Pope says condom distribution making AIDS worse

[TimG]

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

I have no problem with encouraging abstinence. I do have a problem with abstinence only programs.

 

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice. And, I would not like it if sex education was taught with that slant. Abstinence good, intercourse evil, isn't what sex education should be about, in my opinion, regardless of whether condoms are being handed out.

[luke warm]

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

[Winstonm]

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then. I had brought up the point that because it is a bloodborn pathogen condom use may not have any bearing at all on risk. For example, let's say one control group used condoms but a second control group abstained from sex but both control groups received blood transfusions from HIV contaminated blood - condoms and abstinence don't really matter - the *****ers and the *****less are both *****ed.

 

To this you said:

 

so what?

 

You then went on to make a claim that the article's premise was that abstinence lowers the instances of hiv more than condoms - which was clearly not the intent of the passage - (but an idea that has been espoused strongly by the Christian Right) when abstinence alone was clearly not even the sole method utilized. You totally ignore the method of monogamous relationships that was mentioned. And you totally ignore the true premise stated that "condom use may increase Aids exposure".

 

the premise is that abstinence lowers the instances of hiv more than using condoms does... do you disagree with that?

 

So you take a scientific/health issue article and find a single phrase that can with a stretch be expanded to incorporate your beliefs (which happen to coincide with the beliefs of the Christian Right) then you make the claim that the entire basis for the article was the passage you point out - after which you wonder how anyone could possible cast a moral/religious-influence-doubt on your thoughts?

 

("delayed sexual activity for young people" - that's as close as you'll come in the original post to the concept of abstinence.)

 

Here is the original premise in the article quoted:

 

evidence confirms that the Pope is correct in his assessment that condom distribution exacerbates the problem of AIDS.

[barmar]

Let me refresh your memory, then. I had brought up the point that because it is a bloodborn pathogen condom use may not have any bearing at all on risk. For example, let's say one control group used condoms but a second control group abstained from sex but both control groups received blood transfusions from HIV contaminated blood - condoms and abstinence don't really matter - the *****ers and the *****less are both *****ed.

None of those people would affect the results of a study comparing condom use with abstinence, unless there's a correlation between getting tainted blood transfusions and one of those practices. Sure, they're both *****ed, but they're *****ed the same amount.

[luke warm]

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then.

the fact remains that i wasn't speaking of a moral issue regardless of how many times you say 'christian right' or 'neoconservative' or any other term you choose to use... that's all

[kenberg]

At the risk of a hail of bullets from both sides, I note that Jimmy says:

 

 

"i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice"

 

while Richard says

 

"From my perspective, the "big" piece that is missing is discussion regarding combining messaging and providing condoms."

 

Perhaps not total agreement but miraculous all the same. "Blessed are the peacemakers..."

 

One further thought about the Pope being right or wrong: Suppose I am playing a contract, I have to decide whether to finesse or play for the drop, and i receive advice from both the Pope and from Michael Rosenberg. If they disagree, I follow Rosenberg's adviec. If they agree, you could say that I follow the Pope's advice, but only because he agrees with Rosenberg. So it is here. If scientific studies show that in some identifiable instances promoting abstinence is a real winner (seems unlikely but anything is possible) then fine, put resources into promoting absitnence. If the Pope wants to claim credit, fine. Similarly, if the Pope religiously follows the rule of Eight Ever, Nine Never, he will be right some of the time. B ut I'll take my advice from Rosenberg.

 

 

 

To my mind, surely a combined approach is, a priori, the most appealing. One could start the education by:

Men: Picking up women in bars and having unprotected sex may be hazardous to your health

Women: If a guy does drugs, say no. Not maybe. No. Never mind about condoms. Just No.

 

Obviously we could hope for better. Got to start somewhere.

[Winstonm]

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then.

the fact remains that i wasn't speaking of a moral issue regardless of how many times you say 'christian right' or 'neoconservative' or any other term you choose to use... that's all

O.K. I accept that and I believe you.

 

I know what it is like to not say exactly what you mean when typing in a forum like this - and I've been called out for the same type of slip where I had to later try to explain what I meant rather than how it came out in type.

 

No problem, Mate.