Thursday, August 4, 2016

Zika: A Science Being Done Right, Except For Interference From Rogue Abortionists

"Brazil opens probe as cases of Zika babies defy predicted patterns "

"Brazil’s Ministry of Health has launched an investigation into the cluster of babies born with brain defects linked to the Zika virus, after an expected “explosion” of cases across the country did not occur.

The bulk of the cases of congenital Zika syndrome – fetal brain defects that sometimes cause microcephaly, or abnormally small skulls – remain clustered in the northeast region of the country where the phenomenon was first identified last October, the ministry says.

And that has epidemiologists and infectious disease experts asking what is going on: Is it Zika and another virus working together that damages the fetal brains? Is it Zika and an environmental factor? Or something about the women themselves whose fetuses are affected?

The research in Brazil won’t have conclusions for months, but will have implications across the Americas, where the Brazilian experience and the rapid spread of Zika has caused governments to take protective measures and even warn women to delay getting pregnant.

“We can see there is a kind of cluster in [part of] the northeast region with high prevalence and high severity, of miscarriage and congenital malformation that is really severe,” said Fatima Marinho, co-ordinator of epidemiological analysis and information at the ministry.

“But we didn’t find this in other states – even the [adjacent] states didn’t see the same situation as in the epicentre.… We were preparing for an explosion and it didn’t come.

“So we started to think that in this central area maybe more than Zika is causing this intensity and severity.”

A central theory the ministry is now exploring is whether co-infection with other viruses, such as dengue or chikungunya, is the factor. For example, does a mother’s previous (or simultaneous) infection with dengue, which is also ubiquitous in Brazil, mean that the Zika virus affects a fetus differently? Or is it other viruses?"

[...]

After Brazil, the next country that was expected to see the wave of congenital Zika was Colombia, which has the second-largest number of reported Zika cases. But of more than 12,000 pregnant Colombian women with Zika, only 21 have had fetuses or babies with the brain defects.

Dr. Marinho, with the ministry, said this reinforces her suspicions about the role of co-infection or other factors in Brazil. Dr. Marques said Colombia is only seeing the babies of women who were infected late in their pregnancies so far (because the virus season is about six months behind, further to the north) and the evidence is that the likelihood of damage by Zika is higher earlier in gestation – so those babies may yet come.
But rogue abortion providers are interfering:
But Dr. Rodrigues had another explanation. “Now we know that in places where Zika comes the rate of abortion shoots up,” she said. “The feminist groups that will send pills by post to women … as a way of making up for the unfairness of the restrictive abortion laws, report an enormous increase in requests from Brazil and Latin America. I wouldn’t be surprised if when we look at cohorts in other counties, pregnancies disappear, and we can’t say if it was spontaneous or medical abortion.”

Researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine on July 28 that in Latin American countries where the new strain of Zika is spreading and abortion is illegal, there has been a huge spike in the number of requests to Women on Web, a Dutch-based organization which proves women with online consultations and then mails the drugs to induce a medical abortion. The increase over the rate of requests last year ranges from 38 per cent to 108 per cent in Brazil. (Brazilian authorities are now intercepting all deliveries to Brazilian women, the group said.)
Panic abortions have likely killed numerous normal humans. The impact on the actual science will remain unknowable.

11 comments:

CommonSense said...

Most embryos are naturally aborted why is that? Does God love abortion? An embryo is not a conscious or sentient being, it’s not a person and has no pain awareness. A fertilized human egg also lacks consciousness and sentience just like an unfertilised egg does so why is “killing” it murder while “killing” a unfertilised egg or a sperm cell (or any living human cell) is not? Biologically a sperm cell or unfertilised egg is human life and is “alive” so why don’t you think that it is murder then to kill sperms?

Talon said...

Hoo-boy.. CommonSense, do you have any background whatsoever in biology? If not, I suggest you read up on it, otherwise Stan will quickly demolish you. Prepare to defend your definition of "person" and "human life" hopefully with something stronger than "embryos aren't people because the law doesn't see them that way". I'll give you a hint to your error: human gametes (egg and sperm) are not "human life" in the same way a human zygote/embryo/fetus is, nor are human skin cells sloughed off on a rock the same as a pre-term fetus. Good luck!

Stan said...

CommonSense says,
”Most embryos are naturally aborted why is that?”

We live in a universe that requires time in order to have events which are sequential; time is considered an arrow or event-pointer which is directed by entropy. Entropy designates degradation of order, and occurs when errors are introduced into events and information degrades. So when we get to have time, we also get to have errors. Entropic errors produce defects in embryos, their environment, or their developmental paths which are sometimes so severe that the embryo dies and is naturally aborted.

