R
rlg94086
Guest
IOW…you can’t answer my questions logically. Got it.
- Status
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
And that would be a logical fallacy.
Actually, not engaging in a fallacious argument is sensible, and that’s just another word for logical.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I have not made any fallacious arguments. This is your claim, but it does not have any basis other than your desire not to engage in conversation.
If your sexual partner had full-blown AIDS, would you rely on a condom to protect you?
It is a simple question…
If you would not, then why would you recommend such action to others?
Also a simple question…
Why would you think such logic wouldn’t apply to Africans?
Seems like a simple question to me…
Finally, since the ends justify the means, why don’t you advocate the killing of all people who have AIDS to completely irradicate the disease?
D
DeusVeritas
Guest
I mostly lurk but for this thread I had to register and post.
Zsuzsa, you seriously need to become more informed on the realities of latex. If you have even a microscopic tear in latex then pathogens that are smaller than the tear (ex. HIV virus) can easily pass through. **That is how small the HIV virus is. **
All I see in your posts are your opinions and nothing backed by facts with links.
You can go on and on about ideology but scientists and medical sources disagree with you concerning latex condoms.
the following quote from Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of the Rubber Chemistry and Technology:
“the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 mircons (.ooo2 inches) in size. Since this is roughly 10 times smaller than sperm, the latter are effectively blocked in ideal circumstances . . . . Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only .1 microns (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor 50 times smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom should it find a passage.” Aids virus is 1/25th the diameter of a sperm." C.M. Roland, The Washington Times, Wednesday, April 22, 1992, p. G-2
Lates condoms don’t prevent other types of STD’s where there is no coverage of the latex condom in the surrounding area of the genitals, lower stomach and inner thighs. Here is an excerpt from the Centers for Disease Control:
Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel
cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
However, the overall strength of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the risk of other STDs is not at the level of that for HIV, primarily because fewer methodologically sound and well-designed studies have been completed that address other STDs.
Genital ulcer diseases include genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. These diseases are transmitted primarily through “skin-to-skin” contact from sores/ulcers or infected skin that looks normal. HPV infections are transmitted through contact with infected genital skin or mucosal surfaces/secretions.
Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.
Also, if there is tearing in the condom and **you have already been infected with the Human papilloma virus (HPV) then you become more susceptible to being infected with the HIV since Human Papilloma weakens the immune system. **
Pro-condomites that speak of the backwards ideology of the Catholic faith often dismiss the other wonderful STD’s that you can become infected with even with condom use. I wonder how many parents would say to their kids **“Honey, if you are going to use a condom know that you can still become infected with an STD”. ** I doubt there are few conversations like this going on in many households.
Promoting condom use as the only answer is like giving someone a loaded-gun to play Russian roulette with ones health (STD’s) and if you still happen to get shot (infected with other STD’s when using a condom), then those are the breaks.
And to belittle those who are pro-abstinence and against condoms use as the only answer is horrifying. This kind of attitude generally looks at all human beings as beyond the capacity to exhibit self-control and keeps the HIV infection rate sky high.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
The reasoning comes from the same type of ignorance as “let them eat cake” came from – which was actually brioche, but that’s neither here nor there.
Actually, the premise of the question reflects the general attitude of Americans that is based on disrespect of others. Americans believe they have a “divine mission” to export their political model of government and to impose their religious ideology on the rest of the world. Well guess what? It won’t work.
This is your statement; not mine. The Nazi approach would never occur to me… and besides it’s highly immoral. For shame!
F
fix
Guest
Intact skin and no trauma to the skin while operating is different from what happens during sexual acts.
The surgeons are not committing immoral acts.
So, the analogy fails.
M
mlchance
Guest
Your protestations against disrespecting others would be a whole lot more convincing if you weren’t advocating a course of action that you yourself would undoubtedly reject. Perhaps the difference is that risky behavior is okay for “invisible Africans” (to use your condescending term).
