Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Immorally produced vaccines

1246

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Population growth is projected to reduce to very low levels (0.1%) by the end of the century

    Probably worth pointing out that population models which predict low levels of population growth rely on greatly increased use of birth control and women's reproductive rights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Probably worth pointing out that population models which predict low levels of population growth rely on greatly increased use of birth control and women's reproductive rights.

    Your point? You claimed earth is overpopulated. It is not. Nor is it projected to be.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Your point? You claimed earth is overpopulated. It is not. Nor is it projected to be.

    Simply that you have already posited that the Catholic church will be intransigent on its stance against contraception as shown below.
    Any study of the Catholic Church will demonstrate that this is something the Catholic Church does not do. There is no better example than the ban on contraception. This was and is a very unpopular position. There are many, many things the Church would change if it merely wanted to be popular.

    Your population predictions are dependent on Catholics ignoring the dictates of their church in this regard, as they have already done in this country and elsewhere. It is an illustration of an anachronistic morality surrounding sexuality and reproduction that is well past its sell by date. Maintaining a static population size in the absence of war or natural catastrophe involves women having on average of 2.1 children in their lifetime. How do you suggest this will come about?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Simply that you have already posited that the Catholic church will be intransigent on its stance against contraception as shown below.

    Your population predictions are dependent on Catholics ignoring the dictates of their church in this regard, as they have already done in this country and elsewhere. It is an illustration of an anachronistic morality surrounding sexuality and reproduction that is well past its sell by date. Maintaining a static population size in the absence of war or natural catastrophe involves women having on average of 2.1 children in their lifetime. How do you suggest this will come about?
    How do you think that practicing Catholics don't all have 20 kids? Do you think this is impossible without killing the unborn or condoms, or pumping women with hormones damaging their health?

    Poorer people around the world have lots of children for many reasons, few of them religious. It is wrong that some wish to prevent these people from having multiple children, while not addressing the reasons why (poverty etc.) just so they can preserve their lives of hyper consumption. Give them condoms and force them to provide abortions, in order to receive aid, leaving countries at subsistence level, preferably with declining populations, while we continue over consuming. This is the approach of many, particularly America, to Africa.

    The projections also presume an increase in the wealth of developing nations - this is the largest factor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    How do you think that practicing Catholics don't all have 20 kids? Do you think this is impossible without killing the unborn or condoms, or pumping women with hormones damaging their health?
    .

    Do you think practicing catholics don't do those things?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,645 ✭✭✭growleaves


    smacl wrote: »
    Simply that you have already posited that the Catholic church will be intransigent on its stance against contraception as shown below.



    Your population predictions are dependent on Catholics ignoring the dictates of their church in this regard, as they have already done in this country and elsewhere. It is an illustration of an anachronistic morality surrounding sexuality and reproduction that is well past its sell by date. Maintaining a static population size in the absence of war or natural catastrophe involves women having on average of 2.1 children in their lifetime. How do you suggest this will come about?

    They are not dictates, they are dogma.

    'Sell by date'. Chronological time has nothing to do with it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Do you think practicing catholics don't do those things?
    You do realise that it is a central teaching, and reality, that everyone sins and is a sinner? Why do some seem to think that pointing this out is a kind of "gotcha!" revelation?

    I suppose it has to do with the christian teaching of redemption and forgiveness - people can't get their heads around it. It's most definitely counter cultural today where people are written off forever for misspeaking, never mind actually doing something wrong.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    How do you think that practicing Catholics don't all have 20 kids? Do you think this is impossible without killing the unborn or condoms, or pumping women with hormones damaging their health?

    Depends what you mean by 'practicing Catholics'. I would imagine the vast majority of those that identify as Catholic use contraception. One would wonder how many of those that don't end up with unwanted pregnancies some of which end up with abortions?
    Poorer people around the world have lots of children for many reasons, few of them religious. It is wrong that some wish to prevent these people from having multiple children, while not addressing the reasons why (poverty etc.) just so they can preserve their lives of hyper consumption. Give them condoms and force them to provide abortions, in order to receive aid, leaving countries at subsistence level, preferably with declining populations, while we continue over consuming. This is the approach of many, particularly America, to Africa.

