Peter Duesberg vs. The Catholic Church

[ribozyme]

I want to know how are the Church’s views on AIDS have different consequences from Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and Harvey Bialy’s views?

Duesberg’s views, of course, are dangerous as he denies that HIV causes AIDS and this can discourage proper protection and people from taking the medication used in HAART. You should look up Christine Maggoire and the story of her daughter.

The Church, of course, does not deny HIV’s causation in the development of AIDS, but it does discourage one practice that can discourage the propagation of HIV.

 

[Joan_M]

I want to know how are the Church’s views on AIDS have different consequences from Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and Harvey Bialy’s views?

Duesberg’s views, of course, are dangerous as he denies that HIV causes AIDS and this can discourage proper protection and people from taking the medication used in HAART. You should look up Christine Maggoire and the story of her daughter.

The Church, of course, does not deny HIV’s causation in the development of AIDS, but it does discourage one practice that can discourage the propagation of HIV.

I presume that you are refering to condoms? In fact, they do not discourage the propagation of HIV. Look at all the countries that encourage using condoms and you will see that they are the same countries where HIV is on the rise!

Then look at Uganda, where the principal stances urged were abstain and be faithful. They succeeded in lowering the rate of HIV infection quite dramatically.

The Church is totally right in forbidding condom use.

There is a public slogan where I live - “What’s your stance?” Well my stance is - don’t fornicate and you won’t get AIDS. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Aramis]

The Church is totally right in forbidding condom use.

There is a public slogan where I live - “What’s your stance?” Well my stance is - don’t fornicate and you won’t get AIDS. It’s as simple as that.

AMEN!

 

[Joe_Stong]

I find it very curious that at the CDC labs where they study HIV, handled in petri dishes, the lab techs don space suits, enter through an airlock and handle these little dishes with great care.

All so as to eliminate the possibility of attracting the disease through casual and accidental contact with the viruses suspended in liquid cultures.

But then the general population is encouraged to slap on a small latex sheath and “get in on” as if this is “protection”! The above is “protection” the latter is - given the deadly nature of the HIV virus - insanity.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Having sex with someone who has HIV/AIDS is like playing Russian roulette. It only takes just once. On top of that, the majority of people who wear condoms do not wear them right studies have shown when they have sex.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I presume that you are refering to condoms? In fact, they do not discourage the propagation of HIV. Look at all the countries that encourage using condoms and you will see that they are the same countries where HIV is on the rise!

Then look at Uganda, where the principal stances urged were abstain and be faithful. They succeeded in lowering the rate of HIV infection quite dramatically.

The Church is totally right in forbidding condom use.

There is a public slogan where I live - “What’s your stance?” Well my stance is - don’t fornicate and you won’t get AIDS. It’s as simple as that.

Perfect answers… totally agree.

 

[THurifer2]

I find it very curious that at the CDC labs where they study HIV, handled in petri dishes, the lab techs don space suits, enter through an airlock and handle these little dishes with great care.

All so as to eliminate the possibility of attracting the disease through casual and accidental contact with the viruses suspended in liquid cultures.

But then the general population is encouraged to slap on a small latex sheath and “get in on” as if this is “protection”! The above is “protection” the latter is - given the deadly nature of the HIV virus - insanity.

THis is incorrect…they are actually practicing reverse Isolation. I know because of Lab experience. The space suits are to protect the medium “petri dishes” from us. Anyone who has taken a simple microbiology class knows that contaminating cultures with virus/ and bacteria shed from the individual essentially ruins the culuture/propegation. Remeber in 8th grad science class when you grew your cultures? everything had to be sterile to preven normal flora contamination. When a tech innoculates blood agar or any other “petri dish” they ONLY want the pathogen in the media. One of the ways to do this is to don a space suit to insure that NOTHING from the technician “contaminates” the experiment. THe space suits that are used are used in most cases where purity comes into play even when working with harmless specimens the suits are used.

 

[Joe_Stong]

That makes sense. I stand corrected.

But given HIVs deadly nature how does putting ones’ health at risk with a condom become “the moral” stance when the free and clear alternative is abstaining in the first place (unless we think people simply cannot control themselves…if this is so, then who here thinks they’ll be employing those condoms everytime, correctly?)

I recall a theological debate years ago in which the scenario was a convent deep in Africa in danger of being overrun by guerillas who would “certainly” rape the nuns. The moral dilemna was whether or not it would be licit to airdrop them some contraceptives for “protection”.

Everyone in the room went back and forth until I mentioned the obvious: if you can get an airplane in there to make this airdrop in the first place, why not drop them some GUNS so they don’t get raped in the first place?

If ones spouse has AIDS, then what sense does it make from the perspective of LOVE for them to insist on their need for sex even if this exposes the other spouse to a deadly disease? How is that love? Wouldn’t love insist the other abstain so as to be safe?

So much of our moral debates are really a failure of imagination and inside-the-box thinking. So much of the homosexual debate posits an “either/or” dilemna that’s false: either wild abandon or loneliness… just as the pro-condom people posit: either condoms or death; when the alternative of celibate love is never considered “an option” and yet it’s always an option albiet a difficult one demanding grace. But as Christians why are we afraid of the option for grace?

