Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

[zimv20]

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)


The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.


The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.


The [WHO] says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .


The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

[Sun Baked]

This ranks right up there with...

"Here kiddies, here's a gun go out and play cops and gangbangers. And don't forget to use 'these' hollow-point bullets."

[Sayhey]

All one can do is hope that someday the Vatican wakes up to the realities of the modern world.

[Inu]

These guys really make you laugh your ass off...

Dont use condoms, they arent protective enough. As if not using them at all is going to help :lol:

"There are Holes in Condoms much bigger than the virus itself, so they are not effective" Would actually be a dangerous thing, if the virus could travel itself. Since its sticking to all that stuff that cant pass... Go figure

[mcrain]

I think it's time for a new Pope.

[Taft]

I think its time for a whole replacement of the church leadership.

Remember this Onion piece (http://www.theonion.com/onion3837/starving_masses.html) from a few months back? Headline: "Starving Third World Masses Warned Against the Evils of Contraception."

This is basically the same thing.

Rather than following the statistically proven way to save lives (USE A CONDOM!!!), the Catholic church continues to deny the realities of human desire and actions. People will have sex. Widespread abstinance is a pipe-dream. By denying these realities and scientific evidence pointing to condoms as one of the best ways to stop the spread of desease and unwanted pregnancies (which often lead to abortions), the church is actually contributing to the deaths of thousands and thousands of people.

Yes thats what I said: by ignoring reality and pushing their own agendas on their followers, the church leaders are actually killing people. Sure, they didn't pull the trigger, but their hands are dirty.

Statements like this one by the church only re-enforce my opinion as they are blatently lying to people to further their own agenda.

I hope they repent for their sins.

Taft

[mactastic]

You mean the earth isn't flat, and the earth rotates around the sun? Blasphemy I say!

400 years from now the Vatican will finally admit that yeah, maybe condoms could have prevented the spread of AIDS.

[pseudobrit]

Abstinence, marriage and fidelity would eliminate AIDS.

I'm Catholic, but I'm realistic.
Condoms work, while the above just ain't gonna happen.

By the way, just about every single Catholic I know ignores or doesn't care about the contraception "rules."

[bousozoku]

Well, this is the same catholic church that was selling the rights to Asia and trading guns for new Catholics, so why not further the cause any way they can?

If there are more Catholics, there are more people to control and to give to keep the cardinal assembly in gold and fine fabrics.

[vwcruisn]

just another reason that makes me believe that most of the problems in our society today (and historically as well), can be blamed on religion in some way shape or form.

[Phil Of Mac]

I don't like the Catholic Church either, but face it. Condoms are only 80% effective for stopping HIV. That's a 1 in 5 chance. Russian Roulette has better odds.

And people can control themselves.

[mactastic]

80% is better than 0%

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
just another reason that makes me believe that most of the problems in our society today (and historically as well), can be blamed on religion in some way shape or form.
Dito, religion drives me nUtZ!! :eek: IMO it is so often the root cause of many (not all of course) conflicts.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mactastic
80% is better than 0%

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to play Russian Roulette with one bullet instead of six! Since there's NO WAY you can stop me from playing with guns!

:rolleyes:

Message to the world: End your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to play Russian Roulette with one bullet instead of six! Since there's NO WAY you can stop me from playing with guns!

:rolleyes:

Message to the world: End your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die!

Ok, but if you are going to play Russian Roulette anyway, wouldn't it be better to play with one bullet instead of six? Or do you prefer the 6-bullet variety?

[Phil Of Mac]

"If you're going to play Russian Roulette" anyway is a bad assumption.

Do we really think that people in third world countries are going to have sex no matter what. Do we really think they're that stupid. Is that the depth of racism that we've descended to?

What we do is we tell them, and we prove to them, we make the case to "End your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die".

It's that simple.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
"If you're going to play Russian Roulette" anyway is a bad assumption.

Do we really think that people in third world countries are going to have sex no matter what. Do we really think they're that stupid. Is that the depth of racism that we've descended to?

What we do is we tell them, and we prove to them, we make the case to "End your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die".

It's that simple.

Hell, the Russian Roulette analogy was bad from the start. I just picked up where you left off.

And I meant nothing racist by that either, I think people in developed countries copulate just as stupidly as people in developing (third world is such a racist way of putting it;) ) countries do. My only point is that if you are going to have sex anyway, use a damn rubber. I'd rather people did it responsibly with as few partners as possible, but I'm not stupid enough to think that telling people not to have sex is going to work. I think people the world over are going to have sex no matter what.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hell, the Russian Roulette analogy was bad from the start. I just picked up where you left off.

The risk of contracting HIV from using a condom is 1 out of 5. The odds are, in fact, worse than Russian Roulette.

Originally posted by mactastic
And I meant nothing racist by that either, I think people in developed countries copulate just as stupidly as people in developing (third world is such a racist way of putting it;) ) countries do. My only point is that if you are going to have sex anyway, use a damn rubber. I'd rather people did it responsibly with as few partners as possible, but I'm not stupid enough to think that telling people not to have sex is going to work. I think people the world over are going to have sex no matter what.

