Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[emiliano]

So the bible is your reason, my mistake, i actually thought you had a real argument.

Abstaining from sex is redundant morally, consequences can be omitted via contraception so your argument is useless based on modern standards. Then again, that's a sin too, so i guess this Church of yours needs to re-evaluate its stance to benefit the real world.
Sex is not immoral, its what we do. It makes us feel better and the consequences of our actions can these days be controlled.

OK here we go again and I hope that you can get it this time around, in this thread we are discussing the Pope's directive to christians in respect of the HIV pandemic spread and the use of condoms, this virus is spread mostly by sexual acts, sexual acts on themselves are normal and not a sin at all offcorse, but this discussion is in relation to infected people having sex trusting that a condom will protect them from passing the virus to another person, have you been able to follow up to this point? The Pope and everybody that has even the basic resources of information knows that one in 100 condoms fails to protect, I am sure that this is the highest quality assurance possible , Now to marality, IMO anybody that knows that is infected and have sex even using a condom commits an immorality, because knowing that there is one in a hundred chances of infecting another human being, goes a head and murder that person (there is no cure for AIDS) in the event of the condom's failure of course.

 

[Smoke]

The Pope and everybody that has even the basic resources of information knows that one in 100 condoms fails to protect

That's simply not true. Condoms almost never fail when used properly. The reason condom use isn't more effective is that people don't use them properly and consistently.

You can say that abstinence is very effective indeed, but abstinence-only education is not. People don't always do what they're taught to do, whether you're teaching them abstinence or responsible behavior. However, it seems likely to me that people who bother to use condoms are going to try to use them properly; otherwise, why bother at all? Isn't it likely that most improper condom use is the result of condom users not having comprehensive sex education?

In other words, isn't it likely that most -- if not all -- of the failure you ascribe to condoms is actually the failure of the very kind of abstinence-only pseudo-education you advocate?

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, abstinence campaigns are largely to blame for the increased practice of less traditional forms of sex. There is even a whole jargon about "technical virginity". I've known people who actually became pregnant due to over-reliance on such practices.

 

[darkendless]

OK here we go again and I hope that you can get it this time around, in this thread we are discussing the Pope's directive to christians in respect of the HIV pandemic spread and the use of condoms, this virus is spread mostly by sexual acts, sexual acts on themselves are normal and not a sin at all offcorse, but this discussion is in relation to infected people having sex trusting that a condom will protect them from passing the virus to another person, have you been able to follow up to this point? The Pope and everybody that has even the basic resources of information knows that one in 100 condoms fails to protect, I am sure that this is the highest quality assurance possible , Now to marality, IMO anybody that knows that is infected and have sex even using a condom commits an immorality, because knowing that there is one in a hundred chances of infecting another human being, goes a head and murder that person (there is no cure for AIDS) in the event of the condom's failure of course.

The pope preaches that people should not have sex anyway, infected or not. But then again that doesn't support your arguement does it so thats why you decided to omit that little fact.

 

[emiliano]

That's simply not true. Condoms almost never fail when used properly. The reason condom use isn't more effective is that people don't use them properly and consistently.

You can say that abstinence is very effective indeed, but abstinence-only education is not. People don't always do what they're taught to do, whether you're teaching them abstinence or responsible behavior. However, it seems likely to me that people who bother to use condoms are going to try to use them properly; otherwise, why bother at all? Isn't it likely that most improper condom use is the result of condom users not having comprehensive sex education?

In other words, isn't it likely that most -- if not all -- of the failure you ascribe to condoms is actually the failure of the very kind of abstinence-only pseudo-education you advocate?

Why would the Church teach anything but abstinence? I am telling folks in here, that this is the area of competennce of the Church, IMO the education on condom's correct usage fall on the condoms manufacturers lap, we are not going to have religious services where their usage is taught, the area of expertise of abstinence falls on the Church and they are doing a good job, if you put your trust on the condom manufacturers education and you don't get it right once, you will die, don't spread it so that you don't have additional guilt to deal with, don't blame the Church or God for your poor choices.

 

[Imagist]

When birth control is needed for economic purposes, the Church permits what it calls "natural family planning"- a natural form of birth control based on rhythms of fertility (which is highly effective).

If by "highly effective" you mean 75% effective. I don't even consider this a form of birth control because the results are so hit-or-miss that average fertility from couple-to-couple is more variant.

Furthermore, the allowance of this method is highly hypocritical when you compare it with the RCC's stance on when life begins. The RCC asserts that the human life begins at conception, and thus ban birth control methods that prevent implantation. However, rhythm/calendar methods cause a very high rate of conception without implantation. Some studies have even found it
creates more embryos incapable of implanting than use of the pill (which the RCC prohibits because it creates embryos incapable of implanting).

