SPUC, the American Edition

There are many ways one could respond to receipt of SPUC's anti marriage equality flyer. Perhaps the most aesthetically pleasing was this chap who ran it through a lawnmower. Others preferred the more cerebral approach of blogging about its flaws. A rather popular doctor I follow on Twitter chose to mention it which goes some way to explaining why I, an Irish blogger, have taken an interest.

Prying into UK affairs is not something I typically do. That said, given SPUC's long, prolonged and uninterrupted history of interfering in Irish referendums I feel justified in offering the playground retort: they started it.

For those perhaps new to this blog a little background is in order. I work in IT, and in my spare time I do a little programming around Twitter. For this project I pulled a list of everyone who follows @spucprolife. Here's a word cloud of their Twitter biographies to get a vague impression of their typical followers. Click for larger:

Of David Quinn, the Cautious Skeptic

David Quinn is a man not unused to criticism so it likely came as little shock to him that his recent use of surveys has raised eyebrows. That his argument clings so heavily to an eleven year old paper was not the cause of bemusement, nor was the paper's unerring focus on North America source of consternation. Rather it was the prominent phrase on first page forming disclaimer "no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents".

It is fair to say that Quinn did not give this caveat equal prominence when he used it to advance his case against same sex marriage. (I venture to suggest that marriage and child rearing are no longer as tightly coupled as Quinn may think, rather denting another premise of his argument, but I digress.) Fellow blogger Humanisticus discussed this in depth and then addressed Quinn's attempts to refute the charges. Undaunted, Quinn seems to have risen early of this Saturday morning to put pen to paper - metaphorically speaking - with a further effort to refute the charges. I encourage you to read it in full: one should not judge the merits of an essay based on its critics alone.


Were I to distil the piece to two lines I would choose the following:

"To draw reliable conclusions about the effects of family structure you need large, random samples of each of the family types being examined.
...
The available data does not allow us to say how well children raised by same-sex couples fare compared with the biological married family."

This feels like a softening of Quinn's position. We've seen him move from saying that married biological parents provide the best possible environment for children to an admirable embrace of skepticism and desire to see widespread surveys to better quantify data. He is now agnostic on the matter, shunning any potential judgement of the efficacy of same sex parenthood until the data arrives.

So why do I not applaud?

Youth Defence Blog Post Review: Discussing Disability

"I’d tell you I love[sic], but then I’d have to kill you" This mangled attempt to reproduce the title of one of the author's "favourite spy books" may have slithered past Youth Defence's editor. Or perhaps it was shown mercy - given the inexhaustible supply of errors that constitute the remainder of this blog post a mere discarding of the sixth word of the title (the word 'you') may have been allowed stay to better lower the expectations of its unfortunate readers.

I assume of course that Críostíona speaks of that well known classic, I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I 'd Have To Kill You by Ally Carter. I'm assured it's popular with both pre teens and young adults alike. Of course, perhaps I err. It rests not outside the realms of possibility that Youth Defence members have access to works that encourage lethal responses to admissions of eros, as suggested by the offered title. Still, the former seems the most charitable reading so I'll progress with the assumption that Críostíona intended to commence her piece with a reference to a teenager who lies to most people she meets in the protection of a secret mission. (For those unduly troubled by excess free time the plot summary is here.)

What mission does Críostíona execute in this blog post? We discover by examining the first sentence to follow a rather hamfisted link with aforementioned book title:

iERA's Campaign - Coincidence, Convergence, or Copied?

In the past I've discussed Hamza Tzortzis's plagiarism of William Lane Craig and his poorly executed attempt to pretend that liberal societies facilitate rape. Perhaps it is unfair of me to focus exclusively on the Islamic Education and Research Academy's head of research.

Today instead we look at Abdur Raheem Green, head of the aforementioned iERA, perhaps most famous for his lectures on how one should best beat one's wives. I use the plural as he has two wives at time of print and sees four as the maximum. I'm reliably informed that he is the keen mind behind the 'Don't Shoot the Messenger' campaign which features a trilemma argument. In brief, it states that Mohammed was either lying, deluded or the final prophet of Allah. It then attempts to prove the first two explanations incoherent by saying his actions are neither those of a liar or a madman.

But does this sound familiar?