There have been cases, in Africa, in the past, where, for good or bad, Christianity took over, and people had less indiscriminate sex. And it worked!

The solution to the problem is not to have slightly safer sex. The solution is to not have unsafe sex in the first place.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The risk of contracting HIV from using a condom is 1 out of 5. The odds are, in fact, worse than Russian Roulette.



There have been cases, in Africa, in the past, where, for good or bad, Christianity took over, and people had less indiscriminate sex. And it worked!

The solution to the problem is not to have slightly safer sex. The solution is to not have unsafe sex in the first place.

And there have been cases where things have improved WITHOUT the Christians. What's your point there? Using a Christian prevents AIDS?

Education, condoms, and abstinance are all effective. Near as I can figure, education is only 50% effective, and even abstinance isn't totally effective (how about blood transfusions, passing AIDS from mother to child etc). I don't see why you would want to remove an effective prevention tool from the toolbox just because it isn't 100% prevention.

[Phil Of Mac]

I'm not a big fan of Christianity, and it can be done without Christianity. But my point is, for any given individual, it's reckless and irresponsible to say, "Here's a condom, have fun."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The risk of contracting HIV from using a condom is 1 out of 5.

??????

cite your source, please. it's WAY lower than that.

from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq23.htm)

Studies have shown that latex condoms are highly effective in preventing HIV transmission when used consistently and correctly. These studies looked at uninfected people considered to be at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected people. The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100 percent of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.


have a look at the transmission rates for single incident unprotected sex. you'll be surprised at how hard it is to get infected from a single incident. i think there's a reason the CDC doesn't highlight that data.

[Phil Of Mac]

98% is 1 out of 50. If a Disney amusement park ride had a 1 in 50 chance of killing people, they would be sued. If a medication had a 1 in 50 chance in causing death, the FDA wouldn't approve it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
98% is 1 out of 50. If a Disney amusement park ride had a 1 in 50 chance of killing people, they would be sued.

especially if it were called "HIV-infected Pirates of Penzance". :-)

the 98% effective rate is for repeated sexual contact, not single incident. so maybe a better comparison would be the fatality rate of people who ride several thousand rollercoasters each year.

i don't remember the exact numbers (i looked them up a couple years ago), but, for example, if i were to perform unprotected oral sex on an HIV-infected woman, once, the odds i'd get infected are something like .01%.

you know, i went back to the CDC site to find those tables... and came up empty after 20 minutes of searching. i don't remember them being that hard to find before. hmmmmm.....

[Phil Of Mac]

Nonetheless, 80% is a figure I've seen from a family planning center.

Anything near 1% is too much of a chance. Even 1% on a repeated basis. I think if people realized that, they would indeed cease their incessant and indiscriminate copulation, out of fear that they would die.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I think if people realized that, they would indeed cease their incessant and indiscriminate copulation, out of fear that they would die.

Heh. Ironically, if people ceased their indiscriminate copulation, the human race would likely die.

Or we'd just be really, really boring. And stupid hot chicks would like, almost never get laid.

You really think so many people run around having sex with anyone? I've not found that to be the case in my experience. To the contrary, I think many people are quite discerning about what they'll screw.

[Phil Of Mac]

Discriminate and faithful copulation works a lot better for procreation anyway. One should always be discriminate enough in his copulatory practices to not copulate with people who have AIDS. If you are unsure about whether the person has AIDS or not, do not copulate with them.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
you know, i went back to the CDC site to find those tables... and came up empty after 20 minutes of searching. i don't remember them being that hard to find before. hmmmmm.....

Thank gw & co. for that. They have been quite busy in erasing information on reproductive health.

BTW, I read an article recently that abstinence based sex education programs work until kids hit about 16, then they start having sex and it is way more likely to be unsafe and they are way more likely to catch an STD than are kids who are taught science based sex-ed. I'll look for the link. It was very eye opening.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Discriminate and faithful copulation works a lot better for procreation anyway. One should always be discriminate enough in his copulatory practices to not copulate with people who have AIDS.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

People have been trying to stop indiscriminate copulation for millenia. It ain't gonna happen, so we should try to minimize the effects of it.

[Phil Of Mac]

If people want to indiscriminately copulate, it's their own damn fault. Educate them to the risks. If they want to be idiots after that, that's Darwinism. Hate to be so callous about it, but there it is.

[pseudobrit]

How about educating them as to the risks, and also educate them and supply them with the tools to reduce the risks if they choose to ignore them?

What is so wrong with another safety net?

[Daveman Deluxe]

pseudobrit: that's long been my opinion.

There are only so many folks that will choose to be abstinent. If the rest don't know about birth control/STD control, we'll be in our present situation--far too many unwanted pregnancies, and approximately one out of six people ages seventeen to twenty-nine have at least one STI.