Now that that is out of the way, let’s discuss your bumpersticker logic path errors.

”Does God love abortion?”

Well, when did you quit beating your wife? The question is absurd, and it is merely an attempt to attack religion with a VERY weak sucker punch. Both answers – yes and no – are false, for the completely obvious reason that it makes no rational sense to involve God in what is a – pardon the expression – a common sense, logical issue involving the material facts of conception and embryology.

” An embryo is not a conscious or sentient being,…”

And yet it is fully human, at the completely normal and necessary stage of human development which even you were required to endure in order to ultimately write this kind of stuff. It does not matter in the least whether a living, normal human is temporarily conscious or not for that human to have precisely the same value as any and all other humans; and it is arguable that large portions of “awake” humans are not sentient, especially if sentience presupposes logic. Humans under sedation are not automatically denied their humanness because they are temporarily neither conscious nor sentient. So this is a non-starter as a justification for the desire to kill certain classes of humans in the Leftist Class War on normal humans.

”it’s not a person”

There is no point in either conception, embryo development, birth, childhood, teens, adulthood or senescence where there is a physical module of “personhood” developed or installed in any human. Personhood is not an organic substance, it is merely an abstract term which is being weaponized for use in the Leftist Class War on Normal Humans. It is a designation which is bestowed, not naturally developed, and which can and will be denied to any class of humans that the Leftists choose to wage their Class War on. It is bestowed or denied as a proclivity of the desire to kill certain classes of normal humans. This is the fundamental claim of eugenics, from Darwinists to Leninists to National Socialists to abortionistas and other social engineers of death. It is the claim of having the personal moral authority to deny humanity to classes of humans in order to kill the humans in that class. The concept is evil by any objective morality – but not considered evil by modern AtheoLeftists and Leftists in general.

Stan said...

”…and has no pain awareness. …

Well, that’s just not true of all embryos, is it? But it is true of the living, differentiating and normal individuals at the normal embryonic stage in the first few weeks after conception. So this is another rationalized criterion for giving the right to kill to the Leftists engaged in their Class War on Humanity: if a human finds himself in a position of not feeling pain, then by this criterion he is designated as killable merely at the decision of some other human, and that killer can kill without pain of conscience or moral failure, because this criterion allows it. Anyone asleep can be quickly killed, if that is the case. And a properly placed bullet will obviate pain as well, a fact which allows anyone to kill anyone else, if done cleanly, i.e., painlessly. I think that Trotsky felt no pain as he was eradicated by ice ax to the cranium in Mexico after he fell into the unfortunate class of being eliminatable (abortable) by Leftists.

”A fertilized human egg also lacks consciousness and sentience just like an unfertilised egg does so why is “killing” it murder while “killing” a unfertilised egg or a sperm cell (or any living human cell) is not?”

The slightest amount of thought would provide the obvious answer to this juvenile question. Humans shed cells all the time, and those cells contain DNA from the individual which shed them. Those cells do not have any propensity for carrying life and individuality to another human. Only the fertilized egg does that, as it is enabled by the process of meiosis to activate the metabolism to keep the fertilized egg alive and internally actively developing normally until the blastocyst attaches to the uterine lining and begins to derive nutrients from the mother. The other cells are shed normally after their very short life span ends.

”Biologically a sperm cell or unfertilised egg is human life and is “alive” so why don’t you think that it is murder then to kill sperms?”

No, a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg are not “human life”, so that is specifically false, biologically; they are living, independent cells which are alive with internal activity fueled by limited internal metabolism, and which have extremely short life spans, unless the act of meiosis is initiated by the sperm inside the egg during fertilization. These cells are independent of the human which generated them from germ cells and released them. And these cells have independent metabolic lives, which they live out in very short spans, unless and until they are involved in fertilization.

So your question is, at its root, false: it is not murder to kill sperm or unfertilized eggs, and who does that anyway? (No one) And who says that it is murder, other than contentious AtheoLeftists? (No one) The cells die all on their own, and are either absorbed or discharged. So like previous similar questions, it is based on a patently false premise, and is illogical at the basic level, dishonest at the next level, and just plain filled with falsehood and fallacy at the top level.

Hope this helps.

CommonSense said...

