Ireland Archibishop- Watch who you impact -Press release was on markets and the need for social aspects to be viewed by Business, government

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. Immaculate Heart of Mary’s Hermitage Report)

Article By Marc Aupiais

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has asked for a business, government and market mentality which not only pursues profit, but focuses on the social impact of decisions. He states that the gambles taken by representatives of large firms, take as a surety- the average person who is affected by bad or good decisions.

If one person digs a whole in the boat, to quote our Jewish Brothers- it affects everyone in the boat.

This is specially applicable in South Africa, where business, and government- often does not focus on the impact they have on the longterm economy or their citizens. A notable impact is efforts at promoting contraception by "Love Life", statistics from America, broadcast by EWTN, and mirrored by observations of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, show that often contraceptive education, and promotion of contraceptive methods of fighting disease- have been shown to backfire- with disease levels increasing. Case in point South Africa- we have the largest rate of some diseases- despite apparent efforts by government. On facebook recently was an irritating advert- leading to a questionnaire- "World Contraception Day". I wonder if the results of that will be used, and if it will be mentioned that it was advertised in such a way that the religious from groups such as ours would not click on it except accidentally. I also wonder what effect this will have on facebook users- in a country where pre-marital sex is so common- and along with it the consequences.

The Pill, for instance reduces chances of pregnancy (Not that NFP isn't just about as, if not more effective)- it also drastically increases chances of every kind of Sexual Disease. It seems our biggest issue is a societal disease- we answer everything with devices and abortions- rather than attempting to actually trust people to do the better thing.

I await the day when we teach people how to more safely use cocaine- after all, "it's better than if they did it outside the law, and encountered more danger!"

Oddly, when we create such atmospheres about things- it seems we don't really cure the problem- more abortions for one thing occur now that it is legal- than before hand. Democratic Candidate Borak Obama in the US, voted to let survivors of Abortion die if they could make it- while in England- the many of the more legislative pro-abortionists want to allow abortion right until birth.

Oddly those who call themselves pro-choice- often neither respect the choice of the child- nor that of the doctors and nurses forced by "pro-choice" legislation- to go against their choice and conscience, and be excommunicated from the Catholic church, or seemingly to break South African, and other nation's Law!

Genocide, according to the United Nations is:

"Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by
General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948

entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

I wonder if efforts to radically reduce the populations of third world countries can fall under this?

It seems- rather than genocide we call efforts such as this "prudence", or other such things- the truth is- we desire more resources for ourselves- it does not always fit our interests to have larger population- nor do we often seem as a culture- to care if certain conditions are afflicted on others.

Now, we need to consider- is the answer to world population Article 2 section (D), or can we actually allow aid to the undeveloped world, and education about morals to developed and undeveloped world alike- things that seem to work quite well if we look into history. Instead- we choose to inflict on populations a sort of section d option- is it right? I don't know- but in the past it was labled as Genocide- have we had so universal a group of changes to our view on the subject, and can we ignore documentation which is still under enactment?

Perhaps the UN's general laws are interpretable- otherwise we need to stop these campaigns to end such disease, and stop wars, and problems over resources- by section d of the Genocide definition. Can we continue to solve the world's problems, by reducing what the world means?