Idealists need to remember that this ISN'T an ideal world. In an ideal world, people would be abstinent until married (at least according to my world view, I suspect most people have similar views). However, that is not the case and for those who choose not to be abstinent, other solutions are warranted.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If people want to indiscriminately copulate, it's their own damn fault. Educate them to the risks. If they want to be idiots after that, that's Darwinism. Hate to be so callous about it, but there it is.

And take away their condoms so their odds are worse? I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue for here.

[Phil Of Mac]

Look, it's not easy to educate people about indiscriminate and incessant copulation, okay? That's why it isn't successful in public schools, because public schools can't successfully teach much of anything. But people are not stupid, and if someone who is educated about the dangers of indiscriminate and incessant copulation does it anyway, that person's probably stupid enough that they were bound to die anyway.

Condoms provide a false sense of security and resultantly perpetuate incessant and indiscriminate copulation. They are not a solution. Condoms are a sufficient form of contraception when combined with careful, discriminate copulation, but that's about it.

[mactastic]

Well the public school system isn't perfect, but can't teach anything? Come on. My entire education was at public schools. Mostly good ones too.

Lol, and just for the record, we are ALL bound to die anyway! Not just the fornicators.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Condoms provide a false sense of security

i think they provide real security. i understand the risks and choose accordingly. i'm going to have sex anyway, i possibly owe my continued health to condoms.


Nonetheless, 80% is a figure I've seen from a family planning center.


i believe you, but i think their number is wrong. or rather, it's at cross-purposes w/ the CDC's numbers, which i trust.


Anything near 1% is too much of a chance.

that is your choice and i respect that.

[Phil Of Mac]

I was speaking hyperbolically. However, condom ed and other "social education" programs are generally the most worthless in public schools, and not at all convincing.

I went to public school too. Good ones. I am mostly speaking about the majority of schools. I value what I learned, but I also realize that it could have been better.

[mactastic]

Things could always have been better... Optimum is an unachievable state in real life.

[Phil Of Mac]

Especially when you endanger yourself with incessant and indiscriminate copulation.

[mactastic]

Or incessant and indescriminate just about anything!

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Message to the world: End your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die!


Lord knows you aint gettin any :p

[Taft]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
98% is 1 out of 50. If a Disney amusement park ride had a 1 in 50 chance of killing people, they would be sued. If a medication had a 1 in 50 chance in causing death, the FDA wouldn't approve it.

No offense, but this argument sounds pretty hollow coming from a person who just lied to all of us. I've heard the horribly incorrect figure of 80% infection rate for regular condom users before, but its simply not true.

The rate of infection correlates very highly with the rate of condom breakage/leakage. That rate is generally considered to be a little under 2%. This reality directly contradicts the vatican's assertion that condoms don't stop the HIV virus, or your 80% stoppage figure. Its hard to take persons' arguments seriously when they are feeding people bad information.

As far as your "indiscriminate copulation" argument, it simply doesn't hold water. Most people don't have indiscriminate sex. They have sex with people they love (but not necessarily married to). They feel sex is a natural expression of that love. At the same time, they don't want to get STDs, especially something like HIV. What are they to do?

Take the appropriate precautions. Use condoms. Get tested before starting to having sex without condoms. Know your partner's sexual history. There is such a thing as safe sex and it is very effective in stopping the spread of desease and stopping unwanted pregnancies.

People like you and the Catholic Church's leaders are naive in thinking human nature can be altered. Humans have been having sexual ralations outside of marriage since the beginning of the race. People enjoy sex. People want to have sex. You and the church's preaching will not alter that.

I'd also like to see the proof of your statement that Christianity entering a region corresponded to that region's people having less sex. I could believe a *nominal* change in their behavior could have occurred, but not widespread and lasting change.

Sexual education is very important to help the spread of diseases. Safe sex which takes appropriate protection methods is very effective in stopping the spread of disease. Education which promotes abstinence and doesn't teach safe sex methods has not been proven to help stop the spread of diseases.

So while abstinence may be the most effective method of stopping the spread of disease--as well as a perfectly acceptable way to live your life--it isn't effect when taught as the only way to prevent disease. Such a program denies reality and human nature. There is no denying this.

Taft

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Taft
No offense, but this argument sounds pretty hollow coming from a person who just lied to all of us. I've heard the horribly incorrect figure of 80% infection rate for regular condom users before, but its simply not true.

The rate of infection correlates very highly with the rate of condom breakage/leakage. That rate is generally considered to be a little under 2%. This reality directly contradicts the vatican's assertion that condoms don't stop the HIV virus, or your 80% stoppage figure. Its hard to take persons' arguments seriously when they are feeding people bad information.

Thanks, I'll remember to discount your arguments the next time you make a mistake.

Originally posted by Taft
As far as your "indiscriminate copulation" argument, it simply doesn't hold water. Most people don't have indiscriminate sex. They have sex with people they love (but not necessarily married to). They feel sex is a natural expression of that love. At the same time, they don't want to get STDs, especially something like HIV. What are they to do?