    The projections also presume an increase in the wealth of developing nations - this is the largest factor.


    I largely agree with this, but it is not a matter of more equitable division of wealth or access to family planning, it is a matter of more equitable division of wealth and access to family planning. Hans Rosling goes into this in some detail here, although it is perhaps worth noting that the UN estimates of projected world population have risen from 10 billion when this talk was given to 11 billion today. The population and sustainability network make the same point about family planning, with a specific response to Rosling's work here. From that article
    PSN wrote:
    It is estimated that, in 2012, an estimated 645 million women of reproductive age (15–49 years) in the developing world were using modern methods of contraception; and it was estimated that this contraceptive use prevented 218 million unintended pregnancies, which, in turn, averted 55 million unplanned births, 138 million abortions (40 million of them unsafe), 25 million miscarriages and 118,000 maternal deaths (Guttmacher Institute, 2012).

    I struggle to grasp the logic that is up in arms about using of material from one or two abortions in a vaccine, which may save millions of lives, yet simultaneously opposes contraception which prevents hundreds of millions of abortions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by 'practicing Catholics'. I would imagine the vast majority of those that identify as Catholic use contraception. One would wonder how many of those that don't end up with unwanted pregnancies some of which end up with abortions?
    The majority of unplanned pregnancies across the board, those of all religions and none, do not end up with the killing of the child. The majority end up working out well and the child is loved and cared for. I would imagine that among practicing Catholics the percentage who decide to have an abortion is smaller still. But again, how does this matter? What is your point? That Christians sometimes, or even often, commit sin? Is this an argument that because some, or even many, Christians commit a particular sin it should no longer be considered a sin? Loads of people steal, should we delete "thou shalt not steal" too?
    I largely agree with this, but it is not a matter of more equitable division of wealth or access to family planning, it is a matter of more equitable division of wealth and access to family planning. Hans Rosling goes into this in some detail here, although it is perhaps worth noting that the UN estimates of projected world population have risen from 10 billion when this talk was given to 11 billion today. The population and sustainability network make the same point about family planning, with a specific response to Rosling's work here. From that article
    The aim however, seems to be to skip the wealth bit.
    I struggle to grasp the logic that is up in arms about using of material from one or two abortions in a vaccine, which may save millions of lives, yet simultaneously opposes contraception which prevents hundreds of millions of abortions.
    If you subscribe to the moral school of "the ends justify the means" I can see how one would struggle to understand an objection to committing one incorrect action to prevent others. But that's not really the case here, you are proposing a "ends justify the means" position to me, which you do not hold yourself because you do not think that artificial contraception (many of which are forms of abortion) is incorrect. This is not really a fair proposition from you, because I do not think you would accept the general principle that the ends justifying the means on something is a good moral policy, yet you say you don't understand the objection of Christians to it when it is quite plain. If I proposed an example to you where you could commit one bad act to prevent another bad act (which would not occur in the majority of cases) you would likely object, even more so if I proposed this as an indefinite policy to occur millions of times, rather than as a once off. Although it is good you raised it, because it brings us back to the topic at hand, ethics.

    Anyway, in case it needs to be said, I am not in favour of banning artificial contraceptives (where they are not an abortifacient) in a country where the citizens, through democratic means, have decided that they should be allowed.

    In the UK slightly more than a quarter of women who have an abortion became pregnant after their artificial contraceptives - those catagorised as the best and most reliable forms of artificial contraceptive (implant, coil etc)- failed. More than half were using some form of artificial contraceptive.

    Natural family planning, particularly the billings method, is extremely effective, as much as, if not more so, than many artificial contraceptives. People struggling to conceive often discover this, in reverse.

    While we are on the subject, if you want to be really sure a pregnancy does not happen, you should be using a combination of natural and artificial methods of contraception. You would be amazed at the amount of people (men especially) who do not know that if you only use condoms, over time, it works out at an approx 80% success rate.

