Thursday, April 08, 2004
Easter today? No way!
I wonder what we would have made of Easter if it had happened in our present-day Western world?
Well, it wouldn't have happened in the first place, could it? Capital punishment has been outlawed most places, and even where it is allowed, brutality of that kind would not be countenanced.
Jesus would certainly have been up before the courts for intolerance towards a religious group, but maybe the religious authorities could have also been charged with hate crimes towards a minority.
The Last Supper would have been under electronic surveillance, under the various terrorist laws. The meeting in the Garden of Gethsemane would definitely have been broken up, as a seditious gathering.
Property owners whose fences were trampled down by the mob heralding Jesus on Palm Sunday would have complained bitterly to the media and whinged that the police were not doing their job. Animal lovers would have mounted a viciferous protest at the indignities suffered by the donkey. The parade organisers would have gone bankrupt on account of the crippling public liability insurance.
Homeowners along the Via Dolorosa would have demanded compensation from the City council to get the bloodstains removed where Jesus and the two thieves stumbled from time to time and splattered their walls....and a petition would be circulated to force crucifixion parades to take a different route next year.
The media would have gloried in the event, with commentators raking over every possible nuance, while completely missing the real point. But the media would have been roundly castigated for showing it on the six o'clock news. Not so much because of the violence, but because Jesus really was completely naked on the cross.
The soldiers would have taken a class action against the government for post-traumatic stress disorder caused by their job, and struck for double pay in future.
But at least the athiests would have been happy - it would have been another victory in the campaign to remove religion from the public sphere!
I wonder what we would have made of Easter if it had happened in our present-day Western world?
Well, it wouldn't have happened in the first place, could it? Capital punishment has been outlawed most places, and even where it is allowed, brutality of that kind would not be countenanced.
Jesus would certainly have been up before the courts for intolerance towards a religious group, but maybe the religious authorities could have also been charged with hate crimes towards a minority.
The Last Supper would have been under electronic surveillance, under the various terrorist laws. The meeting in the Garden of Gethsemane would definitely have been broken up, as a seditious gathering.
Property owners whose fences were trampled down by the mob heralding Jesus on Palm Sunday would have complained bitterly to the media and whinged that the police were not doing their job. Animal lovers would have mounted a viciferous protest at the indignities suffered by the donkey. The parade organisers would have gone bankrupt on account of the crippling public liability insurance.
Homeowners along the Via Dolorosa would have demanded compensation from the City council to get the bloodstains removed where Jesus and the two thieves stumbled from time to time and splattered their walls....and a petition would be circulated to force crucifixion parades to take a different route next year.
The media would have gloried in the event, with commentators raking over every possible nuance, while completely missing the real point. But the media would have been roundly castigated for showing it on the six o'clock news. Not so much because of the violence, but because Jesus really was completely naked on the cross.
The soldiers would have taken a class action against the government for post-traumatic stress disorder caused by their job, and struck for double pay in future.
But at least the athiests would have been happy - it would have been another victory in the campaign to remove religion from the public sphere!
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Link between abortion and breast cancer
A link between abortion and breast cancer has received growing international attention in recent years. Some researchers believe that women who’ve had abortions are up to 50 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who haven’t. One, Chris Kahlenborn MD, says the risk can get even higher once age of the mother and the fetus is taken into account. If you’re under 18, he warns, your risk of developing breast cancer rises by 150 percent. If you’re under 18 and the fetus is more than nine weeks old when it is aborted, your chances of developing breast cancer later in life rise by a massive 800 percent.
This contention took a severe knock in the last week in an article in The Lancet. Valerie Beral of Oxford University said results from previous studies that concluded there was a link were based on unreliable data and poor research, and that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a women's risk of suffering from breast cancer later in life.
Beral re-analysed data from 53 studies in 16 countries to show there was no link between the most common cancer in women and a terminated pregnancy.
However, a US expert on the topic, Dr. Joel Brind, has come out highly indignant at the Lancet article, which he says is easily refuted.
Brind says the Beral report was "very badly done" and "very vulnerable." He says Beral has for years focused research on attempting to deny a link between abortion and breast cancer. He says her team excluded studies which did not suit their agenda, but failed to provide a compelling reason for denying the validity of the rejected studies.
Overall, said Brind, the Beral study is "a horrible piece of work." He says he will be submitting a letter to the editor of the Lancet pointing out the "very misleading" aspects.