Take the appropriate precautions. Use condoms. Get tested before starting to having sex without condoms. Know your partner's sexual history.

That is, again, not indiscriminate copulation. It's perfectly fine to have sex under those conditions. Unfortunately, in many cultures around the world, particularly Africa, indiscriminate and incessant copulation does happen.

Originally posted by Taft
People like you and the Catholic Church's leaders are naive in thinking human nature can be altered. Humans have been having sexual ralations outside of marriage since the beginning of the race. People enjoy sex. People want to have sex. You and the church's preaching will not alter that.

When did I ever say marriage was a necessary precursor to sexual activity? I didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Taft
I'd also like to see the proof of your statement that Christianity entering a region corresponded to that region's people having less sex. I could believe a *nominal* change in their behavior could have occurred, but not widespread and lasting change.

It didn't survive the end of European colonialism, so it evidently was not lasting change.

Originally posted by Taft
Sexual education is very important to help the spread of diseases. Safe sex which takes appropriate protection methods is very effective in stopping the spread of disease. Education which promotes abstinence and doesn't teach safe sex methods has not been proven to help stop the spread of diseases.

So while abstinence may be the most effective method of stopping the spread of disease--as well as a perfectly acceptable way to live your life--it isn't effect when taught as the only way to prevent disease. Such a program denies reality and human nature. There is no denying this.

Has abstinence *ever* been what I was advocating? No. Take the appropriate precautions. Get tested. Know your partner's sexual history. In short: cease your indiscriminate and incessant copulation, but discriminate copulation with people you're sure you can trust is okay.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

cease your indiscriminate and incessant copulation

i think the problem is that the meaning of your phrase is subjective. case in point, taft assumed it meant "extra-marital".

how would you quantify "indiscriminate and incessant"? can it be expressed it terms of frequency of contact, rate of accepting new partners, etc..?

[Phil Of Mac]

By indiscriminate, I'm referring to people not being very discriminating in their choice of sexual partners. One-night stands would fall within this category. Taft seems to be pretty naive in his belief that people only have sex if they love each other. Even in developed countries this isn't always the case. However, in the third world, this is even less the case, due to more sexually permissive cultures that seem to perpetuate indiscriminate and incessant copulation.

By incessant, I'm referring to the fact that people have indiscriminate sex far too frequently. Once or twice is one thing, but once the indiscriminate copulation is incessant, it's even more dangerous.

Basically, if you love the person, trust them, know their sexual history, sex is fine, and sex with a condom is an even better idea. However, using condoms as a shield to protect you against the dangers of incessant and indiscriminate copulation just doesn't work.

[jelloshotsrule]

it's these types of statements from the catholic leaders that dishearten me, a practicing catholic who supports gay marriage, has issues with making abortion illegal, etc...

i used to live in the idealistic world of "everyone should abstain"... but that isn't going to happen.


pseudo- how do these types of things affect your view of the church leadership? (you're about the most liberal catholic i know other than myself and my bros, so i'm curious)...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

By incessant, I'm referring to the fact that people have indiscriminate sex far too frequently. Once or twice is one thing, but once the indiscriminate copulation is incessant, it's even more dangerous.


i'm still not getting a good sense. e.g. what about one or two one-night-stands a year?

using condoms as a shield to protect you against the dangers of incessant and indiscriminate copulation just doesn't work.

...2% of the time...

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm still not getting a good sense. e.g. what about one or two one-night-stands a year?

One-night stands are inadvisable overall, but one or two a year would probably not be incessant, indiscriminate as it might be.

Originally posted by zimv20
...2% of the time...

The more incessant it is, the more the risk increases.

My point is merely that, people can do what they want, it's their individual choice, but there are some things that are highly inadvisable, and indiscriminate and incessant copulation are good examples. Just as as a matter of self-interest. You could have bisexual threesomes every weekend, but as long as you had them with people that you trusted and were pretty sure were clean, it wouldn't count as indiscriminate and incessant copulation.

If you indiscriminately copulate, but don't do it incessantly, you aren't in much danger. If you incessantly copulate, but it isn't indiscriminate, you're pretty well off in my book :D. The only problem is when it's both indiscriminate and incessant.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
it's these types of statements from the catholic leaders that dishearten me, a practicing catholic who supports gay marriage, has issues with making abortion illegal, etc...

i used to live in the idealistic world of "everyone should abstain"... but that isn't going to happen.

pseudo- how do these types of things affect your view of the church leadership? (you're about the most liberal catholic i know other than myself and my bros, so i'm curious)...

I generally have come to accept the Church hierarchy for what it is -- a bureaucracy of silly people with a few diamonds in the rough. Usually, the higher you go, the more their ambition has corrupted them. I know people of the cloth, both men and women, who are absolutely saintly. My mom's cousin (not sure what you'd call that in relation to me) was a missionary priest in Guatemala who was called to serve the rest of his time in the Vatican after a failed assasination attempt by guerillas who didn't care for his hands-on humanitarian efforts. I was brought up in a small Catholic school by an Irish nun who should be canonised for what she does.