 

[Imagist]

one been that this devise has been found to fail, one in a hundred fails to protect and to be fair these is a highest quality assurance perhaps the highest possible one,

1) This is not true.
2) Even if it were, it would still be more effective than abstinence, since abstinence simply doesn't happen.

and it must be expensive to implement and as the manufacturer are in the business of making a profit for their investor a I doubt that they'll willing to lift the present level of quality assurance,

If you understood even basic economics you would understand that lifting the level of quality assurance results in profits for the investor.

another reason is that the Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics/Christians

No, he isn't. He is the spiritual leader of Catholics. I suggest you learn the basic facts about your own religion before you go around asserting that the pope's actions aren't irresponsible.

and that there are other issues involved that need to be considered, it would be impossible for you to understand this (you are not a spiritual person) because you are an atheist ( reason won't work)

*edit*.

The Pope must consider concepts that you could not possibly grasp in the state your are in, concepts as repentance, penance and behavioural changes, abstinence.

Somehow I still am under the impression that the deaths of thousands if not millions of people is a bigger deal than any of these.

 

[Imagist]

Come to think of it, abstinence campaigns are largely to blame for the increased practice of less traditional forms of sex. There is even a whole jargon about "technical virginity". I've known people who actually became pregnant due to over-reliance on such practices.

You are correct. See saddlebacking.

 

[Imagist]

Why would the Church teach anything but abstinence?

Because condom usage actually happens if you teach it, whereas abstinence doesn't.

the area of expertise of abstinence falls on the Church and they are doing a good job,

If they were experts in abstinence, they would know it doesn't work.

if you put your trust on the condom manufacturers education and you don't get it right once, you will die,

This kind of chicken-little inflammatory statement is ridiculous. A condom, even improperly used, has a good chance of preventing HIV transmission. In fact, even unprotected sex with an HIV positive person doesn't mean "you will die". The transmission rates with only one sexual encounter are still relatively low.

don't blame the Church or God for your poor choices.

Nah, the church makes enough poor choices of their own.

 

[Smoke]

Why would the Church teach anything but abstinence?

Because comprehensive sex education might actually do people some good.

I am telling folks in here, that this is the area of competennce of the Church

Abstinence is hardly the Church's area of competence. Catholic women have a higher abortion rate than Protestant women, and as for the clergy, their chief method of contraception is having sex with boys instead of girls.

 

[emiliano]

If by "highly effective" you mean 75% effective. I don't even consider this a form of birth control because the results are so hit-or-miss that average fertility from couple-to-couple is more variant.

Furthermore, the allowance of this method is highly hypocritical when you compare it with the FCC's stance on when life begins. The RCC asserts that the human life begins at conception, and thus ban birth control methods that prevent implantation. However, rhythm/calendar methods cause a very high rate of conception without implantation. Some studies have even found it
creates more embryos incapable of implanting than use of the pill (which the RCC prohibits because it creates embryos incapable of implanting).

75% sound pretty good to me, and places this method right up with the best of them.
Do you have statistic on the other methods of family planing?

 

[LuisDantas]

75% sound pretty good to me, and places this method right up with the best of them.

You must be kidding.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Does anybody have any evidence that the Church's teaching on contraception is causing a surge in HIV infection rates in Africa?

 

[Storm]

75% sound pretty good to me, and places this method right up with the best of them.
Do you have statistic on the other methods of family planing?

My bc is 99.99% effective with typical - not perfect - use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does anybody have any evidence that the Church's teaching on contraception is causing a surge in HIV infection rates in Africa?

The Catholic Church specifically? Probably not. Abstinence-only education generally, yes, I think the statistics bear out that the position the Church takes on this issue kills people... though their stance is also taken by other groups outside the Catholic Church.

 

[logician]

Does anybody have any evidence that the Church's teaching on contraception is causing a surge in HIV infection rates in Africa?

Maybe the church should have done surveys BEFORE the pope made his uninformed statement.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Catholic Church specifically? Probably not. Abstinence-only education generally, yes, I think the statistics bear out that the position the Church takes on this issue kills people... though their stance is also taken by other groups outside the Catholic Church.

The statistics that HIV is on the rise? Is it simply reasoned that condoms are being given to Africans, but HIV rates keep going up, and, hence, there must be some ideological factor such as "abstinence only" education in the way?

 

[Imagist]

75% sound pretty good to me, and places this method right up with the best of them.
Do you have statistic on the other methods of family planing?