Those of us who have read C S Lewis's Mere Christianity (published 1952, popular with only a small number of my regular readership, I'll admit) may recall his Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument, also featuring a trilemma. In it he states that Jesus was either lying, deluded, or the risen son of God. It then attempts to prove the first two explanations incoherent by saying his actions are neither those of a liar or a madman.

Do have a read of both arguments and see if you also feel there are similarities.

Youth Defence: Facts Deserve Better

I've been on holiday and am somewhat behind on current affairs. No matter, the Youth Defence blog provides a rich source of material for me to discuss.

Today I look at an entry from Eadaoin, a UK based blogger with an interest in Ireland's abortion debate. Rather than provide commentary I'll just offer my free fact checking service.

"It has become increasingly clear that, over the last ten decades the women’s liberation movement across the globe, which had noble aims in its infancy, has become an oppressor of women’s freedom."

I have a fortnight's worth of laundry to do: regrettably time does not allow me to also correct grammar or suggest how Eadaoin might express ideas clearly. Do feel free to assist her in the comments.

Statistically speaking, induced abortions increases [sic] the risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and rectal cancer.

No it doesn't. I offer as evidence a Lancet published meta analysis of 53 studies and a 12 year study of 25,000 Danish women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States National Cancer Institute agree that there is no causative link. The American Cancer Society goes one further, saying that "...the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer". Eadaoin doesn't offer any evidence of this purported link with breast or other cancers, and with good cause - she doesn't have it. Nor does she mention that her organisation opposes the HPV vaccine, proven to reduce instances of cervical cancer.

Anti vaccination group flies Irish politicians to US on anti abortion fact finding mission

I haven't spoken of the registered charity Family and Life before. They have an interesting past, the National Catholic Register describing them as splitting from US based Human Life International while reasoning that "its work in Ireland was being interfered with by Americans". This led to some surprise when I read in the Sunday Times of their plans to fly several Fine Gael senators, including Fidelma Healy Eames and Paul Bradford, on a 'search for truth' about abortion.

The shock was precipitated by their choice of location - they're off to the United States. For an organisation born from opposition to American intervention in Irish affairs this seems an odd choice.

With this thought in mind I reviewed a previous post touching on their most recent ancestor. Their split from Human Life International did not seem to include condemnation of their opposition to vaccines and I wondered if this was an area of disagreement.

It is not.

Take their Ethical Vaccine for Children Project:

The “Ethical Vaccine for Children Project” is aimed at applying pressure on the Irish health authorities and pharmaceutical companies to oppose the use of vaccines based on cell lines derived from aborted babies' tissue. In Ireland the MMR (Measeles, Mumps & Rubella) vaccine is produced using cell lines that originated in the abortion of unborn babies, despite the fact that ethical safe alternatives exist.

and continues with the comment:

The text of their leaflet is not provided, and if this is the reaction it inspires I can see a rather plausible reason why they would choose to keep it concealed.

Under the (American) Influence

It's always a pleasure to be offered a guest post. Often in the past I've taken the opportunity to give voice to someone who holds a different viewpoint to mine, and I've had fine articles from Christian and Muslim bloggers. In this instance, however, Kath O'Meara and I have little on which to disagree.

She writes from the perspective of an American expatriate living in Ireland and has dug up some fascinating information on our friends across the water. It's great to have such a succinct overview of the situation on file and it makes me realise that much of my output assumes prior knowledge of the Irish situation. My thanks to Kath for this. Do tweet her your appreciation on @KathOMeara. If you enjoy her writing you should check out her blog.

Do enjoy.

---

As an American and long-term resident in Ireland (gratefully and by choice), I would like to state for the record:  

I am sorry.   

I am sorry a bunch of arrogant Yanks think they know better than the people of Ireland and have the right to influence Irish society.   

I am sorry that these religious fundamentalists are sticking their noses (and wallets) into the Irish question on abortion and sending money to be used on questionable publicity including billboards ,leaflets and posters.

I am sorry about the illegal robocalls, which originated in the US. 

When I first heard that far-right anti-choice groups in Ireland were being shored up with American dollars the first thought in my mind was "Oh man, I thought I got away from you people!" You see for me, one of the perks about living in Ireland is that I am thousands of miles away from the bible thumping I-know-better-than-you hell and brimstone fundies who can’t seem to stop themselves from trying to control a woman’s right to bodily integrity. A strategy which has not stopped although safe and legal abortions are now available in the US via the landmark Supreme Court case ofRoe v. Wade.