They are the Church to me. The Vatican puts out the Catechism, which I read and use as guidance for faith and morals. But when I read about something silly the Vatican has said, I just shake my head and think of people like them, who embody what those silly old boys never could.

Oh, yeah, and one-night-stands kick ass!! I highly recommend at least one of them.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The more incessant it is, the more the risk increases.

My point is merely that, people can do what they want, it's their individual choice, but there are some things that are highly inadvisable, and indiscriminate and incessant copulation are good examples. Just as as a matter of self-interest. You could have bisexual threesomes every weekend, but as long as you had them with people that you trusted and were pretty sure were clean, it wouldn't count as indiscriminate and incessant copulation.

If you indiscriminately copulate, but don't do it incessantly, you aren't in much danger. If you incessantly copulate, but it isn't indiscriminate, you're pretty well off in my book :D. The only problem is when it's both indiscriminate and incessant.

I apologize for assuming you meant that a person should be married before having sex. That was a bad assumption.

However, I still believe that you are pushing your morals on other people. Your argument is only loosely based in fact and is supported much more by your own moral code.

The problem is that educating certain African cultures about safe sex practices is a very difficult thing. Many of these cultures deny the existence and spread of HIV. These are the types of cultures that will have a hard time believing the arguments of a West-thinking educator.

But the central point of my tirade still holds: abstinence only education won't work in easing the African HIV crisis. No matter how you characterize the sex they are having, they will not stop doing it. The only hope is to show them the reality of the disease and the ways they can prevent its spread. The easiest, cheapest, most effective, and most realistic way to do this is to promote condom use.

If you deny that point, we still have an argument. If not, then we've settled it.

Taft

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Taft
I apologize for assuming you meant that a person should be married before having sex. That was a bad assumption.

However, I still believe that you are pushing your morals on other people. Your argument is only loosely based in fact and is supported much more by your own moral code.

My own moral code is, at is basis, self-preservation. I think the ideal of self-preservation is a good thing to base an argument on.

Not overdosing on drugs is also part of my moral code. Do you really think that by recommending that to others that I'm pushing my morals on them? My *recommendations* are based on the ideal of self-preservation, and on my, in my opinion, rather accurate judgment of the best way to achieve self-preservation. Hence the complete statement: Cease your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die. It is not a command, it is a statement of the truth: either you undertake a course of action in the interest of your own self-preservation, or you fail to preserve yourself.

Originally posted by Taft
The problem is that educating certain African cultures about safe sex practices is a very difficult thing. Many of these cultures deny the existence and spread of HIV. These are the types of cultures that will have a hard time believing the arguments of a West-thinking educator.

But the central point of my tirade still holds: abstinence only education won't work in easing the African HIV crisis. No matter how you characterize the sex they are having, they will not stop doing it. The only hope is to show them the reality of the disease and the ways they can prevent its spread. The easiest, cheapest, most effective, and most realistic way to do this is to promote condom use.

Condom use will not *prevent* its spread. It will merely restrict it. It is a good place to start, because it is easier and cheaper. However, ultimately, the most effective thing to do is to educate them about the reality of the situation and about the fact that condoms are only an incomplete solution.

When used properly, condoms that are built to American standards are 98% effective in stopping HIV. That effectiveness drops dramatically over any given population because inevitably someone's going to misuse the condom. That's when you reach figures like 80%. Simply letting 20% of those people die is not something I'm willing to settle for.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Hence the complete statement: Cease your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die. It is not a command, it is a statement of the truth: either you undertake a course of action in the interest of your own self-preservation, or you fail to preserve yourself.


While not technically a command, your patronizing tone and inaccurate, even deliberately misleading, statements imply such a position. It isn't a statement of truth.

Even if the rate of infection among condom users was 20%--which it isn't--the statement "you will die" is false. Statistically, most people will not be infected if they are using condoms. If everyone is using condoms, that percentage goes up even more.

Condom use will not *prevent* its spread. It will merely restrict it. It is a good place to start, because it is easier and cheaper. However, ultimately, the most effective thing to do is to educate them about the reality of the situation and about the fact that condoms are only an incomplete solution.

You are right that condom use alone will not prevent the spread of HIV. SOMEBODY will pass the virus on. It is inevitable. That isn't the point and shouldn't be the focus of the argument.

The question should be, "what is the most effective and reliable way to prevent the spread of HIV among the general population?" The answer to that question is: educating the public in safe sex practices, including condom use. Abstinence-only education won't do it.

If we tell 100 people to use condoms every time they have sex so they will be drastically less likely to get AIDS, studies have shown that many will take that advice to heart, depending on the way that material is taught. If we tell a hundred people to stop having sex or they will get a disease and give them no other information, most will not follow that advice AND they won't know how to have safe sex.

This is the problem with what the Vatican is proposing. They are proposing that all people should stop having sex. This is ludicrous.

So we have been arguing for a while and you have yet to tell me how you would handle the HIV situation in Africa. How would you educate the people there? What implements would you put in place to help fight the spread of AIDS? Would you take the Vatican's position and preach abstinence at all costs? Your previous posts have suggested that you do.