As noted by storm, other forms of birth control offer up to 99.99% effectiveness.

But my real puzzle here is this: you claim that 1 in 100 is too high a chance to take, but 1 in 4 is okay with you? Never mind that the actual transmission rate with a condom is actually more like 1 in 5000, not 1 in 100.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The statistics that HIV is on the rise? Is it simply reasoned that condoms are being given to Africans, but HIV rates keep going up, and, hence, there must be some ideological factor such as "abstinence only" education in the way?

No, this conclusion isn't just based on assumption:

Abstinence is the most controversial area of Uganda’s HIV prevention campaign. Although it has always been part of the country’s prevention strategy it has come under scrutiny since 2003 following significant investment of money for abstinence-only programmes from PEPFAR, the American government’s initiative to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is felt that PEPFAR has shifted the focus of prevention in Uganda from the comprehensive ABC approach of earlier years.


PEPFAR is channelling large sums of money through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations that are faith-based, and believe sexual abstinence should be the central pillar of the fight against HIV. Abstinence-only is also being encouraged by evangelical churches within Uganda, and by the First Lady, Janet Museveni28.


This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only"29. Dozens of billboards around the country have sprung up promoting only abstinence to prevent HIV infection and sometimes discouraging condom use. Some leaders of small community-based organisations also report they are aware that they are more likely to receive money from PEPFAR (which is the largest HIV-related donor to the country) if they mention abstinence in their funding proposal30.

"PEPFAR really shifted the emphasis to A and B [Abstinence and Being faithful] just because of the amounts of money being put into these programmes"Sam Okware, senior Health Ministry official and architect of Uganda's ABC model. – 31​

Stephen Lewis, while UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, said that PEPFAR's emphasis on abstinence above condom distribution is a "distortion of the preventive apparatus and is resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred"32.

This worry about discussing condoms isn't constrained just to Uganda. And condom distribution has suffered as well:

The momentum of condom distribution was lost in 2004 when the Ugandan government issued a nationwide recall of the condoms distributed free in health clinics, due to concerns about their quality. Millions of condoms were incinerated, and by mid-2005 there was said to be a severe scarcity of condoms in Uganda, made worse by new taxes which made the remaining stocks too expensive for many people to afford37.

Some experts, including Stephen Lewis, believe that America was largely to blame for the shortages. Mr Lewis said "there is no question that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven and exacerbated by PEPFAR and by the extreme policies that the administration in the United States is now pursuing"38.


In June 2006, the Ministry of Health announced it had, with assistance from the World Bank, imported 80 million re-branded condoms for free distribution39.

Conflicting messages and problems with distribution appears to have had an effect on the number of people using condoms. UNAIDS found that condom use during sex with non-regular partners was reported by 20%, 39%, 47% and 35% of women in 1995, 2000, 2004–2005 and 2006, respectively, and by 35%, 59%, 53% and 57% of men40.

Source: HIV & AIDS in Uganda

Edit: Also, it isn't just a matter of HIV rates continuing to rise unabated. At least in the case of Uganda, HIV rates dropped dramatically after introduction of their "ABC" campaign. Then, as the campaign shifted away from condoms and emphasized more "abstinence only", HIV rates once again began to rise.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Thanks for the link. It's odd, because I recall Dr. Green saying something quite different than that- that a rise of infections in Uganda were connected to an increase of condom promotion. I found this small statement anyways from a recent symposium sponsored by the Templeton Foundation which concluded that:

In every example in Africa of prevalence rates falling, there have been significant declines in casual, multi-partner sex in the previous years. Thus, when more men and women practice mutual fidelity, national prevalence rates fall.

- Abstinence works, and can and should be promoted. It works best as a broader character formation effort that includes teaching skills in forming friendships, understanding peer pressures, fostering self respect and respect for others, what it means to fall in love, what it means to take responsibility for one's own behavior, and how certain actions and decisions can have life-long consequences.

Uganda Model Lessons Combating HIV

The people involved in this were more than Dr. Green of course- and I think its reasonable to say that the Pope's statement which sparked all this- that condom distribution has increased the problem- may indeed have some merit.

Are there any posters who would find it reasonable that the Church continue to promote abstinence as the only option for faithful Christians, but nonetheless not hinder attempts to educate people on what options there are if people chose to have sex?

I do not oppose, by any means, education on sexual health. But from a moral stand point, I can not see how it is reasonable to expect the Church to actually teach the methods to subvert its own convictions- and those of an entire culture, mind you. One of the reasons it is supposed that fidelity programs have had success in Africa is because there exists there a more conservative culture with the social structures to support it.