Sperms and unfertilised eggs are also classed as “human life” what I think you meant is that they are not genetically distinct like a fertilised egg is. Which is the only sense in which a fertilised egg is considered a “human being” in the sense in that it is a new organism. But why does that give it rights? It doesn’t, it’s carried by the mother and uses her body and it has no consciousness or pain awareness therefore it has no rights because rights can only apply to conscious thinking and feeling beings.Since when is “killing” a fertilised egg the same as killing a human being with a mind? Also it’s the women’s choice – it’s her body. The mothers right to body autonomy trumps the embryos “right to “life””. This is a well established moral principles – it is the reason why you can’t have my organs if I don’t consent. You understanding of “humanness” is not relevant to whether abortion is murder or not. How does a collection of cells (which you can put in a dish) have rights? It doesn’t you are speaking utter codswallop.

Stan said...

”Sperms and unfertilised eggs are also classed as “human life” what I think you meant is that they are not genetically distinct like a fertilised egg is. Which is the only sense in which a fertilised egg is considered a “human being” in the sense in that it is a new organism. But why does that give it rights? It doesn’t…”

Are you the “Giver Of Human Rights”? How did you acquire that authority? I’ll answer that myself: you are NOT the arbiter of human rights and you have no authority to do so. It is beyond presumptious for you to assume that you have that right – the right to determine when another human can be killed. And it is a moral failure for the reasons given in the response to your other comment today: You have adopted animalism as characterizing humans, and therefore you cannot logically assert either morality or rights for others. As a mere individual human, you have no moral authority to make those determinations, and there is no reason for any other human to assume that an animalist is an expert in morality.

”…it’s carried by the mother and uses her body and it has no consciousness or pain awareness therefore it has no rights because rights can only apply to conscious thinking and feeling beings.”

This is an example of ignoring prior refutations made to the exact principles which you repeat as if they are Truth, merely because you say so. Address the prior refutations. Address the lack of grounding and the circularity (Appeal to Self-Authority) logic failures.

Making the same logical errors over and over is not conversation; it is dogma, and Atheist dogma has zero value on any possible scale.

” Since when is “killing” a fertilised egg the same as killing a human being with a mind?”

Since when are you authorized to determine the criterion for who may be killed? Only by defining class distinctions is killing a normal human at a normal stage of human development arrogated the status of a “moral” decision. This is Darwinian eugenics which removes the moral protection of certain humans and places them in the “KILL” Class, a class which is jealously protected by AtheoLeftists, and has been useful for many murderous eradications of designated KILL classes, implemented by Atheists.

Under your animalism theory of humans, every other human can be assigned into a KILL class, and why not? Since when is killing a human not a human right?

Stan said...

” Also it’s the women’s choice – it’s her body. The mothers right to body autonomy trumps the embryos “right to “life””. This is a well established moral principles – it is the reason why you can’t have my organs if I don’t consent.”

Here you conflate two non-similar events and situations, a logically failed conflation which is necessary to the irrational support of the KILL Classification which AtheoLeftists love and fight to preserve. First, an embryo is not the mother’s organ. To define it as such is biologically false. Second, if a human’s body has autonomous sanctity, then the new human’s body also has autonomous sanctity. Failure to accept this is purely Class War from the animalistic AtheoLeft.

And again, the AtheoLeft has chosen to endow moral Rights to women which are not actually rights, rather they are Classist Permissions… permission to kill anyone in the official KILL Class. Men who are AtheoLeftists cherish this Classist Permission To Kill System, not out of reverence for women, who are also sometimes killed in abortions as are female humans in their normal stage of development. No. Men cherish the perception of killing classes of people who are “problematic”, and they value the perception of a future where the insult of dissent is removable as a Class extinction issue – as is done in historical AtheoLeftist societies, many which still exist. That’s all part of the vision of Utopia: no dissent.

”How does a collection of cells (which you can put in a dish) have rights? It doesn’t you are speaking utter codswallop.”

How does a collection of cells which fits in a coffin have rights? It doesn’t, if you are an AtheoLeftist animalist. In fact, why are Atheists protected from being a KILLABLE Class, themselves? Having no common morality seems justification enough. But further evidence for that is the massive killing of entire cultures by Atheists who have dictated those cultures to be problematic due to some rationalized justification – just as embryos are rationalized as not being normal humans at a normal stage of development because of (demonstrably irrational) reasons X, Y, Z, so OK, kill them.

The denigration of the human at the normal stage of human development by reductionist terms such as “they’re just cells” is the necessary re-definition of humanity which accompanies animalism as the Theory of Humanity & Atheist Moral Authorization For Class Devaluation And Extinction (KILL CLASS). Both animalism and the KILL Class are constructions designed to moralize the killing of certain humans based on the specifications dictated by the KILL CLASS advocates.