I'm pretty sure that you can figure out my position on the subject through my previous posts.

When used properly, condoms that are built to American standards are 98% effective in stopping HIV. That effectiveness drops dramatically over any given population because inevitably someone's going to misuse the condom. That's when you reach figures like 80%. Simply letting 20% of those people die is not something I'm willing to settle for.

Would you rather 60% of them are infected? Current infection rates are VERY high in some countries, even with the Vatican preaching abstinence as the way to purity. You can improve on the rate you quoted by better education on correct use of a condom.

So give me some specifics. How should we fix the problem? You point to abstinence and the end of "incessant and indiscriminate" sex as the cure-all solution, but how would you make the population go along with such a plan? Are there any studies which suggest that such education would be effective? If that education is less successful than the promotion of safe sex techniques, wouldn't it make sense to use the safe sex programs?

Taft

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Taft
While not technically a command, your patronizing tone and inaccurate, even deliberately misleading, statements imply such a position. It isn't a statement of truth.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, I'm going to tell you to piss off. I could be (and in fact was) mistaken, but no, you'd rather make this personal. I won't stand for that, and unless you apologize, this discussion is over. Insulting people is *not* the way to argue.

Originally posted by Taft
If we tell a hundred people to stop having sex or they will get a disease and give them no other information, most will not follow that advice AND they won't know how to have safe sex.

Have I ever advocated this? You're misrepresenting my arguments. I will assume you are mistaken instead of accusing you of the straw man fallacy.

We tell them *why* reckless sexual activity spreads disease. We explain it to them until it makes sense. That is consistently what I have been saying.

Originally posted by Taft
So we have been arguing for a while and you have yet to tell me how you would handle the HIV situation in Africa. How would you educate the people there? What implements would you put in place to help fight the spread of AIDS? Would you take the Vatican's position and preach abstinence at all costs? Your previous posts have suggested that you do.

Obviously I have failed to make myself clear in my previous posts.

First, I would educate them about what HIV is and how it is spread. I would tell them that the only way they could be sure of never getting HIV was to never have sexual contact with an HIV-infected individual. I would further say that, if they were unsure about a given individual, wanted to have reckless sex anyway, or wanted to prevent pregnancy, that condoms are an adequate form of protection as long as they are properly used, however, that condoms are not a complete solution.

If I had the authority to do so, I might consider merely testing all of them for HIV and quarantine the ones who had it. Then they can have sex with wild abandon--they already have HIV, so why not?--while those who are left can be educated about the realities of human sexuality, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease in general.

Originally posted by Taft
Would you rather 60% of them are infected?

I would rather that none of them are infected. Reducing the number infected is only a partial solution, unfortunately, you seem willing to stop there.

Originally posted by Taft
Current infection rates are VERY high in some countries, even with the Vatican preaching abstinence as the way to purity. You can improve on the rate you quoted by better education on correct use of a condom.

You can improve even more on that rate by better education on not having sex with people who are infected! If you don't know who's infected and who's not, which is the case in Africa, I agree this may be untenable.

Originally posted by Taft
So give me some specifics. How should we fix the problem? You point to abstinence and the end of "incessant and indiscriminate" sex as the cure-all solution, but how would you make the population go along with such a plan? Are there any studies which suggest that such education would be effective? If that education is less successful than the promotion of safe sex techniques, wouldn't it make sense to use the safe sex programs?

It's pretty obvious that if you don't have sex with HIV-infected individuals you won't get HIV. Making this obvious to *them* is the problem. Has it successfully been done before? I don't know. Sure, let them have condoms, but don't stop there. Don't let that be a total solution. If they have a sexually promiscuous culture, then it's the culture that has to change. Right now, I don't know if anything short of quarantine will really work.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
We tell them *why* reckless sexual activity spreads disease. We explain it to them until it makes sense. That is consistently what I have been saying.

Obviously I have failed to make myself clear in my previous posts.

First, I would educate them about what HIV is and how it is spread. I would tell them that the only way they could be sure of never getting HIV was to never have sexual contact with an HIV-infected individual. I would further say that, if they were unsure about a given individual, wanted to have reckless sex anyway, or wanted to prevent pregnancy, that condoms are an adequate form of protection as long as they are properly used, however, that condoms are not a complete solution.

If I had the authority to do so, I might consider merely testing all of them for HIV and quarantine the ones who had it. Then they can have sex with wild abandon--they already have HIV, so why not?--while those who are left can be educated about the realities of human sexuality, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease in general.

It's pretty obvious that if you don't have sex with HIV-infected individuals you won't get HIV. Making this obvious to *them* is the problem. Has it successfully been done before? I don't know. Sure, let them have condoms, but don't stop there. Don't let that be a total solution. If they have a sexually promiscuous culture, then it's the culture that has to change. Right now, I don't know if anything short of quarantine will really work.

