h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi Fathom,

<>

Yeah, I know what you mean. Next thing some nutter will be telling us that the world is run by women!

Anyhow, I thought that specifically the Catholics on this thread might like to comment on that link as no one so far has said they believe contraception to be wrong.

Of course the most frightening thing is that the Vatican is now going way beyond saying that contraception is wrong - they are actually lying and spreading outrageous fear about using condoms.

az

Hmm.

Let's see: people backward and superstitious enough that they get their sexual health information from a priest instead of a doctor, are going to die as a result? Sounds like natural selection is favouring intelligence for once. Hurrah.

If the Catholic church wants to spread lethal lies to the people dumb enough to follow them, I say more power to them. Any church with self-destructive impulses should be encouraged. With any luck by the end of the decade there won't be any Catholics left outside the Vatican, because all the stupid ones will be dead and all the ones with two braincells to rub together will have realised their church is trying to kill them and gone elsewhere for spiritual salvation. Would you stay in a church where the priest told you to drink poison or jump of a cliff? Can anyone tell me what the qualitative difference is between John Paul II and Jim Jones? Seriously?

But then, I think that threatening to commit suicide should be the only capital crime, so what use is my opinion?

H.

Hmm.

Let's see: people backward and superstitious enough that they get their sexual health information from a priest instead of a doctor, are going to die as a result? Sounds like natural selection is favouring intelligence for once. Hurrah.

If the Catholic church wants to spread lethal lies to the people dumb enough to follow them, I say more power to them. Any church with self-destructive impulses should be encouraged. With any luck by the end of the decade there won't be any Catholics left outside the Vatican, because all the stupid ones will be dead and all the ones with two braincells to rub together will have realised their church is trying to kill them and gone elsewhere for spiritual salvation. Would you stay in a church where the priest told you to drink poison or jump of a cliff? Can anyone tell me what the qualitative difference is between John Paul II and Jim Jones? Seriously?

But then, I think that threatening to commit suicide should be the only capital crime, so what use is my opinion?

H.

Unfortunately thats not exactly how it will pan out Hoo.

Many people who arent catholics will have a slight respect for the vatican just enough under such sacry pressure as the AIDS epidemic in Africa to cling on to that advice like a lead life preserver. There is at present a rumour going round that if you have sex with a virgin it cures you of AIDS that is prompting sufferes to go and rape babies.

The Catholic church will actually swell its proportion of good litle catholics in this way by pointing non believers over the cliff. Anyone who has sex outside of maRRIAGE IS A BAD SORT IN THE EYES in the eyes of PJP II anyway.

Any survivors will be told that the big G is responsible for saving their life and they better get on their knees and pray oh and dont forget to leave a sample of your money on the way out.

The Vatican is going through a "brand realignment" exercise at the moment, Black pope? no to gays, no to terminations, yes to every street having its own saint. In a cynical attempt to get more god fearing types from other curches switching to their brand of god bothering.

>Can anyone tell me what the qualitative difference is between John >Paul II and Jim Jones? Seriously?

John Paul II is more successful.

>In a cynical attempt to get more god fearing types from other >curches switching to their brand of god bothering.

Ahh, that's fine. After all, even tobacco companies are allowed to encourage existing smokers to switch to their brand.

As far as I know, contraceptive statistics aren't measured per use, they're measured in pregnancies/(people * time), ie. pregnancies per person-year.

>>Let's see: people backward and superstitious enough that they get their sexual health information from a priest instead of a doctor, are going to die as a result? Sounds like natural selection is favouring intelligence for once. Hurrah. >>

I think that is a very unfair thing to say about, for example, many people in Africa who have not had the benefit of any other sorts of education except those sponsored by the Catholic church. I don't agree this is 'natural selection' favouring intelligence at all. Just their misfortune not to have more options.

az

In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women Psychiatrists, stated:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth&#8230;Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."6

Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of research, reported the following at an international conference.

"Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent&#8230;[T]he number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'miniscule from a public health perspective'&#8230;For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward&#8230;[T]he positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."7

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant&#8230;Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy."8 (emphasis added)


A

Frankly my first reaction when i read what the catholic church was up to was that it was one of the most evil and corrupt pieces of tripe they have ever perpetrated. (Possibly a close second to the Vaticans complicit support for the holocaust)

And it's not fair to call these people stupid, Hoo, and you know it. We're talking about illiterate peasants in South America and Africa who have NO WAY whatever of knowing any better.

If you could learn to match your compassion to your intelligence then the world would be a much better place, my friend.

Without wishing to drag the conversation back a few pages, the percentages on contraception are quoted as "the percentage of couples using contraception that become pregnat in a year, not per time they have sex".

I've been taught that the pill is 99.9% effective if taken properly and condomes are slightly less effective, whilst 97%ish from memory is high, I certainly don't like the idea of my little sister using condoms and I'd rather she was on the pill.

hello A,

Who are you? I see on your personal page that you only began to exist on h2g2 about two days ago and this is the only thread you are subscribed to. Just wondering - what is your personal opinion behind the various statistics you have been posting?

az

Here's the thing, I have never *not* wanted kids, because I have never been into recreational sex!
Some people here seem to find the idea of relationships a novel concept - but my way of doing things has always that if I am not in a committed relationship, where kids would not be a burden, a misery, a fate worse than death, as some here seem to regard them, then I am celibate, because I *choose* to be.
I chose to lie about my reasons for turning men down because (a) I was 16, did you expect me to act like an assertive Xena WP back then?
(b) I didn't want to hurt the feelings of the *nice* guys, as so many of them really had their self esteem wrapped up in the request!

Wow, did you *mean* to be so offensive? The Vatican, the world's biggest lie factory - no. That's the Pentagon!
I heard the item on the radio. (BBC WS).
First, they have been *accused* of saying this. Did they say it, or did some bloke like Christopher Hitchens just *decide* they did.
(b) I've heard that said (about condoms and the AIDS virus) by many people, some as dedicatedly atheist as many here. Why is it an 'evil lie' only when said by an organisation you hate with a purple passion?
Condoms when used for homosex, let's be blunt, anal sex, are worse than useless unless used in several layers, because that orifice is not ideal for penetration and the things break.

Adele,

<<(b) I've heard that said (about condoms and the AIDS virus) by many people, some as dedicatedly atheist as many here.>>

You've heard many people say that condoms are infected with the Aids virus???

<>

Firstly, anal sex is not specifically 'homosex' and in fact condoms can be bought in many varieties and thicknesses.

az

What is this thread - "the slag off believers and congratulate ourselves on our superiority" thread?
I cannot believe you blokes and blokesses, arrogance seeping from every pore. I gather that all of you have avoided children like the plague - pity, as you evidently believe (a) in your own vast intelligence and goodness and (b) that all characteristics are 90% heritable. Why aren't reproducing madly?
Do you have any better arguments than your own hatred, and your own desire for a life of all fun and no responsibility?

Adele, firstly homosex does not equal anal sex.

Firstly I believe according to a lecutre I had whilst I was doing a elective module on HIV and AIDs run by the local sexual health clinic, that around 20% of hetrosexual couple have anal sex, whilst around 2/3rds of gay men have, around 1/3rd do reguarally. Which means that almost as many hetrosexuals as gay men have had anal sex.

Secondly if condoms are used with lubecant, which should of course be water based, then they shouldn't tear during anal sex - and they are certainly *not* worse than useless. In fact recent studies have shown that normal strength condoms are just as effective as extra strong ones designed for anal sex.
(to be honest I'm not sure about flavoured condoms and other novelty condoms for anal sex)

Since condoms became widespread the prevelence of HIV in teh gay community has dropped dramactically.

Well, I believe that only Hoo actually slagged off believers. Others slagged off the Catholic Church, but being against faith and being against religious organisations is a different things. Religious organisations do have a certain history, you must admit. The Papacy has been up to its ears in something or other more or less since its beginning.

