I have no objection to their "use protection" recommendation, although it should be accompanied by an equally strenuous sexual abstinence admonition outside of the bounds of marriage, But where is the logic in pushing abortion as a "solution" to the Zika epidemic when it's the baby that catches the virus from the mother?:
A Roman Catholic group appealed to Pope Francis on Wednesday to allow Church members to "follow their conscience" and use contraception or to let women have abortions to protect themselves against the Zika virus.
The appeal came as the World Health Organization (WHO) advised women in areas with the virus to protect themselves, especially during pregnancy, by covering up against mosquitoes and practising safe sex with their partners....
Spouses, WHO, spouses.
Catholics for "Choice" asked Francis, Latin America's first pope, to "really stand in solidarity with the poor".
By killing them? That's a brand of "solidarity" that doesn't exist outside of a Chronicles of Riddick epic.
"Women's decisions around pregnancy, including the decision to end a pregnancy, need to be respected, not condemned," it said. [emphasis added]
To answer the rhetorical question I posed above, there is no logic to pushing abortion as a "solution" to the Zika epidemic. Abortion doesn't have the slightest thing to do with it. It's finishing the job that the Zika virus started. It's a tag-team effort to maximize the morbidity of the epidemic.
It is, in other words, the trademarkedly vile, instinctive compulsion of baby-mass-murderers to exploit any situation, any crisis to advance their agenda of in utero genocide and human self-extinction, even if the situation can have no effect on their objective of more mountains of fetal corpses.
It's also wholly unnecessary, as I'm sure Francis already has something very similar in mind and will spew it forth at his border erasure shindig this weekend.