UK-STD testing in pubs

[thomfra]

Please don’t be absurd and don’t try to place me into a strawman position I don’t hold.

And why try to drive a rhetorical wedge between science and morality? That is just parochial. It is perfectly legitimate to have both a valid scientific and moral basis in one’s belief’s.

You still have not explained the mathematics (nor the morality) behind the philosophy about motivating higher frequency of intimacy and expecting less death and disease rates unless you can prove to me that the higher resultant birth rates offset the death rates. Are you attempting to inject some subtle Machiavellian process variant here?

James

So what position do you hold James? My postion is clear. Condoms stop the spread of HIV and save lives. This is what the WHO have attested. I mean even Catholic priests working with this issue think that the greater good is done by allowing condom use. (google it).

You say this is not the case, or at have at least “selectively ignored” freely availible information. Machiavellian thinking at it’s best? Or was your attempt to “educate yourself on the numbers” clouded by your morals?

 

[LRThunder]

So what position do you hold James? My postion is clear. Condoms stop the spread of HIV and save lives. This is what the WHO have attested. I mean even Catholic priests working with this issue think that the greater good is done by allowing condom use. (google it).

You say this is not the case, or at have at least “selectively ignored” freely availible information. Machiavellian thinking at it’s best? Or was your attempt to “educate yourself on the numbers” clouded by your morals?

Condoms don’t always stop the spread of HIV. I’ve heard there are holes in them that are bigger than the virus themselves.

In any case, the only real sure way of avoiding HIV is abstinence. Sure, one could use condoms, but let’s just say it’s no more safer than playing Russian roulette.

 

[thomfra]

Condoms don’t always stop the spread of HIV. I’ve heard there are holes in them that are bigger than the virus themselves.

In any case, the only real sure way of avoiding HIV is abstinence. Sure, one could use condoms, but let’s just say it’s no more safer than playing Russian roulette.

Your **second **statement is correct. The only sure way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is total abstinence. But this philsophy hasn’t gotten us anywhere. As you well know, people (in general) don’t stop having sex because we tell them they should. So we have to rely on what is the next best thing which is to promote the use of condoms for safer (i.e. lower risk) sex. People seem to use condoms when instructed on how to use them, and the reasons why.

The **first **statement you made is not correct. The virus does not penetrate the condom. There are also other factors that effect whether the virus is transmitted from one person to another. But that would just complicate things further to talk about that.

 

[LRThunder]

Your **second **statement is correct. The only sure way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is total abstinence. But this philsophy hasn’t gotten us anywhere. As you well know, people (in general) don’t stop having sex because we tell them they should. So we have to rely on what is the next best thing which is to promote the use of condoms for safer (i.e. lower risk) sex. People seem to use condoms when instructed on how to use them, and the reasons why.

The **first **statement you made is not correct. The virus does not penetrate the condom. There are also other factors that effect whether the virus is transmitted from one person to another. But that would just complicate things further to talk about that.

Just because people don’t engage in abstinence, doesn’t mean we should aid and abet their behavior.

 

[thomfra]

Just because people don’t engage in abstinence, doesn’t mean we should aid and abet their behavior.

If it saves lives we should. Some of these people have kids for example. Do your realise how many orphans there are in Africa because of this?

 

[peary]

UK is opening “youth” clinics (age 13 and up). I thought this article was interesting in that the sexually transmitted disease rates are so high that this woman is doing STD’s tests in the pubs.

I can imagine what would happen if they went into the major bars in the U. S. cities and tried this approach.

wigantoday.net/wigannews/Clubbers-in-VD-spot-checks.4258626.jp

The patrons are asked to participate; the tests are not mandatory.

 

[CentralFLJames]

So what position do you hold James? My postion is clear. Condoms stop the spread of HIV and save lives. This is what the WHO have attested. I mean even Catholic priests working with this issue think that the greater good is done by allowing condom use. (google it).

You say this is not the case, or at have at least “selectively ignored” freely availible information. Machiavellian thinking at it’s best? Or was your attempt to “educate yourself on the numbers” clouded by your morals?

My thinking is not clouded - it is you who are ignoring the trends and the incompetence of WHO and other such organizations in effecting a sustainable solution. I would like to see you back up your claim about Catholic priests advocating the ridiculous notion of achieving a greater good through encouraging sinful and morally improper conduct. I know of a few nuns who started to go down this path but they were removed from their orders or censured.

The position I hold is that HIV and such STDs are avoidable through primary behavior modification.

Personally I think you place too much faith in WHO - an organization who’s credibility in this area is very dubious given that AIDS/HIV is increasing (not decreasing) on their watch by using their methods.

Even here in the USA where we have “educated” people who all now know the facts about AIDS. We nonetheless have specific groups of people who ELECT through freewill to take on the higher risk through promiscuous sex (with higher condom usage). Why is that? If higher death rates are not a good enough teacher of what works and what does not work nor is it a sufficient motivator for behavior modification then what do we have left as options? It would seem that with all the knowledge out there on this disease that the world is either: 1) insane and populated by suicidal people or 2) full of people who are not in control of their own behaviors. I hold that it it #2 and that the strategy of facilitating an increase in intercourse is just like giving drugs to an addict to keep him happy knowing full well that they will never be able to break their habit and get progressively sicker.

