Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS In Africa?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I feel the need to make it clear that many people who are infected with AIDS every day in Africa did not make the choice to have sex. Many of them did not have any control over whether a condom was used.

This point is critical, as is the recognition that this post's title is horribly flawed, if not dishonest. The question is not

"Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS on Africa"​

No one has suggested such nonsense. The real question is

"Are Condoms More Effective At Preventing AIDS Than Preaching Abstinence"​

And the unfortunate fact is that some theists accept AIDS victims as reasonable collateral damage in their 'religious' war against contraception.

 

[michel]

This point is critical, as is the recognition that this post's title is horribly flawed, if not dishonest. The question is not

"Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS on Africa"​

No one has suggested such nonsense. The real question is

"Are Condoms More Effective At Preventing AIDS Than Preaching Abstinence"​

And the unfortunate fact is that some theists accept AIDS victims as reasonable collateral damage in their 'religious' war against contraception.

Deut,

I have started to reply to this post three times, and scrapped the first two answers.

Whilst I agree with the principle that anyone who has not condoned the use of condoms is collaterally guilty of the spread of Aids through Africa, I think that the charge you level at theists is an unjustly harsh one; you imply that the theist is accepting the guilt of possibility of hundreds of deaths whenever he reiterates his beliefs that contraception except by abstinence is a sin.

Look at some of the fine theists on this forum; if you were to look at them in the eye, would you still accuse them ?

 

[Tawn]

Look at some of the fine theists on this forum; if you were to look at them in the eye, would you still accuse them ?

If they support abstinence from use of contraceptives, they are putting one (apparent) 'good' over another.
In the same way when a country's politicians decide to send it to war, they are accepting the deaths of servicemen as reasonable collateral damage for whatever benefit that war should bring.

Deut is not accusing them of being callous regarding their decision to take what they think to be the better choice - there are always hard decisions to be made. However he is (i think)trying to question the validity and rationality of thinking that abstinence from use of contraceptives is more worthwhile than reducing the spread of aids through the use of contraceptives.

(Additionally, trying to add a 'personal' and 'sentimental' angle to your argument is a cheap argumentative tactic. Deut might counter by holding up a small african child and ask you if you'd like to inject him with the aids virus yourself..)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whilst I agree with the principle that anyone who has not condoned the use of condoms is collaterally guilty of the spread of Aids through Africa, I think that the charge you level at theists is an unjustly harsh one; you imply that the theist is accepting the guilt of possibility of hundreds of deaths whenever he reiterates his beliefs that contraception except by abstinence is a sin.

Look at some of the fine theists on this forum; if you were to look at them in the eye, would you still accuse them ?

Michel,

Thank you for the comments, but I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me.

First, I did not "level a charge at theists" but, rather, made a statement about "some theists".

Second, I did not (and would not) argue or imply guilt as a consequence of reiterating a belief that contraception except by abstinence is a sin. What I said was: "some theists accept AIDS victims as reasonable collateral damage in their 'religious' war against contraception." I include in that group all who work proactively against the use of condoms as aids prevention.

Note:

(AP) A Vatican cardinal, Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of Colombia, made headlines last year when he said condoms don't prevent AIDS and may help spread it because they create a false sense of security.

But three months later another cardinal, Godfried Danneels of Belgium, told a Catholic TV program that if an HIV-positive person insists on having sex, "he has to use a condom. Otherwise he will commit a sin" by risking transmission of a potentially fatal virus.

A third cardinal, Javier Lozano Barragan of Mexico, told The Associated Press recently that condoms could sometimes be condoned — such as when a woman can't refuse her HIV-positive husband's sexual advances — since preserving her life is paramount. "You can defend yourself with any means," he said.

- see Vatican Split On AIDS, Condoms

Both Cardinal Godfried Danneels and Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan would agree on the sin. Do you think that either would work proactively to undermine condom use in Africa?

While your comments are always appreciated, they are most helpful when you address what I say rather than what you imagine I imply.

Let me now ask you a question. You assert:

Whilst I agree with the principle that anyone who has not condoned the use of condoms is collaterally guilty of the spread of Aids through Africa.​

Would you argue, therefore, that the Vatican is "collaterally guilty", and would you explain the difference between being "collaterally guilty" and guilty?

Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More from those I do not 'unjustly charge' ...

But church thinking tends to vary according to who is doing the talking. The Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, for example, has taken a softer line--one that closely reflects the realities facing the health care workers it advises.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, a Mexican who heads the health council, told NCR in a recent interview that he opposes the distribution of condoms, because he believes it institutionalizes promiscuity. On the other hand, he finds the use of condoms acceptable when abstinence is not an option.

"If an infected husband wants to have sex with his wife who isn't infected, then she must defend herself by whatever means necessary," he said.

This position, Barragan said, is consistent with the tenets of Catholic moral theology, which teaches that acts of self-defense can extend to killing in order to not be killed. "If a wife can defend herself from having sex by whatever means necessary, why not with a condom?" he said.