 

[HoBo30]

I presume that you are refering to condoms? In fact, they do not discourage the propagation of HIV. Look at all the countries that encourage using condoms and you will see that they are the same countries where HIV is on the rise!

Then look at Uganda, where the principal stances urged were abstain and be faithful. They succeeded in lowering the rate of HIV infection quite dramatically.

The Church is totally right in forbidding condom use.

There is a public slogan where I live - “What’s your stance?” Well my stance is - don’t fornicate and you won’t get AIDS. It’s as simple as that.

Reference this: avert.org/aidsuganda.htm

The populace was told to be faithful and use condoms. The relief workers complained of a shift away from condom use in 2005; this coincided w/ another rise in the HIV infection rate.

 

[RisenShepard1]

I presume that you are refering to condoms? In fact, they do not discourage the propagation of HIV. Look at all the countries that encourage using condoms and you will see that they are the same countries where HIV is on the rise!

Then look at Uganda, where the principal stances urged were abstain and be faithful. They succeeded in lowering the rate of HIV infection quite dramatically.

The Church is totally right in forbidding condom use.

There is a public slogan where I live - “What’s your stance?” Well my stance is - don’t fornicate and you won’t get AIDS. It’s as simple as that.

Now I am completely against the idea of fornication, but to talk as if condoms do not help prevent HIV, is beyond me. As birth control goes, condoms are the best invention since sliced bread. Unlike the pill, it is a quick and effective method of contraception which does not have any health side effects. Your Uganda statement bears no truth. thebody.com/content/art9249.html

Unless one is completely lacking common sense, and puts a condom on the wrong way, or uses a fairly cheap brand condom, and it breaks, condoms are 100% effective in helping to prevent the transmission of HIV infection. Again, I am completely against fornication, birth control, etc. but everytime our country tries to set forth abstinence-only education, it’s going to fail. And, unless proper birth control methods are introduced, our youth are going to be dealing with outrageous increases in unwanted pregnancies, and HIV is more likely to strike upon them. The saddest part, IMO, is that it seems more kids in private, Catholic schools, are giving into fornication than public schools (In my location at least).

 

[Hippie4Peace]

Now I am completely against the idea of fornication, but to talk as if condoms do not help prevent HIV, is beyond me. As birth control goes, condoms are the best invention since sliced bread. Unlike the pill, it is a quick and effective method of contraception which does not have any health side effects. Your Uganda statement bears no truth. thebody.com/content/art9249.html

Unless one is completely lacking common sense, and puts a condom on the wrong way, or uses a fairly cheap brand condom, and it breaks, condoms are 100% effective in helping to prevent the transmission of HIV infection. Again, I am completely against fornication, birth control, etc. but everytime our country tries to set forth abstinence-only education, it’s going to fail. And, unless proper birth control methods are introduced, our youth are going to be dealing with outrageous increases in unwanted pregnancies, and HIV is more likely to strike upon them. The saddest part, IMO, is that it seems more kids in private, Catholic schools, are giving into fornication than public schools (In my location at least).

I couldn’t have said it any better…I don’t think administrators realize if we only give them education based on abstinence, they are not going to change their mind. Some schools have gotten it right, by actually distributing free condoms to the students.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The argument from efficacy is a bad one. I can do something that hurts myself and those around me (fornicate) as long as I take steps to ameliorate some of the incidental damage (disease).

Fornication and perverse sexual gratification is not wrong because the Bible says so; the Bible says so because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Just one reason may be that because intimacy opens up and expresses our deepest abilities to love and trust; to parley that intimacy for brief sexual gratification is a tragic trade. On this world we may never have a chance for a deeper union and to sell that intimacy for anything other than love is tragedy. There are other reasons you can find yourself with a little thinking on the right purpose of sex.

Condoms carry with them the message that perverse sex is okay so long as you try to ameliorate one of the bad side effects of perversion, disease. Unfortunately their distribution has two messages to a human being: 1. I care about you and do not want you to hurt yourself ( a good message) and 2. You are an animal with no control or dignity or awareness of your dignity who cannot see the glory of humanity and the miracle of unitive and procreative love reserved for sacramental marriage so take this: You are an object. ( a disastrous message)

The Church can only do good things in Faith and Morals. She cannot do an evil to do a good. She must always be facing toward her spouse, Jesus Christ. Since condom distribution carries with it message 2, she cannot participate in condom distribution.

But people die? Yes, they do. Sin leads to death. Repentence leads to eternal life. It is a hard choice, awfully hard, but to sell eternal souls for a few more years of life is ultimately a foolish and evil exchange that would make the Church appear good but in fact simply be a tool of the Adversary, a fate quite possible in action, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals for Peter’s See. I sympathize with the difficulties of those who do not accept the reality of Jesus Christ in accepting the seriousnress of this argument, nevertheless acceptance or not does not invalidate the argument.

A possible solution is to live the Gospel, but we all know that is the narrow road. Offer up prayers if you are called to work ion this area and never stop striving for new methodologies to get people to live the Good News. The Good News leads to 0% death: The real problem is getting people onto the narrow road.