Your assumption that HIV is spread solely through sex is erroneous. While it is the major method of transmission, it is not the only one. Mother to child through breast feeding, contaminated blood, open wound to open wound, etc.

Your ideas of testing and quarantining HIV postitive individuals smacks of the worst of Nazism and Stalinism. Also, HIVers who have unprotected sex with other HIVers run the risk of becoming infected with two different strains of the virus which can then mutate into a stronger strain creating a super bug. Your ignorant suggestion would only worsen the situation, not improve it. Also, many of those infected with the virus do not fall under your much vaunted slogan. You would do well to research why it is that most people have the virus.

You keep saying that Africans are prone to promiscuous sexual behaviour but fail to realize that most of it is not inherently cultural rather a symptom of a breakdown of society. I could go on for hours about colonialism and tribalism and the rape of the continent by the multinationals and the lack of debt relief but you would do well to realize that Africa is not what you think it is and most people do want to live a long and healthy life free of disease. Condoms are only one part of the answer. Your patronizing attitude will not solve the problem. Do a little research into the situation and come back when you are better informed.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Ugg
Your assumption that HIV is spread solely through sex is erroneous. While it is the major method of transmission, it is not the only one. Mother to child through breast feeding, contaminated blood, open wound to open wound, etc.

I know that. Any serious transfer of bodily fluids can transmit HIV.

Originally posted by Ugg
Your ideas of testing and quarantining HIV postitive individuals smacks of the worst of Nazism and Stalinism.

Fortunately, the mods here do not enforce Godwin's Law, else this thread would be closed immediately.

Don't get me wrong, I have moral problems with quarantines too, but it's not unprecedented to use quarantines to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.

Originally posted by Ugg
Also, HIVers who have unprotected sex with other HIVers run the risk of becoming infected with two different strains of the virus which can then mutate into a stronger strain creating a super bug. Your ignorant suggestion would only worsen the situation, not improve it. Also, many of those infected with the virus do not fall under your much vaunted slogan. You would do well to research why it is that most people have the virus.

I'm sure many are born with it. I was unaware that being infected with different strains of HIV causes the effects you cite, but that would only be a cause to quarantine HIV-infected individuals from each other as well (perhaps not totally, but at least in terms of preventing them from exchanging bodily fluids). In fact, if we are going to admit them all to a hospital community for ongoing medical care, it wouldn't be that difficult.

Originally posted by Ugg
You keep saying that Africans are prone to promiscuous sexual behaviour but fail to realize that most of it is not inherently cultural rather a symptom of a breakdown of society. I could go on for hours about colonialism and tribalism and the rape of the continent by the multinationals and the lack of debt relief but you would do well to realize that Africa is not what you think it is and most people do want to live a long and healthy life free of disease.

Of course it's a symptom of the breakdown of society. I agree that resolving the problems of colonialism and tribalism and political corruption in Africa to allow the continent to develop would be a positive gain. If, as you are implying, Africans are having promiscuous sex because they have no other way to attempt to find relief from their lives of poverty and fear, then yes, there are ways to solve that problem. Colonialism severely screwed things up in Africa, and between the tribalism and the political corruption, they don't have a chance to develop. I agree that we can't isolate the HIV epidemic in a vacuum, and I appreciate that you mentioned that.

Originally posted by Ugg
Condoms are only one part of the answer. Your patronizing attitude will not solve the problem. Do a little research into the situation and come back when you are better informed.

If you would look at this in a rational and objective manner instead of calling me a Nazi you'd probably find that we agree more than we disagree. Indeed, if you would stop with your "patronizing attitude" you would undoubtedly find that it's fruitless to approach this issue confrontationally because we have very few points of disagreement, if any. To the end of bringing this discussion back into the realm of civil conversation, I will thank you for providing your information and insight to this discussion.

[mactastic]

I give up. Pointless to go any farther with this discussion.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you're going to accuse me of lying, I'm going to tell you to piss off. I could be (and in fact was) mistaken, but no, you'd rather make this personal. I won't stand for that, and unless you apologize, this discussion is over. Insulting people is *not* the way to argue.

It wasn't an insult. It was the truth.

And I quote:

Cease your incessant and indiscriminate copulation or you will die.

It is not true. Especially if they wear a condom. You may have been mistaken when you said it, but it isn't true. It is also very patronizing. If you were to tell the African people this falsehood in order to try to stop the spread of AIDS, it would be very patronizing. This is the one point I made that you didn't address.

Further, it wouldn't work by itself. Given the infection rate in Africa, even if people were having "discriminate and occasional" sex, the spread of HIV would continue just like it did in the US. Maybe if you backed it up with effective safe sex education it would work. But simply educating them about the perils of sex and the realities of HIV won't work. [disclaimer! I know that isn't what you were saying, but you really didn't clarify until it was too late. More on this below.]

I agree that safe sex education should talk about the importance of choice in a sexual partner. It is an important lesson to learn. But "Cease your incessant and indiscriminate sex!" is a very patronizing statement, and without any other education wouldn't help at all.

