The director of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project, Edward Green, has told a Rome conference that Benedict’s position on AIDS and condoms is correct.
We discussed this on the Family Life board, there are several here that believe condoms protect against STD’s with the same effectiveness as they have as a method of birth control. Maybe now they will understand that this is not true.
I am protestant, so I don’t have big issues with using a condom as birth control, but the Pope is right, promoting condoms as a prevention to AIDS is wrong. To stop the spread of AIDS in Africa different sexual practices need to be promoted, rather than giving out false information. I applaud the Pope for taking the right stand on this issue, it is far easier to just throw a quick fix at something, than to stand up and say major changes have to be made.
Well, one of those different sexual practices might be the consistent and correct use of condoms.
I suppose one mght counter that people will never use them consistently and correctly. I agree. But I’d observe we could also say they will never consistently and correctly abstain.
Condoms and abstinence are not mutually exclusive tools in he fight against AIDS.
If an AIDS vaccine were developed that was just as good at prventing AIDSas abstinence, who would advocate mass voluntary vaccination? I would.
Anyone ever think that chasing after blacks in Africa or homsexuals in the West trying to get them to put plastic sheaths on their willies is faintly absurd?
New AIDS cases among gays in the US are way down since it first appeared. What do you attribute that to?
Abstinence, I hope. Or population decline. Or the disease has plateaued and is now limited to a smaller section of the population. Or it could be the propaganda to put plastic sheaths on their penises before sodomising each other, I suppose.
Rapists, fornicators and adulterers are more likely to be risk takers by nature, I’d say. So saying ‘be careful’ to someone who’s going to jump off a cliff is statistcally less likely to be heeded. It also ignores the local culture; rape and promiscuity in Africa, club culture in the West.
Glad you agree campaigns to encourage use of condoms can be effective.
Can you tell us more about rape and promiscuity in Africa?
Actually I don’t think they are. From memory, the only African country that had success in reducing AIDS was the one that encouraged abstinence; Uganda. I’m guessing that AIDS has gone down amongst homsexuals in the West now that the wild promiscuity of the 80s(?) has given way to fear. And simple population decline; take risks and you’re more likely to die, thus removing yourself from the field.
The condom argument implies that people are beasts, that they cannot control themselves, so they must be propagandised to use propylactics. Which, in the heat of passion, might be discarded, break, be mis-handled or not be available. So you’re in a ‘relationship’, you’re alone with your ‘partner’, it’s Friday night, you’re drunk and there’s no AIDS counsellor in the room. What to do?
Please don’t try to ‘trick’ me into revealing my ‘intolerant’ and ‘non-inclusive’ attitudes.
You, rather, should examine why we have now arrived at an ideology in the West where we are wringing our hands trying to combat a disease, which has become epidemic by the immorality of the carriers, by being ‘supportive’ and ‘tolerant’ of the ‘culture’ and ‘lifestyles’ of those spreading it. Or just ignoring them; have a box of condoms - next! Especially a disease which is hard to get. You have to have a ‘partner’ insert their special juices in a beautiful act of love into you.
If blacks were travelling to the U.S. and were telling the locals to put rubber johnnies on, I wonder what kind of a hearing they’d get.
Early marriage and fidelity seem not to be on the agenda at all. Promoting a means to greater promiscuity is. And if the method should fail, well, tough luck, son, that’s the lottery of life.
More funding, please!
So, you are guessing. OK.
I realize I can’t ‘trick’ you into revealing your ‘intolerant’ and ‘non-inclusive’ attitudes.
You might find this thread about Botswana interesting from the point of view of the ‘condoms v’s behavior’ argument. What it seemed to show, to me, at least, was that it’s one of those arguments that is only really an argument because it’s set up to be an argument.
In other words, it’s not ‘condoms or behavior’ it’s ‘condoms and behavior’.
AIDS cases are down? Explain this article then:
I fully agree it’s condoms and behavior, regardless of where it is. The condom is just a tool. It has to be used properly. We will also see different levels of acceptance for both condoms and abstinence in different cultures. There is no reason to presume everyone will behave the same way.