A link between abortion and breast cancer has received growing international attention in recent years. Some researchers believe that women who’ve had abortions are up to 50 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who haven’t. One, Chris Kahlenborn MD, says the risk can get even higher once age of the mother and the fetus is taken into account. If you’re under 18, he warns, your risk of developing breast cancer rises by 150 percent. If you’re under 18 and the fetus is more than nine weeks old when it is aborted, your chances of developing breast cancer later in life rise by a massive 800 percent.
This contention took a severe knock in the last week in an article in The Lancet. Valerie Beral of Oxford University said results from previous studies that concluded there was a link were based on unreliable data and poor research, and that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a women's risk of suffering from breast cancer later in life.
Beral re-analysed data from 53 studies in 16 countries to show there was no link between the most common cancer in women and a terminated pregnancy.
However, a US expert on the topic, Dr. Joel Brind, has come out highly indignant at the Lancet article, which he says is easily refuted.
Brind says the Beral report was "very badly done" and "very vulnerable." He says Beral has for years focused research on attempting to deny a link between abortion and breast cancer. He says her team excluded studies which did not suit their agenda, but failed to provide a compelling reason for denying the validity of the rejected studies.
Overall, said Brind, the Beral study is "a horrible piece of work." He says he will be submitting a letter to the editor of the Lancet pointing out the "very misleading" aspects.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Law Commission on assinine trip
Charles Dickens, in the guise of Mr Bumble, said "the law is an ass". It's an ass when it is drafted and administered by assinine men and women. And lately the New Zealand bearers of the powdered wigs have been examining their nether regions a mite too closely to realise how out of teach they are with commonsense.
Some children could have two legal mums and two legal dads if radical options for redefining parenthood become law. The Law Commission has issued a discussion document on whether laws regarding parenthood, guardianship and other family issues should be overhauled to keep up with the fast pace of social change.
New Issues in Legal Parenthood says changes such as more surrogacies, new birth technologies and an increase in lesbian and gay couples and single women having children has dated present laws. The law also fails to recognise the Maori practice of children sometimes being raised by adults who are not their genetic parents.
The Law Commission has been sniffing around the rear end of this one for a long time. It backed adoption by same-sex couples, and approves of similar provisions in the Care of Children Bill currently before Parliament.
When that Bill was first released, some politicians jumped up and down at a clause which said that a child could have two mums or dads. The then guiding minister, Lianne Dalziel (who was subsequently sacked on unrelated matters), hastily had the clause redrafted so it didn’t quite say it that way, although the intent is still there. Now the Law Commission is throwing its weight behind the concept.
The more we try and draft laws to try and sort out the social mess we are getting into, the deeper we flounder into the mire.
Anyone with an ounce of commonsense could tell the legal eagles how they’ve screwed up their minds. Maxim Institute dealt with the issue in its submission to Parliament on the Care of Children Bill.
A look at some of the issues involved in assisted human reproduction can also be seen here.
The Auckland District Law Society has a summary of the Law Commission proposal.
Charles Dickens, in the guise of Mr Bumble, said "the law is an ass". It's an ass when it is drafted and administered by assinine men and women. And lately the New Zealand bearers of the powdered wigs have been examining their nether regions a mite too closely to realise how out of teach they are with commonsense.
Some children could have two legal mums and two legal dads if radical options for redefining parenthood become law. The Law Commission has issued a discussion document on whether laws regarding parenthood, guardianship and other family issues should be overhauled to keep up with the fast pace of social change.
New Issues in Legal Parenthood says changes such as more surrogacies, new birth technologies and an increase in lesbian and gay couples and single women having children has dated present laws. The law also fails to recognise the Maori practice of children sometimes being raised by adults who are not their genetic parents.
The Law Commission has been sniffing around the rear end of this one for a long time. It backed adoption by same-sex couples, and approves of similar provisions in the Care of Children Bill currently before Parliament.
When that Bill was first released, some politicians jumped up and down at a clause which said that a child could have two mums or dads. The then guiding minister, Lianne Dalziel (who was subsequently sacked on unrelated matters), hastily had the clause redrafted so it didn’t quite say it that way, although the intent is still there. Now the Law Commission is throwing its weight behind the concept.
The more we try and draft laws to try and sort out the social mess we are getting into, the deeper we flounder into the mire.
Anyone with an ounce of commonsense could tell the legal eagles how they’ve screwed up their minds. Maxim Institute dealt with the issue in its submission to Parliament on the Care of Children Bill.
A look at some of the issues involved in assisted human reproduction can also be seen here.
The Auckland District Law Society has a summary of the Law Commission proposal.