Ugg's point about it being very much related to a collapse in society is dead on. And in such a scenario, where societal constraints have broken down to the point where people do as they, want when they want, completely oblivious to the consequences, condoms are an effective stop gap solution. They limit the spread of the disease and save lives until society can be restored and more effective education programs can be put in place.

It is a difficult scenario and the way out of the problem isn't as clear as day. But the Vatican isn't helping with their message.

First, I would educate them about what HIV is and how it is spread. I would tell them that the only way they could be sure of never getting HIV was to never have sexual contact with an HIV-infected individual. I would further say that, if they were unsure about a given individual, wanted to have reckless sex anyway, or wanted to prevent pregnancy, that condoms are an adequate form of protection as long as they are properly used, however, that condoms are not a complete solution.

Then why have you been arguing with everyone here???

You seem to support condom use as an effective means of disease control, yet you continually attempt to negate our posts. I came onto this thread protesting the Vatican's lies about condoms. They said that condoms don't stop sperm, that sperm are smaller than the condom particles. That is a lie. They know it isn't true. I am against lying to people to try and alter their behavior. It usually doesn't work anyway.

You supported what they said, and seemed to argue with what we said. You said:

I don't like the Catholic Church either, but face it. Condoms are only 80% effective for stopping HIV. That's a 1 in 5 chance. Russian Roulette has better odds.

And people can control themselves.


What impression are we to get? From your posts you seemed staunchly in favor of abstinence promotion and against condom promotion. And you didn't say you would promote safe sex habits until I asked. Check your posts. I said exactly what people should do in my first post on the thread.

I'd have forgiven the misstatement about 80% odds of HIV contraction with an infected partner, but you whipped it out later again without proof. Obviously, you still believe it. I don't.

...


Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I've been arguing a consistent position the whole time. Promote safe sex techniques including condom use and stop the church's way of HIV and pregnancy prevention.

The position you finally laid out seems to be a position I can mostly agree with (as far as education is concerned, as far as the quarantine thing goes, you are on your own). But you came into this argument with some seriously misleading statements. Misleading in both a factual nature and in the sense that what you said led people to believe something other than your own stance on the issue.

Tip: statements like "people can control themselves" in the same post as a denouncement of condoms will generally be read the same way the Vatican's announcements are read: with much anger and disdain. If you are wondering why you've received such a cold reception on this thread, look to your language.

And I never called you names. The specific points in which I labeled you were after specific remarks where I thought the label fit.

Taft

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Taft
It wasn't an insult. It was the truth.

You think I was *deliberately* saying things that I knew to be untrue? That is also known as lying, and that is what you accused me of. You did not simply accuse me of making incorrect statements, you accused me of *deliberately* doing so. Your remark crossed the line from truth to false accusation.

Originally posted by Taft
It is not true. Especially if they wear a condom. You may have been mistaken when you said it, but it isn't true.

I may have. That doesn't mean I was lying, and if you are going to stand by your false accusations, it is impossible to have a civil discussion with you.

Originally posted by Taft
I agree that safe sex education should talk about the importance of choice in a sexual partner. It is an important lesson to learn. But "Cease your incessant and indiscriminate sex!" is a very patronizing statement, and without any other education wouldn't help at all.

No. I intended that as a blunt yet accurate message of the ultimate solution needed to stop the AIDS epidemic.

Originally posted by Taft
Ugg's point about it being very much related to a collapse in society is dead on.

Even I granted him that. Ugg made good points, despite his irrational urge to call me a Nazi.

Originally posted by Taft
And in such a scenario, where societal constraints have broken down to the point where people do as they, want when they want, completely oblivious to the consequences, condoms are an effective stop gap solution. They limit the spread of the disease and save lives until society can be restored and more effective education programs can be put in place.

Sure.

Originally posted by Taft
Then why have you been arguing with everyone here???

You seem to support condom use as an effective means of disease control, yet you continually attempt to negate our posts.

I support condom use as a sufficient means of disease control until more effective steps can be taken. I have been arguing with the idea that condoms are the be-all and end-all of the solution. Look at the title of this thread. I agree: condoms don't stop AIDS. They may stem it a bit, but they won't stop the epidemic.

Originally posted by Taft
I'd have forgiven the misstatement about 80% odds of HIV contraction with an infected partner, but you whipped it out later again without proof. Obviously, you still believe it. I don't.

I suggested that over a population, given improper use of condoms, it might reach 80%. I did concede that given proper use, etc., that it was invalid.

Originally posted by Taft
Tip: statements like "people can control themselves" in the same post as a denouncement of condoms will generally be read the same way the Vatican's announcements are read: with much anger and disdain. If you are wondering why you've received such a cold reception on this thread, look to your language.

Sorry for having such optimism in human nature that I thought people could control themselves. Obviously, the people in this thread cannot.

[mactastic]

Some please put this thread out of it's misery....

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mactastic
Some please put this thread out of it's misery....

Godwin's Law should have killed it a long time ago, mactastic. This thread's invincible.