Yep. And it looks like I guessed wrong:
[Sarcasm] They must not be giving out enough condoms. More funding from the taxpayers, please!
Distributing an item which by its nature encourages promiscuity is not an answer. You have to work to get HIV. Condoms make it seem like it’s safe. ‘Health workers’ make it seem as if it’s moral. Too bad for you if you have an unfortunate accident or get careless. Or a little devil tells you, in the heat of passion: “Go on, live for the moment!”
Then that long wait in the clinic for the test results.
And let’s not forget, the Catholic answer. Fornication is a sin. You’re ‘loving’ your way towards Hell with each act.
Which all sounds a lot like saying that, “if you don’t want to be killed in a traffic accident, don’t leave the house” and that, under no circumstances should you teach people how to cross the road safely or how to drive because it will only encourage them to leave the house and get involved in a traffic accident.
Well, the article didn’t deal with new cases. That’s what I mentioned. Even if rates of new cases declining, they still contribute to an increasing total number of cases.
We should expect total cases to increase because new drug regimens are allowing people to survive with AIDS.
The article also points out that Blacks have a much higher infection rate than the general population. Since DC is predominantly Black, it has a high nunber of total cases. “*Overall, 4% of African Americans are afflicted. By contrast, 2% of Hispanics and 1% of whites are known to harbor the virus.” *
Also note the distribtion of cases by age. What are the uder 40 poeple doing?
“HIV and AIDS predominantly afflict the middle-aged, with the highest rates of incidence falling among the 40-to-49 (7%) and 50-to-59 age ranges (5%). Overall, 70% of those infected are over age 40.”
Here’s one of the many thigs the CDC says:
“Put simply, the transmission rate compares the annual number of new infections to the number of persons living with HIV, and indicates the likelihood that an HIV infected individual will transmit HIV to others. In this way, it provides a better means to assess the effects of public health efforts to promote changes in risk behavior as well as the preventive effects of HIV diagnosis and treatment.”
The accompanying graph shows a significant decrease over the 1976 to 2006 time frame.
This s good news, folks.
It’s more like simple statistics; be promiscuous, have sex outside marriage, indulge in sodomy and up your chances of misery: HIV, VD, pregnancy outside marriage, illegitimate children, serial ‘relationships’, emotional upheaval and you can still wind up 30+ and single, with a lot of misery behind you and more to come.
This is the legacy of the hipster culture, its dark shadow. Condoms do not mitigate this. They render a generative act sterile, empty and leading to nothing.
One does need to take risks in life, but fornication is not one of them. You can be celibate and still be happy. Do what Saints have suggested and reap the spiritual rewards. Give in to sinful desire and suffer ordinary misery.
Think: why would some of the most intelligent and decent men of their time give up everything and go and live in the desert? What could they possibly be getting out of doing that?
There is a life that hardened sinners have no sense of. It is possible to have a foretaste of Heaven while on earth. Sophisticates think the Church is trying to stop their fun. Rather it is Heaven practically shouting at human beings to come home, but still they choose evil and the ordinary misery that brings. And then, at their death, the terrible revelation.
Of course behavior entails risk. However, we all make our own evaluations of risk based on our personal preferences. That’s why I like being me so much more than following the Saints. Looks like most folks do.
Feel free to wonder out into the desert. There’s lots of it.
For those who have fun in church, go for it. I wish you the best of luck. And, until someone comes back from the dead to report, I’ll stick with the idea that nobody knows what they are talking about.
I think that you need to do more research. We’re hearing from the other side all the time; Saints, demons, angels, ‘spirits’, Jesus and Mary. It’s been going on as long as Man has existed. The problem is discernment; who and what is speaking and what is the truth.
A Los Angeles ‘channeler’ thinks she’s communicating with a native American chieftain. She might be, or it may simply be a demon leeching of her life energy and telling her just enough (worthless) truth mixed with lies to keep her hooked.
Many folks are following Saints or their religious forefathers. You are in the minority.
Of course I’m in the minority. Genius is such a lonely path.