    Of course, the best of all options, is to not have sex unless you are in a loving relationship, such as marriage, and in a position where an unplanned pregnancy, should natural methods fail, can be coped with and, indeed, welcomed as the blessing it is. (No one ever said the moral life was easy!)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »

    I struggle to grasp the logic that is up in arms about using of material from one or two abortions in a vaccine, which may save millions of lives, yet simultaneously opposes contraception which prevents hundreds of millions of abortions.

    Leaving aside issues of vaccine safety amd the use of contraception to plough a casual approach to sex, neither can I.

    'Every sperm is sacred' strikes me as a weighty theology founded on sketchy scripture.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    You do realise that it is a central teaching, and reality, that everyone sins and is a sinner? Why do some seem to think that pointing this out is a kind of "gotcha!" revelation?

    I suppose it has to do with the christian teaching of redemption and forgiveness - people can't get their heads around it. It's most definitely counter cultural today where people are written off forever for misspeaking, never mind actually doing something wrong.

    You wrote all that, yet you failed to answer the very simple question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,647 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    I think my Christian formed view of the fundamentally corrupt nature of man (myself included), my personal experience of corporate world and the avalanche of evidence regarding the sociopathic nature of corporations - entities which concentrate and amplify individual corruption - has provided me with all the evidence I need.

    I'm not so much interested in (since I haven't the means to find out) whether this or that vaccine is safe or not. It's a general view applied to the current topic.

    I do gain from others personally formed views leading them to trust the system, leading to their availing of a vaccine - I get the benefit of whatever herd immunity there is. But its a side bonus, not a grounding, parasitic reason not to take the vaccine.

    For when you inject a vaccine, you are not so much injecting a medical product as the system which produced it.

    And I don't trust that system.

    Have you heard of a search engine. I am guessing you don't take antibiotics either

    https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1210/1183698-vaccine-covid-19/

    They have said there is no aborted cells and the Catholic church has said it is fine anyway to take a vaccine also where was Dr (I use that term extremely loosely) Wakefield exonerated about his views


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    You wrote all that, yet you failed to answer the very simple question.
    I did answer your question. I am sure everyone commits all kinds of sins, Catholics are no exceptions, nor are the examples you outline.



    What is your point?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Have you heard of a search engine. I am guessing you don't take antibiotics either

    That search engine (and personal experience working in one) has shown me that corporations are sociopathic (buy a VW recently?) and that the bodies tasked with defending our interests aren't auto-trustworthy.

    When the editor/former editor of respected peer review journals talk of a crisis in science (i.e. obtaining the results they want to obtain, conflicts of interest, etc,) then it would seem stupid to blindly suppose vaccines safe just because science says so.


    In the event of reasonable doubt, the question of whether I would take a medication which may damage me vs a virus which may damage me arises.

    There is too, the not inconsiderable task of establishing quite how deadly this disease is. The death figures are problematic to say the least. With 45% of infections being asymptomatic, how does one establish who actually dies from Covid? I mean, if you simply label a death as a Covid death merely because someone has Covid...


    I'm not convinced by the 'for the good of your neighbour' argument frequently deployed. I doubt anyone takes a vaccine for the good of their neighbour. Call me cynical..

    The same question would arise with an antibiotic. Since they are not without issue themselves I tend to avoid them where I can. One wonders why the public are informed not to overuse antibiotics when they can only be obtained on prescription. The self same kind of authority we are supposed to trust when it comes to taking a vaccine are the ones who dole out antibiotics like smarties. Our kid fell on his face and banged his mouth. Took him to the dentist to check his teeth out. She prescribes an antibiotic in case his cut lip would get infected. In the bin with that and out with some cups of salt water to swish around his mouth..
    They have said there is no aborted cells and the Catholic church has said it is fine anyway to take a vaccine

    I'm not a Catholic. Amd my wondering as to vaccine safety is not abortion related
    also where was Dr (I use that term extremely loosely) Wakefield exonerated about his views

    Wakefield was judge, juried amd executed by the very same GMC whose approach, in the case of his co-author, was roundly eviscerated by the courts as kangeroo-ish.