Barragan said this belief informs his decisions as head of the health care council, but added that his views are personal and that he does not speak for Pope John Paul II. "The Holy Father has never spoken explicitly on the subject," Barragan said.

Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian who teaches at Rome's prestigious Alphonsian Academy, told NCR in mid-November that with some nuance, Barragan's position would be widely shared by many Catholic moralists. While the Catholic church is unambiguously opposed to contraception as a matter of principle, Johnstone said, there is no definitive position on whether condoms could be seen in some cases as a "lesser evil" to prevent the spread of disease.

- see AIDS, condoms and grass-roots reality

And more ...

"It's a minor sin," says Wendy Guerra, head of "Program Open Door" in the sweaty city of San Pedro Sula. Hers is one of an army of Catholic-run AIDS prevention programs in tiny Honduras, home to some 60 percent of Central America's AIDS cases.

"As a Catholic charity we can't hand out condoms but we give advice about them and make sure people know where to get them," said Catherine O'Leary, a British nurse who runs the San Jose Hospice which took in Carlos when an AIDS-related disease blinded him.

- see Catholics turn to condoms in AIDS-ravaged Honduras

And more ...

Spain's Catholic Church acknowledged on Tuesday that condoms had a place in a broader strategy to halt the spread of AIDS, based primarily on sexual abstinence and fidelity.

In an apparent shift from traditional Church teachings, the spokesman for Spain's Bishops' Conference, Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, said there was scientific evidence that condoms could combat the propagation of the disease.

After meeting Health Minister Elena Salgado, the cleric said a recent study in medical journal the Lancet had supported an integrated approach to tackling AIDS, including the use of condoms and the practice of sexual restraint.

"The Church is very worried and interested by this problem, and its position is backed by scientific proposals such as the one published in the prestigious magazine The Lancet," Martinez Camino said.

"The time has come, The Lancet magazine says, for a joint strategy in the prevention of such a tragic pandemic as AIDS, and contraception has a place in a global approach to tackling AIDS," he said.

- see Spain's Catholic Church Backs Condoms to Fight AIDS

 

[michel]

Michel,

Thank you for the comments, but I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me.

First, I did not "level a charge at theists" but, rather, made a statement about "some theists".

Second, I did not (and would not) argue or imply guilt as a consequence of reiterating a belief that contraception except by abstinence is a sin. What I said was: "some theists accept AIDS victims as reasonable collateral damage in their 'religious' war against contraception." I include in that group all who work proactively against the use of condoms as aids prevention.

Note:

Both Cardinal Godfried Danneels and Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan would agree on the sin. Do you think that either would work proactively to undermine condom use in Africa?

While your comments are always appreciated, they are most helpful when you address what I say rather than what you imagine I imply.



Let me now ask you a question. You assert:

Whilst I agree with the principle that anyone who has not condoned the use of condoms is collaterally guilty of the spread of Aids through Africa.​

Would you argue, therefore, that the Vatican is "collaterally guilty", and would you explain the difference between being "collaterally guilty" and guilty?


Thanks.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you Deut.

""What I said was: "some theists accept AIDS victims as reasonable collateral damage in their 'religious' war against contraception." I include in that group all who work proactively against the use of condoms as aids prevention.""
I believed there to be an implication, in the above, that you were asserting your belief that some theists (spelt out by you as all who work proactively against the use of condoms as aids prevention) -referred to the Vatican; I know of no other groups who would work proactively against the use of condoms.
You queried my:-

"Whilst I agree with the principle that anyone who has not condoned the use of condoms is collaterally guilty of the spread of Aids through Africa."​

I am afraid I have to reply, 'Yes' I do; as to "would you explain the difference between being "collaterally guilty" and guilty?" - there is a vast difference in the Vatican being 'collaterally guilty' and being 'guilty'; the first, in my mind arises from being tunnel-visioned and unable to put itself in the mind-set of the African, whilst the second would have meant that the Vatican, in full knowledge of the consequences of its actions, went ahead, condemning people to death, in the full knowledge of what their actions would result in.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know of no other groups who would work proactively against the use of condoms.

Do a search on condoms and the Moral Majority, or condoms and the Christian Coalition, or Bush, condoms and foreign aid - it took me all of about 15 seconds to find what you know nothing about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

- there is a vast difference in the Vatican being 'collaterally guilty' and being 'guilty'; the first, in my mind arises from being tunnel-visioned and unable to put itself in the mind-set of the African, whilst the second would have meant that the Vatican, in full knowledge of the consequences of its actions, went ahead, condemning people to death, in the full knowledge of what their actions would result in.

So, when you declare the Vatican to be "collaterally guilty" but not guilty you are stating that they lack both empathy and foresight? The Vatican is hardly a repository of ignorance. On what grounds do you presume that it does not understand the consequences of its actions?

 

[michel]

Do a search on condoms and the Moral Majority, or condoms and the Christian Coalition, or Bush, condoms and foreign aid - it took me all of about 15 seconds to find what you know nothing about.

