Thursday, 14 June 2007

Dr calls for more Nanny Statism.

Dr Matt Capehorn, who runs an obesity clinic at Rotherham in the UK, is planning to demand that allowing children to become obese be designated as an act of neglect, at the British Medical Association’s annual meeting this month. He wants social services to be able to take action against the parents.

Speaking to the BBC he said: "My colleagues and I were concerned because we noticed a discrepancy in the way society, the medical profession and the courts treat an obese child compared with a malnourished child. There is outrage if a child is skin and bone but it only happens in extreme cases with obese children."

Quite right too! Allowing a child to eat too much may be stupid, it may be weak, but it is not deliberate neglect. You might as well blame parents for neglecting anorexic children.

Kids love to eat unhealthy fattening stuff. It’s often quite a trick to keep them off of it and out playing, without having to worry about Crack SS (Social Services) units kicking your door in.

Certainly, in some extreme cases, it might amount to neglect - but it is a dangerous and worryingly authoritarian step Dr Capehorn is pushing for. Maybe he would like to turn the local authority’s anti smoking ‘police’ against evil parents buying their children a burger in the High Street, once they are up to speed…

Vatican puts horse's head in amnesty's bed

Here is a complicated one. The Vatican is being seriously authoritarian. It is leaning heavily on Amnesty international where it hurts. It has suspended all financial aid to them and is ordering all Roman Catholics to stop donating to it as well.

Why? Over Amnesty’s position on abortion.

Amnesty's Deputy Secretary General, Kate Gilmore, told Reuters that Amnesty does not take any particular position over whether abortion is right, or wrong and it was not trying to push abortion as a universal right - but it did defend its position in support of allowing abortion, when a woman’s health is in danger, or her rights have been violated, particularly where rape, or incest, was involved.

"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer"

Cardinal Renato Martino, said abortion was "murder", "And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy',"

The Vatican’s cash is the Vatican’s cash. They can do with it what they will. Explaining their position to their flock and asking them to back them is ok, but they should not be using their authority to bend them to their will.

Certainly a woman owns her own body and has a right to determine what she does with it, including conceiving, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church says about contraception.

Sperm and unfertilised eggs are just that and no more. Even if every single act of sex led to a conception it would still be the case that only a tiny fraction of a percent of eggs and sperm would ever result in a human being.

Also many fertilised eggs never make it to term, through entirely natural causes they ‘self ‘abort for various reasons.

Now the position you take on abortion rather depends on, at what point you view a foetus as a human being, with the right to life and self determination.