ensure that the three-year review of the Termination of Pregnancy Act focuses on ways to expand access to voluntary termination of pregnancy, both in law and in practice”.
 

The Netherlands said: “Build on the steps undertaken in the area of sexual and reproductive rights by removing the remaining barriers to accessing safe and legal abortion services and making it practically available to all”.
 

Bizarrely, the Iceland representative asked us to, “Expand access to abortion and repeal the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act”, as it if this has not already happened in 2018.

 Schools

Surprisingly, no recommendation made reference to denominational schools or to the role of religion in education. The recommendations about schools were quite broad in their scope.
 

“Ensure fair access for all children to quality education” (Qatar);

“Prioritize equitable access to quality education opportunities at all levels” (Botswana);

“Consider introducing legislative guarantee of free primary and secondary education” (Ukraine);

“Improve the system providing children and their parents a real opportunity to choose from among religious, multi-denominational or non-denominational types of schooling and curricula.” (Czechia).
 

Gender
 

Germany and Norway recommended we review Article 40 of the Constitution, which covers fundamental rights, and Article 41, which deals with the issue of women in the home, to make them gender neutral. 

Israel asked to prohibit “conversion therapies”. Cuba and Cyprus wanted more efforts to reduce the gender pay gap. Israel also asked to prohibit “conversion therapies”. Only Panama mentioned sex education while Chile and Iceland raised the issue of intersex children, asking for a ‘rights-based’ care protocol.

 

Family
 

Only Egypt mentioned the natural family as “fundamental unit of society”. Paraguay asked for “additional support to families in situation of homelessness”.

 

Some of the recommendations to Ireland seemed to be totally spurious, particularly when we consider the countries that were presenting them. For example, Iran was concerned about “worrying reports on chronic sexual abuse against underage girls in schools” in Ireland. North Korea asked Ireland to “cease torture and cruel or inhuman treatment of children in places of reformatory and industrial schools operated by religion institutions.” Venezuela asked Ireland to “Provide an apology for the serious violations suffered by mixed race children in institutions or unsuitable families”. China asked us to consider the right of ethnic minorities.

  

Ireland has adopted all the recommendations, which basically means that we will take them into consideration and produce a response before the next session of the Human Right Council that will take place in February and March 2022. The Irish government has also committed to produce a voluntary ad interim report by the late 2023.

The ESRI’s blind spot on marriage

New research from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) confirms that when fathers play an active role in the lives of their children, it has beneficial effects on the child. Unfortunately, the research fails to take into consideration the role marriage has in encouraging more father involvement with children. It is a big blind spot.

As the press release accompanying the report says, “children who have a good relationship with their father are happier, feel less anxious and are more engaged in physical activity”.

The paper is based on data from ‘Growing up in Ireland’, a government-funded longitudinal study that follows the lives of thousands of Irish children. The paper seeks examine ways father involvement with children can be supported through policy.

Among the findings is that highly educated, and also migrant fathers, are more likely to engage in activities with their children.

Interestingly, whether the father did or did not avail of paternal leave in the first year of a child’s life makes little difference to paternal involvement, according to the research. This is probably not very surprising. In the first year of a child’s life the mother-child bond is particularly intense. However, as the child grows, fathers have more involvement, especially when on flexible hours or work from home. This is hardly a surprise either.

In early years, the study found no significant variation in father involvement with their sons or daughters, but when the children grow older, fathers are more likely to engage in activities with their sons than with their daughters. This is probably sport-related.

Nonetheless, nine-year-old girls are more likely than boys to report getting on very well with their fathers.

Also unsurprising is that children not living with their fathers are less likely to report getting on very well with them. “The relationship was better where contact was frequent and where the mother had a better relationship with the father.”

It is disappointing that the research takes into consideration many factors, such as the education or employment status of the father, but not the role of marriage in fostering greater father involvement.

Other studies by the ERSI have highlighted that the two-parent family tends to produce better outcomes for children.

For instance, a report on adolescent behaviour presented by the ESRI in May, highlighted the “poorer behaviour across all domains for those in lone parent families or families that experienced separation during the young person’s adolescence.”

A report from October 2018 found that children of separated parents are more likely than those from intact families to have problems with their health, education and emotional wellbeing.

Throughout the centuries, marriage is precisely the social institution most likely to link a father to his children and their mother. Where marriage declines, fathers are less likely to be living with and involved with their children.

It is an omission on the part of the ESRI not to mention this fact. If it cares about father involvement with children, then it should care about marriage as well. 

Trabocco sulla costa adriatica

 

Mario Pomilio raccontato da Silvia Perrella

 

The ethics of a lockdown

 Qui potete scaricare un mio opuscolo.

Denominational schools under the spotlight at UN committee

 

On Wednesday, Ireland’s human rights record will once again be under the scrutiny of a United Nations committee. As discussed in a previous blog, more pressure will be heaped on us to make our abortion law even more permissive. But our education system will come under scrutiny, with objections being raised to our mainly denominational schools.

The Humanist Association of Ireland (HAI) complains to the Human Rights Council – the body Ireland will be appearing before as part of our ‘periodic review’ of how well we are implementing certain human right commitments- that there are no fully secular schools in Ireland, as even Educate Together are multi-denominational, they say, even though they are really non-denominational.

The HAI complain that the State funds schools that “inculcate particular religious beliefs”, and that this “serves to perpetuate segregation and division.”

They ask Ireland to accelerate the divestment of State-funded schools from religious patronage, and to create schools which “would not permit faith formation of any kind during the school day”.

A similar view can be found in the submission presented by Atheist Ireland, together with the Evangelical Alliance and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

This atypical coalition of atheists and believers, for instance, recognises that Catholic schools at primary level cannot give enrolment preference to children of Catholic families, while Church of Ireland and other minority faith schools are still allowed to favour members of their communities. But Atheist Ireland and its allies want this privilege to be removed.

In practice, they want to deny minority groups the right to achieve their primary function. What is the point of a Jewish school if it cannot serve its own Jewish community first? Likewise for a Presbyterian or Church of Ireland school, not to mention a Catholic one.

Atheist Ireland and its allies lament that 90pc of primary schools in Ireland are Catholic. Because of this, they say, it is nearly impossible for atheists, Muslims, Evangelicals or other minority faiths, to be teachers in most schools if they don’t study a basic course that would include catechesis and Catholic religious education. But what is the alternative?

The Iona Institute has some sympathy for these views. There is not enough school choice in Ireland, and we have been arguing for more divestment ever since we launched in 2007.

At the same time, we strongly believe in public funding of denominational schools, provided enough parents want this, in addition to whatever other types of schools there is sufficient public demand for.

We would also point out that parents are the primary educators of their children and within very broad limits schools should follow the wishes of parents. This is recognised in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says clearly: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

It also says, “Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages”. This means public funding, but public funding of the sort of schools parents want.

Therefore, if the UN Human Rights Council is true to the UN’s most important human rights document, it can only find that there isn’t enough school choice in Ireland. If it declares against denominational schools in general, it will be going against what the UN itself believes about this matter.