I couldn't find any articles denouncing the use of condoms in the searches that you gave, -I did not bother with Chistian Coalition or Bush because they would have been included in the 'Church Dogma' umbrella, but strangely enough, came upon this site:-http://www.suntimes.co.za/health/aids/conscience.asp

 

[michel]

So, when you declare the Vatican to be "collaterally guilty" but not guilty you are stating that they lack both empathy and foresight? The Vatican is hardly a repository of ignorance. On what grounds do you presume that it does not understand the consequences of its actions?

Possibly because the Vatican is far removed from reality, due to it's own very nature. How can an Institution that can only accept celibacy from it's priests, that are in an 'inner city of their own' - steeped in learning and tradition (both focussed on the religious aspects per se) have empathy or real foresight ? Their world is so far removed from reality - can you honestly say that you believe that they are sensitive to the 'normal' drives of mankind?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I couldn't find any articles denouncing the use of condoms in the searches that you gave, -I did not bother with Chistian Coalition or Bush because they would have been included in the 'Church Dogma' umbrella, ...

... which was not one of the search criteria offered by me. So, was it that you could not find appropriate references or that you "did not bother"?

Again, when you declare the Vatican to be "collaterally guilty" but not guilty you are stating that they lack both empathy and foresight? The Vatican is hardly a repository of ignorance. On what grounds do you presume that it does not understand the consequences of its actions?

 

[johnnys4life]

How can someone be morally accountable for another person's wrong decision? Do you HONESTLY think that giving out condoms is going to solve ANYTHING? Look at America, we have an AIDS epidemic, as well as condoms in every store, in almost every high school, in every gas station, and in most public restrooms.

A lot of it has to do with DRUGS.

And as much as I HATE it when people say AIDS is some sort of 'wrath of God' on the wicked - which is bs btw - things do have consequences. Sex has consequences, drug abuse has consequences. If sin were good, it wouldn't cause such horrible results.

And the simple fact is that a slim piece of latex that has been known to suddenly break and spew it's contents is a poor hope against ending this disease. I don't know about you, but if I knew somebody had AIDS, I wouldn't risk it.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

How can someone be morally accountable for another person's wrong decision?

When that fatal decision was made based on a lie that you told them, you are morally accountable.

 

[michel]

... which was not one of the search criteria offered by me. So, was it that you could not find appropriate references or that you "did not bother"?

Again, when you declare the Vatican to be "collaterally guilty" but not guilty you are stating that they lack both empathy and foresight? The Vatican is hardly a repository of ignorance. On what grounds do you presume that it does not understand the consequences of its actions?

I did bother; as I said, I left out sources which linked straight back to the 'Religious line' and the 'Bush line' as for your last question, I covered that in my last reply.

 

[Jaymes]

"Look at America, we have an AIDS epidemic, as well as condoms in every store, in almost every high school, in every gas station, and in most public restrooms."

They're not in mine.

 

[johnnys4life]

When that fatal decision was made based on a lie that you told them, you are morally accountable.

Umm, and who told them to go out and do drugs or sleep with someone who had AIDS?? Not me!

 

[johnnys4life]

"Look at America, we have an AIDS epidemic, as well as condoms in every store, in almost every high school, in every gas station, and in most public restrooms."

They're not in mine.

Boo hoo. Go to the local gas station. The instructions are on the package.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Umm, and who told them to go out and do drugs or sleep with someone who had AIDS?? Not me!

So, they should take responsibility for their actions and deserve the consequences of their actions? Explain to us how that applies also to the victimized women and children.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Umm, and who told them to go out and do drugs or sleep with someone who had AIDS?? Not me!

I do believe we were discussing AIDS and condoms in the context of Africa and the Catholic church.

We are not talking about heroin addicts or big haired Long Island club skanks who jump on any guy who drives a shiny Camaro. We are talking about people who do not have access to the information that we do. They have to trust what they are being told, and they are being told lies. The decisions that they make based on these lies, are causing them to acquire and spread a fatal disease.

If someone in a position of authority told your child that life jackets do not work, so it's pointless to wear one, would you feel they should be held accountable when the child drowns?

 

[BUDDY]

"Look at America, we have an AIDS epidemic, as well as condoms in every store, in almost every high school, in every gas station, and in most public restrooms."

They're not in mine.

Epidemic in the U.S.?:sarcastic What classifies as an epidemic in the U.S.? If aids is an epidemic in America, then what is heart disease and cancer? Aids is a terrible disease, but are the number of infections and rate of contraction in the U.S. enough to call it an epidemic here in the U.S? It doesn't look like it to me. It is a global pendemic and we should all do what we can to solve the problem, but the problem is not the U.S., it is in sub-saharan Africa, East Asia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Statistics for AIDS/HIV int he U.S.:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Statistics for AIDS/HIV in Africa:
http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/report.html

Statistics for other diseases:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/burdenbook2004/Section01/tables.htm