    You don't have to be exonerated to be considered not necessarily guilty. Else we must suppose all those found guilty by kangeroo courts as guilty, failing their being exonerated.

    Ism't the usual approach to dismiss as unsafe the findings of kangeroo courts? I mean, innocent until proven guilty??


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,647 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    That search engine (and personal experience working in one) has shown me that corporations are sociopathic (buy a VW recently?) and that the bodies tasked with defending our interests aren't auto-trustworthy.

    When the editor/former editor of respected peer review journals talk of a crisis in science (i.e. obtaining the results they want to obtain, conflicts of interest, etc,) then it would seem stupid to blindly suppose vaccines safe just because science says so.


    In the event of reasonable doubt, the question of whether I would take a medication which may damage me vs a virus which may damage me arises.

    There is too, the not inconsiderable task of establishing quite how deadly this disease is. The death figures are problematic to say the least. With 45% of infections being asymptomatic, how does one establish who actually dies from Covid? I mean, if you simply label a death as a Covid death merely because someone has Covid...


    I'm not convinced by the 'for the good of your neighbour' argument frequently deployed. I doubt anyone takes a vaccine for the good of their neighbour. Call me cynical..

    The same question would arise with an antibiotic. Since they are not without issue themselves I tend to avoid them where I can. One wonders why the public are informed not to overuse antibiotics when they can only be obtained on prescription. The self same kind of authority we are supposed to trust when it comes to taking a vaccine are the ones who dole out antibiotics like smarties. Our kid fell on his face and banged his mouth. Took him to the dentist to check his teeth out. She prescribes an antibiotic in case his cut lip would get infected. In the bin with that and out with some cups of salt water to swish around his mouth..



    I'm not a Catholic. Amd my wondering as to vaccine safety is not abortion related



    Wakefield was judge, juried amd executed by the very same GMC whose approach, in the case of his co-author, was roundly eviscerated by the courts as kangeroo-ish.

    You don't have to be exonerated to be considered not necessarily guilty. Else we must suppose all those found guilty by kangeroo courts as guilty, failing their being exonerated.

    Ism't the usual approach to dismiss as unsafe the findings of kangeroo courts? I mean, innocent until proven guilty??

    What Kangaroo courts come on. The Lancet retracted his papers he wrote, he was struck off as a doctor by the British Medical Board and even his libel actions were dropped by him (against Channel 4 and The Sunday Times) as he had no case. I can see no kangaroo court and you cant even show one bit of proof. Anyway this has pulled the thread clearly offcourse so I will end here


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    The majority of unplanned pregnancies across the board, those of all religions and none, do not end up with the killing of the child. The majority end up working out well and the child is loved and cared for. I would imagine that among practicing Catholics the percentage who decide to have an abortion is smaller still. But again, how does this matter? What is your point? That Christians sometimes, or even often, commit sin? Is this an argument that because some, or even many, Christians commit a particular sin it should no longer be considered a sin? Loads of people steal, should we delete "thou shalt not steal" too?
    The aim however, seems to be to skip the wealth bit.
    If you subscribe to the moral school of "the ends justify the means" I can see how one would struggle to understand an objection to committing one incorrect action to prevent others. But that's not really the case here, you are proposing a "ends justify the means" position to me, which you do not hold yourself because you do not think that artificial contraception (many of which are forms of abortion) is incorrect. This is not really a fair proposition from you, because I do not think you would accept the general principle that the ends justifying the means on something is a good moral policy, yet you say you don't understand the objection of Christians to it when it is quite plain. If I proposed an example to you where you could commit one bad act to prevent another bad act (which would not occur in the majority of cases) you would likely object, even more so if I proposed this as an indefinite policy to occur millions of times, rather than as a once off. Although it is good you raised it, because it brings us back to the topic at hand, ethics.

    Anyway, in case it needs to be said, I am not in favour of banning artificial contraceptives (where they are not an abortifacient) in a country where the citizens, through democratic means, have decided that they should be allowed.

