Contraception in Africa

  • Thread starter Thread starter cathjuche
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Salon is covering Catholic moral teaching, I won’t waste the physical energy nor electrical power required to dignify their coverage with a click and a read.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Catholic teaching isn’t killing anyone. The (Old) article is obviously promoting an Agenda and it’s wrong.
 
Last edited:
The article opens with the following
Religions are bundles of ideas and superstitions.
Click to expand...
I’m not wasting much time reading the article after that. The author obviously doesn’t respect religion, and I don’t expect them to offer much meaningful discussion about it after that.

Ultimately, the Church’s stance on sex will seem overly rigid to almost everyone but Catholics. With that said, its stance on healthy sexual relations is sufficient for dealing with this problem if people live up to it.
 
The premise for this argument has always struck me as especially silly. Let me explain:

The Catholic Church teaches two things here:
  1. You’re not supposed to have sex until you get married and then only with your spouse
  2. You’re not supposed to use contraceptives
The Church bashers have a profoundly illogical argument that goes like, people are not using condoms because of church teaching…but they are having sex illicitly despite church teaching…and so they’re getting infected.

Who here knows of a catholic who willingly has pre-marital or extra-marital sex but feels condoms are just one step too far for them to go??? It amazes me the weird caricatures people with no faith draw about people with faith…it just shows you how unfamiliar they are about the mindsets of people who take their religion seriously enough to obey in things like this.
 
Yes it’s very problematic. As a person living in the country considered to have probably the highest HIV and Aids statistics… what would the answer be? Just do not have sex? That is not realistic or helping in any sense. And this is regardless if what the article is saying. Just what is happening.
 
Not even reading this. Catholic teaching is spot on. You should never remove negative consequences for unhealthy behavior, because the negative consequences serve as a deterrent for said unhealthy behavior. For example, when people eat unhealthy they gain weight. So gaining weight is a negative consequence that deters people from eating unhealthy and hence is good since causes people to have better heart conditions, etc. Same with promiscuity = pregnancy is a negative consequence of that and when you remove it (through birth control, abortion, etc) you incentivize more promiscuity since human beings respond to incentives and removal of negative consequences just means more of the unhealthy behavior. Hence adultery, divorce and out of wedlock births increased from 4-5% to 40-50% in past 50 years. The numbers dont lie. Families destroyed, children emotionally ruined, etc.
 
MichaelP3 said:
what would the answer be? Just do not have sex?
Click to expand...
Somehow for 100,000+ years in Africa that was the law of the land before condom was invented. But 100 years ago a technological breakthrough has suddenly made what was possible for 100,000 years now impossible.
 
Don’t know where you were but HIV and Aids came in the 1980s.

And also for a 100 000 years having a sexual “law of the land” seems pretty idealistic.

Try again!
 
Last edited:
The following statistics are from 2007 but are still relevant.

The idea that Catholic teaching causes the spread of HIV is largely contradicted by the demographics.The hypothesis is that Catholic doctrine spreads HIV and AIDS. Instead, there are lower HIV rates in many Catholic-dominated countries (although the trend is not statistically significant).

The ten countries in continental Africa with the highest percentage of Catholics (2007)

Equitorial Guinea (93.52% Catholic / HIV rate 3.4%)
Burundi (65.25% Catholic / HIV rate 2.0%)
Lesotho (53.62% RC/ 23.2% HIV)
Congo (50.49% RC / 3.5% HIV)
Angola (50.04% RC / 2.1% HIV)
Democratic Rep. of Congo (49.45% RC / 1.2-1.5% HIV)
Rwanda (47.92% RC / 2.8% HIV)
Gabon (46.42% RC / 5.9% HIV)
Uganda (42.28% RC / 6.7% HIV)
Zambia (28.22 RC / 15.2% HIV)
This isn’t a true “African top ten” though. Some small island countries such as Cape Verde, Reunion and the Seychelles are over 90% Catholic and all have very low AIDS rates.

The ten African countries with the highest rates of AIDS (2007)

Swaziland (26.1% HIV rate / 5.56% Catholic)
Botswana (23.9% HIV rate / 4.78% Catholic)
Lesotho (23.2% HIV / 53.62% RC)
South Africa (18.1% HIV / 6.36% RC)
Namibia (15.3% HIV / 16.78% RC)6) Zimbabwe (15.3% HIV / 8.79% RC)
Zambia (15.2% HIV / 28.22% RC)
Mozambique (12.5% HIV / 22.33% RC)
Malawi (11.9% HIV / 21.76% RC)
Uganda (6.7 % HIV / 42.28%)
The prevalance of HIV in a nation is determined more by geography than religious demographics. Southern and south-east Africa has far higher infection rates than the rest of the continent, including numerous highly Catholic countries in central Africa.
 
Last edited:
When one spouse has contracted HIV, the innocent spouse suffers… Catholic teaching would mean the innocent spouse must abstain from sex for the rest of her or her life… a sexless marriage. Everyone has their cross, but some of the answers on this thread are pretty glib about it.
 
Condoms are not very good in preventing pregnancy. What’s the failure rate?

WHY would I pressure my spouse to have sex with me when I am infected with AIDS? It is beyond selfish. A person would rather infect their spouse with a disease that will slowly kill them than give up sex. It’s mind blowing.

Pushing condoms as an effective means of preventing the transmission of AIDS will only give a false sense of security and more ammunition to push for sex with an infected partner.

We have a much tougher attitude when a woman says that her husband is gambling all our money away and we lost the house, or a woman says her husband is alcoholic and he’s drinking away our food money. Then we reply that you have to protect yourself and your family. His destructive behavior is going to harm you and your children.

Let the infected person find the medical help they need, but protect yourself and your family first.
 
Catholic teaching would say you’re not “innocent” if you married someone who you knew or should have known has character of a serial philanderer that contracts HIV. For someone committing that level of adultery, there is almost always warning signs. Not 100% sure, but most of time. That’s why Catholic teaching emphasizes discernment in relationships unlike almost any other entity in today’s culture.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Don’t know where you were but HIV and Aids came in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
You’re proving my point. AIDS is like pregnancy in the sense that both are deterrents to promiscuity. So if anything AIDS just put more teeth behind what you characterized as “just do not have sex” as compared to 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. when AIDS was not there and pregnancy was only deterrent.
 
Last edited:
I’d wager pregnancy wasn’t a deterrent as long as 500 years or even less ago.

Not sure about your point. 100 000 years ago "ah she may get pregnant " and “let’s just not have sex”. Unless the 100 000 years of the “law of the land” was some kind of exaggeration of a point. Of which I would ask you again, to Try again.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Catholic teaching would say you’re not “innocent” if you married someone who you knew or should have known has character of a serial philanderer that contracts HIV. For someone committing that level of adultery,
Click to expand...
Again. Not sure where you are coming from but it can take only one sexual encounter (out of wedlock) to contract HIV. I am sure many Catholics on here would agree that does not fall outside their “past sins”. It doesn’t make you what you say. Just a sinner like the rest of us.
 
Yeah maybe more than 500 years ago babies didn’t require any personal sacrifices to raise. Who knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top