The false moralization of a KILL CLASS is an admission that current secularized society is not adverse to defining certain humans as problematic and therefore KILLABLE. The only remaining question is “who else is problematic for the AtheoLeft?”

Probably those whose principles are deemed “codswallop”, due to the logical and intellectual pressure which they put upon the diktat class of the Class War. That’s problematic.

[This is not new; it’s cold soup. The Marxist Class War is in full swing, as the Victimhood Class, Oppressor Class and the Messiah Class are all fully defined (by the Messiah Class, of course). The war will escalate as subclasses are whipped into frenzies of violence. The Class War is fully justified by its codification into the abortion KILL Class, which makes that part of the killing legal, and proclaimed moral. The extension of that into the future of Classism is inevitable.]

Stan said...

Finally let's discuss the absurdity of the claim of a woman's body autonomy.

Under full autonomy, a woman has the right to cut herself; amputate unwanted parts; become unconscious due to any combination of drugs, alcohol, drain cleaner, or whatever else. She may rant, run naked through Muslim encampments, carry contraband into prisons concealed vaginally. She may engage sexually with donkeys, dogs and exhaust pipes. She has no restrictions on the killing of her own progeny, which carry her mitochondrial DNA.

The list goes on and on, because absurd rationalizations have no limiting principle due to logic.

Failure to apprehend and comprehend the absurdity of this principle is beyond irrational: it is the behavior of a cult devoted totally to irrational and unconscionable principles.

yonose said...

Hello Everyone!!

Hello commonsense,

I presume, your common sense is not quite common? No more name-calling from me. To the point.

Let me see, a fetus may not be fully human, but it still is a live, sentient being. Maybe this field:

YEAH, THIS FIELD -- sonocytology , might help you think more than twice -that is, if you would actually like to substantially think about anything- about other negatively emotional, romantically ideological, assessments.

Kind Regards!!

CommonSense said...

”…it’s carried by the mother and uses her body and it has no consciousness or pain awareness therefore it has no rights because rights can only apply to conscious thinking and feeling beings.”

This is an example of ignoring prior refutations made to the exact principles which you repeat as if they are Truth, merely because you say so. Address the prior refutations. Address the lack of grounding and the circularity (Appeal to Self-Authority) logic failures.

The difference between embryos and unconscious humans is that the latter have a functioning fully formed brain with memories, thoughts and emotions fully intact.

There is no evidence of consciousness/sentience before around week 26 this article http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/full/pr200950a.html says
“A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed (71) and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases (72) as indicated by deficient executive functions (73). Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged".

"The denigration of the human at the normal stage of human development by reductionist terms such as “they’re just cells” is the necessary re-definition of humanity"
A fertilised egg is just a collection of cells so why do you think it is a human being then? The definition of "human being" you are using has no moral relevance.

"First, an embryo is not the mother’s organ. To define it as such is biologically false.
Never said that. I said it's using the mothers body and the mothers right to body autonomy would trump any rights that a embryo is imagined to have.

Second, if a human’s body has autonomous sanctity, then the new human’s body also has autonomous sanctity. Failure to accept this is purely Class War from the animalistic AtheoLeft."
It doesn't have a right to use the mothers body without her consent- just like you don't have the right to my organs without my consent.

Stan said...

First, you are not the arbiter of morals and rights.

Second, except for rape, the mother consented to the natural procreative process of sexual engagement which actually did what it is supposed to do: procreate by the formation of an embryo. The mother gave permission, and consented in the act. Later, she wants to revoke that permission, after the natural process has created a new human life in the natural and expected fashion. So the "consent" scam fails logic and fails the natural procreation path by granting the mother an unheard of "right": to retroactively remove the permission to engage in procreative activities which she specifically gave herself and her partner. This retroactive reneging of permission is unconscionable, as is taking it out on another human being - the new human being who is totally innocent in this affair.

I realize that logic is not the issue in abortion: the Leftists must protect their ability to have a Kill Classification of humans who are denied rights and are declared inconvenient. That is the point being defended, and defended using obviously defective logic and phantasmagorical "rights" which cannot actually be conferred under moral principles of any type, except the Fascist Kill Class Culture.

So I expect you to deny, deflect, and dissemble in your drive to keep your Kill Class protected with phony "logic" and immoral "rights".

And again, the drive for a Kill Class of humans is purely an animalistic form of human emotional defectiveness, nothing more.