    In the UK slightly more than a quarter of women who have an abortion became pregnant after their artificial contraceptives - those catagorised as the best and most reliable forms of artificial contraceptive (implant, coil etc)- failed. More than half were using some form of artificial contraceptive.

    Natural family planning, particularly the billings method, is extremely effective, as much as, if not more so, than many artificial contraceptives. People struggling to conceive often discover this, in reverse.

    While we are on the subject, if you want to be really sure a pregnancy does not happen, you should be using a combination of natural and artificial methods of contraception. You would be amazed at the amount of people (men especially) who do not know that if you only use condoms, over time, it works out at an approx 80% success rate.

    Of course, the best of all options, is to not have sex unless you are in a loving relationship, such as marriage, and in a position where an unplanned pregnancy, should natural methods fail, can be coped with and, indeed, welcomed as the blessing it is. (No one ever said the moral life was easy!)

    Most of this is predicated on the belief that any and every abortion equates to killing a child. For those of us that do not hold such a belief, the ethical arguments are entirely different. There is no ethical issue with the end justifying the means in the situation where one does not have any moral issue with those means. For example, I personally do not have any moral issue with any first trimester abortion, use of the morning after pill, use of contraception or sexual intercourse between consenting adults. I fully acknowledge that these things do constitute moral issues of varying degree to various Christian groups but would question the expectations of Christians on those who do not share their beliefs to adhere to the same moral imperatives. Just as you might consider my stance immoral based on your beliefs, so might I consider your stance immoral based on mine. Again by example, I would consider limiting or denying access to contraception to any group that are sexually active to be deeply immoral. At the same time we are part of the same society which is governed by the same rules and that society is perpetually changing. How exactly are we to make and refine those rules in this context?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    What Kangaroo courts come on. The Lancet retracted his papers he wrote, he was struck off as a doctor by the British Medical Board and even his libel actions were dropped by him (against Channel 4 and The Sunday Times) as he had no case.

    Yes, but subsequently and in the case of the papers co author, who too was hauled before the GMC, was too found to be guilty as charged an a washlist of crimes and was too, struck off..

    ...was exonerated by the courts.


    I can see no kangaroo court and you cant even show one bit of proof. Anyway this has pulled the thread clearly offcourse so I will end here
    Justice John Mitting, in Case No: CO/7039/2010 in the Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”

    Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted , the judge said of the flawed handling of Walker-Smith's case: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again.


    Whilst somewhat off topic I would note the general point about trust in authorities - a significant reason why folk would suppose a particular vaccine safe. Should we trust an authority like the GMC, found to be operating as they did?

    You yourself display this faith in authority for authorties sake. "Paper retracted", "struck off by an authority". Woo - sounds so very lofty doesn't it, like an argument from authority. What do you say then, when another authority, the courts, finds a problem - so much so that they overturn the whole charade?

    Question: Are you going to keep trusting your original authorities? What will you do the next time they strike off someone involved in something controversial? Wakefield made the point that his paper was the normal first tier reporting: a doctor in a maternity ward notices that a number of children are born without arms, notes that the parents report taking a drug call Thalidimoide and yanks on the alarm bell. He is right to note the observation and possible link. He ought not to be disbarred for doing so. Wakefield noticed a link between the gastro symptoms, common behaviours and the parents reporting onset after MMR. What else ought he have done?



    Of Wakefield not taking a similar route, we must remain agnostic. Point is, if someone stood in the same dock and subject to the same process, we have at least reasonable reason to suppose Wakefield not necessarily guilty of anything.

    https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    You do realise that it is a central teaching, and reality, that everyone sins and is a sinner? Why do some seem to think that pointing this out is a kind of "gotcha!" revelation?

    "Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.

    We really are reaching an endgame, the whole "go forth and muliply" nonsense is played out and really needs to end asap. Catholic teaching imperils the future of the human race, just as well most Catholics ignore it.

    because you do not think that artificial contraception (many of which are forms of abortion) is incorrect.