– Mark L. Chance.
D
DeusVeritas
Guest
My friends here at CAF Zsuzsa is not looking to hear anyones side of the debate. He/She even when presented with an article where medical health officials using the example of Uganda agree with the Pope’s viewpoint on the AIDS epidemic, chooses to simply skip over it.
And when another poster posted an excerpt regarding Dr. Theresa Crenshaw asking 800 sexologists if they would have sex using a condom with a person they knew was infected and no one raised their hand to say yes I would. Then Dr. Crenshaw all of a sudden for Zsuzsa is accused of manipulating 800 grown adult professionals.
The same went with my post when I posted excerpts concerning latex and how condoms don’t protect one from all STD’s using the Centers for Disease Control’s own information. Zsuzsa just skips it over and chooses instead to pick apart posts that are more for the criticize and bait factor.
It is better to bid adieu to these kinds of baiting threads and so that is just what I will do. Good luck to the rest of you who will continue posting in this thread.
And when another poster posted an excerpt regarding Dr. Theresa Crenshaw asking 800 sexologists if they would have sex using a condom with a person they knew was infected and no one raised their hand to say yes I would. Then Dr. Crenshaw all of a sudden for Zsuzsa is accused of manipulating 800 grown adult professionals.
The same went with my post when I posted excerpts concerning latex and how condoms don’t protect one from all STD’s using the Centers for Disease Control’s own information. Zsuzsa just skips it over and chooses instead to pick apart posts that are more for the criticize and bait factor.
It is better to bid adieu to these kinds of baiting threads and so that is just what I will do. Good luck to the rest of you who will continue posting in this thread.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
"along comes Dimitri Cavalli and rhetorically applies it to the 680,000,000 invisible Africans” – You have taken my words and used it out of context.
The Africans are most certainly invisible to Cavalli, because he failed to consider them except in reference to 800 highly privileged westerners. In fact he didn’t consider them at all, hence the term “invisible Africans”. If anybody is guilty of condescension it is Cavalli. And while we are at it, may I remind you that shifting semantics is intellectually dishonest.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
Not every post warrants an answer. Many are repeats of the same old stuff that has been answered for the umpteenth time on this and on several other threads. And for the foolish, the offensive and the baiting comments… it is certainly a prerogative not to honour them with response.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, no answers? For shame!
Apparently, you are correct. I thought I would give ZsuZsa a chance for some actual discourse, but I got more of the same. Oh well. I will pray for him, so that perhaps someday he can fully embrace his Catholic faith.
F
fix
Guest
Surgeons do not exchange bodily fluids on mucous membranes and latex gloves break all the time. There is no comparison.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
The deduction is illogical and a straw man.
The pressure that is put on a surgeon’s glove during an operation that can last for several hours is no way near the same type of pressure that is put on condoms during a few minutes of intercourse. Latex gloves are effective barriers to protect surgeons from pathogens during operations and if they broke every five to six minutes they would not be used at all. Indeed they work. Now, to jump to the “exchange of body fluids” and making it a determining factor if condoms work or not is illogical. This is the original premise here; are condoms effective barriers or not. They are.
It’s a straw man.
F
fix
Guest
Your analogy fails. The sex act is not equal to surgery morally or medically. Broken gloves do not infect like broken condoms. The tissues involved are different as well.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
No, not if the topic happens to be whether condoms work or not – which was implied by the Pope’s distortive statement, this entire thread and furthermore the premise you keep on arguing against. I won’t be wasting any more time pointing out fallacious arguments; not against an inexhaustible storehouse of fallacies as if this discussion was some sort of sport. You can have the last word, but you have failed to prove anything aside from the fact that you happen to agree with the Pope’s misleading statement, because fallacious arguments don’t actually prove anything. If anything you have amply demonstrated how ridiculous it becomes when people try to defend something that has been based on misrepresentation of facts.