The allegations, if they turn out to be true, are very serious. STDs are a big deal, and condoms do stop them spreading.

As for the rest, I don't really understand what you're saying. Some people just aren't interested in having kids.

I love this thread!

First of all, Adele tells us:

" I have never been into recreational sex! "

Wow. A revelation. You know, before you shared that with us, I'd pictured you as a free-spirited libertine. The mental image of a f**ked up frigid sex-averse ice block lacking the most basic of biological drives had never even crossed my mind. Curse my lack of imagination.

However, following on almost immediately from this, you proceed to regale us with your experiences of the pitfalls of anal sex.

Now, forgive me - but when you were having anal sex, were you doing it to get pregnant? Because, if you were, I'm afraid I have some bad news.

On the other hand, if you aren't *quite* that stupid, then here's the thing - surely anal sex is BY DEFINITION, recreational sex, and you've just told us you've never been into that? I'm sure you can appreciate why I'm having difficulty here.

Ooh! Ooh! I've just thought of another possibility! You're NOT being a hypocrite (bear with me people, it's *possible* she's not), and in fact you've NEVER had anal sex. In which case your kindly lecture on the dangers is just patronising moralising from an ignorant meddler, so do keep it between yourself and your priest if you must talk about it. Thank you.

You asked some questions, here are my answers:

"What is this thread - "the slag off believers and congratulate ourselves on our superiority" thread?"

If you need help reading the subject line, I'm not sure it can be delivered via this medium. Sorry.

" you evidently believe (a) in your own vast intelligence and goodness and (b) that all characteristics are 90% heritable."

This is not the dictionary definition of the word "evident".

I no more "believe in" my vast intelligence than I "believe in" my ability to drive a car. I have documentary evidence of it, from schools, universities (plural) and Mensa, among others.

I certainly do NOT believe in my own goodness, which, if it's any of your business, is one of the reasons I choose not to have children.

I'm fascinated to know how it is "evident" that I or anyone else here believes all characteristics are 90% heritable. That's the kind of genetics I'd expect from a Christian.

"Why aren't reproducing madly?"

Because unlike you we understand a little of genetics, and know that characterstics are very far from 90% heritable. I have, in the last ten years or so, met several wonderful children - offspring of friends and neighbours. If I could guarantee a child of mine would be like them - intelligent, curious etc. - I might contemplate becoming a parent. However, the odds are that any child would turn out like one of the other 99% of children I've met, witless dullards, hyperactive psychopaths, whining grizzlers and stinking filth-magnets without a redeeming feature amongst them. People talk about kids having a "face only a mother could love". To me, that's most kids.

I'm not reproducing because all that would be likely to achieve would be to increase the herd of losers my taxes will have to support when I'm working into my old age, so please don't come your patronising sh*te about my life being all fun and no responsibility.

I'm not reproducing because I don't need to - most of the herd of losers are too stupid not to, so the world population is swelling by about three or four people every SECOND. Where's the sense in adding to the burden?

I'm not reproducing because it's a nightmare of stress from start (i.e. conception, if you have to "try") to finish (i.e. my death, because once you've had kids, your life is NEVER the same).

I'm not reproducing because unlike certain antipodean Christians in this thread, I possess a degree of introspection, and I use that to recognise that I am ill-fitted for the role of parent. My life experiences have produced in my prejudices I would likely pass on - and nobody deserves that. I know very, very few who ARE fitted for the role of parent, in my opinion, in fact. And even in their cases, I could be wrong. Who knows?

And finally, I'm not reproducing because I'm sufficiently pessimistic about the state of the world that I think that a child brought into it this decade or last would not, in the long run, thank its parent.

Better arguments than my own hatred? Your call.

H.

Adele, if you could generalise a little less, it'd be appreciated though you were at least gender-neutral in your blanket assumptions.

Hoo, did you actually *join* Mensa, or just do their quizzes for fun?

Cheer up hoo. It is not that bad.