    Totally incorrect. The contraceptive pill and morning after pill were both legal in Ireland under the 8th amendment which was a total ban on abortion short of maternal death. Barrier methods, spermicides etc. and the pill itself prevent fertilisation in the first place. The IUD is intended to prevent implantation, if you want to call that abortion that's up to you but it'd be a minority view and again it must be noted it was fully legal here under the 8th amendment.
    Similarly with the MAP, it primarily acts to prevent ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred it may discourage implantation.
    It should be noted that IUDs are not all that popular and the MAP is used as a last resort short of abortion.

    It never ceases to amaze me that Catholics decry abortion yet campaign against all of the things (including proper sex education) which prevent abortion.
    Natural family planning, particularly the billings method, is extremely effective, as much as, if not more so, than many artificial contraceptives.

    :pac: If this really worked, the RCC would oppose it.
    Of course, the best of all options, is to not have sex unless you are in a loving relationship, such as marriage, and in a position where an unplanned pregnancy, should natural methods fail, can be coped with and, indeed, welcomed as the blessing it is. (No one ever said the moral life was easy!)

    Well just because you're in a committed relationship or marriage doesn't mean that you're keen on the possibility of 12 or 13 opportunities a year to conceive :rolleyes:

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    "Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.
    No that is not the case. Although it is one of the wonders of the Christian message that those who sincerely seek forgiveness with always be forgiven.

    Totally incorrect. The contraceptive pill and morning after pill were both legal in Ireland under the 8th amendment which was a total ban on abortion short of maternal death. Barrier methods, spermicides etc. and the pill itself prevent fertilisation in the first place. The IUD is intended to prevent implantation, if you want to call that abortion that's up to you but it'd be a minority view and again it must be noted it was fully legal here under the 8th amendment.
    Similarly with the MAP, it primarily acts to prevent ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred it may discourage implantation.
    It should be noted that IUDs are not all that popular and the MAP is used as a last resort short of abortion.
    It is not incorrect... as you go on to point out, a number of methods used as artificial contraceptives are forms of abortion, the fact that they were legal under the 8th amendment has no bearing on this.

    It never ceases to amaze me that Catholics decry abortion yet campaign against all of the things (including proper sex education) which prevent abortion.



    :pac: If this really worked, the RCC would oppose it.
    You decry supposed catholic opposition to sex education, yet then go on to reveal yourself as being ignorant in this area? The billings method is extremely effective.
    Well just because you're in a committed relationship or marriage doesn't mean that you're keen on the possibility of 12 or 13 opportunities a year to conceive :rolleyes:
    As mentioned, the billings method is extremely effective. If you are not in a position to deal with the responsibilities involved in possibly creating a human life you should not take the 1 in a 100 risk (such as with the billings method) or the risk of failure of artificial contraception by having sex.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    The Billings method is effective in theory but in practice difficult to use correctly so its real-world effectiveness is poor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_method
    Evidence of effectiveness is not very clear. Typical use of this method is associated with a pregnancy rate of 1 to 22%. A World Health Organization study found that 15% is caused by a conscious departure from method rules. The percentage of people who stop using the method after a year is between 1 and 24%. Perfect use has been estimated to result in pregnancy in 0.5 to 3%. Some studies of perfect use excluded those who could not detect secretions that represented fertility.

    Also you are still incorrect in maintaining that "many" forms of artificial contraception are forms of abortion - all the popularly used ones prevent ferticilsation in the first place so can have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

    Traditional IUDs prevent implantation, but are rarely used these days. Hormonal IUDs prevent ovulation and/or thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm reaching the egg. No fertilisation, no abortion.

    MAP primarily works by preventing ovulation. Also it is intended for emergency use only.

    Yet you have the cheek to call me ignorant.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    The Billings method is effective in theory but in practice difficult to use correctly so its real-world effectiveness is poor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_method



    Also you are still incorrect in maintaining that "many" forms of artificial contraception are forms of abortion - all the popularly used ones prevent ferticilsation in the first place so can have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

    Traditional IUDs prevent implantation, but are rarely used these days. Hormonal IUDs prevent ovulation and/or thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm reaching the egg. No fertilisation, no abortion.