Z
Zsuzsa
Guest
Moving this thread from news to morality – essentially killed its premise. It is not possible to refute facts with morality. Thanks for your time.
F
fix
Guest
Basically, if you want to tell people to gamble with their life and soul then recommend condoms. If you want to save lives and souls tell them the whole truth. You have to look at the whole person not some statistical event devoid of moral reason.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
The first of which should be abstinence!
If you’re going to use statistics, please cite your references. No where have I seen this statistic given even by the FDA, CDC or WHO. As a matter of fact, both of those organizations realize and make the statement that the **only 100% guaranteed way **to prevent STDs is abstinence. (The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990.). If you want my statistics, I suggest you look at previous threads where I gave an entire page full of statistics citing the failures of condoms to protect against STDs (and even pregnancy - surprise, surprise). (*In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992 *). I also beg you to look at some other threads on this subject where the ridiculous impossible nature of having all African’s (especially those out in the ‘bush’) use condoms. Condoms are currently available for free to the general public, but AIDS is still sky-rocketing b/c they aren’t using them. Availability of condoms does not reduce the risks of AIDS/HIV - only correct & consistent use can possibly do that.
Again, sorry, but there is statistical evidence out there that does not agree. ("Increased condom use will increase the number of [HIV/AIDS] transmissions that result from condom failure" and “a vigorous condom promotion policy could increase rather than decrease unprotected sexual exposure if it has the unintended effect of encouraging a greater overall level of sexual activity.” “Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons” The Lancet, 29 Jan 2000). The promiscuity that condoms engender leads to users having more ‘risky’ sex. ‘Risky’ sex leads to condom failures in many instances. Also, familiarity breeds contempt sometimes - w/ condoms people tend to get complacent. Even in the industrialize West, people who use condoms regularly admit that they gradually don’t use them as often w/ their ‘regular partners’.
Therefore:
- The pope’s statement was scientifically accurate & has been backed-up statistically by various health organizations.
- The pope’s statement was theologically accurate & has been backed-up by the Catechism and previous popes.
- Contrary to popular beliefs, Catholics are not blindly following orders - we have research and deeper meanings to our beliefs. Although our beliefs may counter popular culture, we are prepared to take the most conservative route to avoid the pitfalls of popular culture. Afterall, Jesus pretty much told us we wouldn’t be popular and others would laugh at us and deride us, but our treasure lies not in this world.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
If condoms are such an effective barrier, why are there still so many instances of pregnancy & STDs when condoms are used?
- Surgeons wash their hands thoroughly prior to gloving - those preparing for sex do not thoroughly wash their genitals prior to sex (at least not that I’ve ever heard of).
- Surgical gloves are sterilized prior to use and put on very carefully in a sterile environment - usually by someone else. Those preparing for sex behave in the ‘heat of the moment’ and make mistakes during implementation of condoms.
- Hands do not normally secrete bodily fluids. Penis’s and vaginas are cornucopias of body fluids - some under pressure.
- Surgical sites are prepped for surgery by the use of anti-microbial solutions. Genitals are not.
- Surgical latex gloves are made of thicker latex than condoms - therefore, their pores are smaller and less likely to break.
- Many surgical sites have an anti-microbial solution left in place after the surgery to take care of any random contamination.
- Surgical sites are also highly maintained at a cool temperature and w/ minimal exposure to contaminants.
- Surgeons are typically covered from head to feet w/ sterile clothing. Sex takes place w/ as little between persons as possible (generally).
- Doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc are trained in the use of their personal protective equipment and know proper procedures to follow including application & removal of gloves, masks, anti-microbial solutions, etc. Condom users might read the instructions for putting a condom on & might follow the procedure for taking one off.
- In a side-by-side comparison, surgical gloves have a much better chance of protecting a patient from contamination than a condom does in ‘protected’ sex. However, even surgical gloves & proper procedures sometimes fail - resulting in infection. Why risk it?
- Status