Judging by that link, and the assumption that the red states (southern states) are the states teaching abstinence only, it appears to be true that the states which treat abstinence only do have the highest rates of STDs (and probably teen pregnancy).
Is that wrong?
Also, I agree with the Church’s teaching. I also think, however, that it may be true that condom-promotion has helped to reduce the number of new HIV infections each year.
And adults too, right?
I think when one of the former popes was in AIDS-stricken Africa–or was it Mother Teresa?—I recall that he or she or both urged the people who were passing this deathly disease to others *not *to use condoms.
They did not urge people who were passing the infection to others to abstain from using condoms and continue to have sex, but to rely on abstaining from sex rather than using condoms to prevent infecting others.
You don’t suppose that making condoms widely available and encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour go hand in hand in creating the social disorder which will destroy the very possibility of a sound, vibrant and caring culture?
Interestingly, there is quite a correspondence between increases in sex ed and access to contraceptives and an increase in sexual activity outside marriage (including pre-marital).
The problem is that the Church has in mind a reduction in sin, while the secular world has in mind a reduction in consequences. Which is worse: a teen who routinely commits the sin of fornication and of abc and so never gets “caught”? Or the teen who slips up and sins once and has a baby? Well, secularists seem to think the latter.
In Botswana, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $13.5 million for condom promotion (25 times more than education to curb risky behavior). Instead of lowering the rates of HIV, the rate of infections and the rate of condom use both rose together until they were among the highest in Africa.
Then there’s the comparison of the Philippines and Thailand. Both reported their first case of HIV in 1984. By 1987, there were 135 cases in the Philippines and 112 in Thailand. The World Health Organization predicted 85,000 deaths in the Philippines and 70,000 in Thailand by 1999.
Thailand responded with a “100 Percent Condom Use” program while Filipinos did the worst thing possible: they listened to the Church:eek:
You can guess where this was headed. One country had only 12,000 cases of HIV in 2005, while the other had 585,000. Oh, wait, it was the Philippines that had only 12,000 cases! Maybe there’s something to this whole Catholicism thing…not that the so-called “experts” will ever admit it.
But surely this behavioral approach in the Philippines is a fluke, right? Same with Botswana? After all, the rate of new infections is low in Thailand. And Uganda curtailed their own HIV epidemic with condoms. Or did they…
In 1991, Uganda was one of the worst in the world with about 22 percent of the population infected with HIV. By 1999, that rate fell to just 6 percent. While other countries promoted condoms, Uganda promoted changing risky behaviors. As a result, they experienced the largest decline in the world. Condoms were a minor factor in comparison, as Dr. Edward Green of Harvard points out.
The British Medical Journal even went as far as stating, “he greater the percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV. If the Catholic Church is promoting a message about HIV in those countries, it seems to be working. On the basis of data from the World Health Organization, in Swaziland, where 42.6 percent have HIV, only 5 percent of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37 percent of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4 percent of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22 percent of the population is HIV infected, and only 6 percent is Catholic. In Uganda, with 43 percent of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4 percent.” And in the Philippines? About 80 percent Catholic and an infection rate of .03 percent of the population!