    MAP primarily works by preventing ovulation. Also it is intended for emergency use only.

    Yet you have the cheek to call me ignorant.

    Those figures are not far off condoms at the "bad end" around 20% failure and at the good end it is actually as, if not more effective than the "best" artificial contraceptives. I don't think they are figures to scoff at as you did.

    Artificial contraceptives that prevent, or can possibly prevent, implantation are abortificants. Are we really going to split hairs over this?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Interesting as this is, it has nothing to do with vaccines, so maybe we should park it there and return to the main topic?


  • Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    Its important to hear what prophecy says about vaccines .... if the prophecy is from the holy spirit .... then its meant as a warning for christians to take heed ... christians that ignore true prophecy are ignoring the holy spirit and exposing themselves to danger.

    here are some prophecies from the book of truth about coming global vaccines which on the face of it is here now


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭beachhead


    WHO IS ALLOWING THIS RUBBISH ON BOARDS.
    IS IT WITH THE FULL AGREEMENT OF THE MODERATORS/OWNER


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    beachhead wrote: »
    WHO IS ALLOWING THIS RUBBISH ON BOARDS.
    IS IT WITH THE FULL AGREEMENT OF THE MODERATORS/OWNER

    Mod: Carded for backseat moderation. If you have an issue with a post, report it. Please do not discuss this in thread. Thanks for your attention.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Its important to hear what prophecy says about vaccines .... if the prophecy is from the holy spirit .... then its meant as a warning for christians to take heed ... christians that ignore true prophecy are ignoring the holy spirit and exposing themselves to danger.

    here are some prophecies from the book of truth about coming global vaccines which on the face of it is here now

    Mod: Not seeing any reasonable Christian basis for the above 'prophesy' or subsequent extended diatribe, which has been carded and deleted. Given you don't cite any sources here, the implication I take is that it is original material and you are placing yourself in the role of a prophet. In the context of a sincere Christianity forum, I consider this to be trolling and will deal with it accordingly. Do not reply in-thread and please ensure any further posts are on-topic an in line with the charter, notably points 6 and 7 which your posts are in breach.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,566 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    "Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.

    We really are reaching an endgame, the whole "go forth and muliply" nonsense is played out and really needs to end asap. Catholic teaching imperils the future of the human race, just as well most Catholics ignore it.

    Frankly it sounds like you are advocating a death cult.

    Anyway back to the topic, Id urge y'all to watch Jimmy Akins coverage on the ethics of vaccine. One of the things that he stresses is how we should all petition pharma companies to use as most ethical approaches as possible
    to develop vaccines and refrain from using tissue from killed people, from people without permission and from endangered species https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Frankly it sounds like you are advocating a death cult.

    I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion based on what I posted.

    Do you think it is remotely sustainable that we have quadrupled the global population in 90 years? As recently as 1974 global population was only 4 billion, it is now just short of 8 billion. Surely by now we have learned that we need to be responsible in safeguarding our planet and its resources.

    Anyway back to the topic, Id urge y'all to watch Jimmy Akins coverage on the ethics of vaccine. One of the things that he stresses is how we should all petition pharma companies to use as most ethical approaches as possible
    to develop vaccines and refrain from using tissue from killed people, from people without permission and from endangered species https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s

    Why spread disinformation which implies that aborted foetuses are used in the production process of vaccines when they are not?

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    If we didn't live so long, consuming vast resources in the attempt to drag the last dregs from decrepit bodies, others to come would have more.

    Yet the Catholic Church and other churches insist that voluntary euthanasia, even when undergoing great suffering, is immoral. Go figure.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭Donegal Overlanding


    What I find most incredible is any kind of Christian entity trying to pass any kind of moral judgement upon anyone.

    The amount of murderers, rapists and paedophiles employed by the Catholic Church makes them the largest offenders in human history.

    Thankfully Ireland is slowly dragging itself out of the grasps of the Paedophilic Priests, though far too slowly in my eyes. There is no place for religion, it is horrendous and an affront to everything we hold dear.


Advertisement