Here is the latest info in the USA.
Reuters:cases up in men who have sex with men:

AIDS

Between 2001 and 2006, male-to-male sex was the largest HIV transmission category in the US, and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, according to a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The increase was highest among boys and men between the ages of 13 and 24 years who had sex with other males, particularly among ethnic minorities.

Of 214,379 diagnoses during the study period, 46 percent were among MSM. The rate of new diagnoses declined in all other transmission categories – injection drug use, high-risk heterosexual contact, and other routes of transmission.

More facts:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity.

This sure tells me where the most bang for our Tax Dollar can be spent. Maybe instead of researching ways to treat AIDS we should research ways to change behaviors?

More insight:
Homosexual Org Admits: AIDS is a 'Gay Disease':

Homosexual Org Admits: AIDS is a ‘Gay Disease’

Matt Foreman, the former Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, admitted a few months ago that AIDS is primarily a “gay disease”:

“Internally, when these numbers come out, the ‘established’ gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”

Behavior change is clearly necessary for all people. But why limit it to just sexuality or sexual practises? If the Tax payer is being forced to treat diseases coming from elective live styles why can’t tax payers tart pushing back and demanding some changes in lifestyle? It used to be illegal for illicit sex - both hetero and homosexual. Stew on the deep cultural implications of that idea for a moment.

Rather than develop methods that motivate an increase in the frequency of intercourse why not teach personal morality and personal discipline? Right now we are teaching disciplines for “how to have safe sex and MORE of it” - the motivator being “more” but the safe part being in practise a lie. Why not teach instead “how to have more meaningful and responsible relationships with licit sex”?

The world has forgotten the virtue of chastity and thinks it is an outdated concept. HIV/AIDS and STDs are direct consequences of lack of chastity, sinful behavior, lack of personal responsibility and are no doubt interrelated to lack of self esteem and sense of self worth as well.

But the spiritual truth that no one in the medical community nor science wants to hear though (and certainly these can’t speak out of school on) is that it is impossible for a person to get control and discipline over one’s own bodily addictions (e.g. to lust, fornication, promiscuity) without developing one’s spiritual being and relationship with God. These uncontrollable appetites are all direct consequences of sin as are what are the underlying problems that lead to the devestating health consequences and deaths.

Break the addictions of sex and the problems will diminish and become very small.

James

 

[LilyM]

Thomfra, you’re right. Telling people that fornication is wrong isn’t going to stop many of them from doing it if they’re bound and determined.

The point is neither does telling people that murder is wrong, that theft is wrong etc etc. Nonetheless we don’t and can’t simply give up and condone these harmful behaviours, and we don’t and can’t protect thieves and murderers from the consequences of their actions either. Why? Because the existence of consequences, especially the consequence of harm to innocent people which sexual misbehaviour entails, DOES stop at least some, whereas no consequences won’t stop ANYONE.

 

[LRThunder]

Thomfra, you’re right. Telling people that fornication is wrong isn’t going to stop many of them from doing it if they’re bound and determined.

The point is neither does telling people that murder is wrong, that theft is wrong etc etc. Nonetheless we don’t and can’t simply give up and condone these harmful behaviours, and we don’t and can’t protect thieves and murderers from the consequences of their actions either. Why? Because the existence of consequences, especially the consequence of harm to innocent people which sexual misbehaviour entails, DOES stop at least some, whereas no consequences won’t stop ANYONE.

Maybe telling them fornication is wrong isn’t going to stop them, but we shouldn’t give them condoms so they can just fornicate anyway.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe telling them fornication is wrong isn’t going to stop them, but we shouldn’t give them condoms so they can just fornicate anyway.

That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Just like we don’t give murderers better and improved murder weapons, or give thieves better tools to break into bank vaults or what have you.

 

[thomfra]

My thinking is not clouded - it is you who are ignoring the trends and the incompetence of WHO and other such organizations in effecting a sustainable solution. I would like to see you back up your claim about Catholic priests advocating the ridiculous notion of achieving a greater good through encouraging sinful and morally improper conduct. I know of a few nuns who started to go down this path but they were removed from their orders or censured.

The position I hold is that HIV and such STDs are avoidable through primary behavior modification.

Personally I think you place too much faith in WHO - an organization who’s credibility in this area is very dubious given that AIDS/HIV is increasing (not decreasing) on their watch by using their methods.

Even here in the USA where we have “educated” people who all now know the facts about AIDS. We nonetheless have specific groups of people who ELECT through freewill to take on the higher risk through promiscuous sex (with higher condom usage). Why is that? If higher death rates are not a good enough teacher of what works and what does not work nor is it a sufficient motivator for behavior modification then what do we have left as options? It would seem that with all the knowledge out there on this disease that the world is either: 1) insane and populated by suicidal people or 2) full of people who are not in control of their own behaviors. I hold that it it #2 and that the strategy of facilitating an increase in intercourse is just like giving drugs to an addict to keep him happy knowing full well that they will never be able to break their habit and get progressively sicker.

Here is the latest info in the USA.

More facts:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity.

This sure tells me where the most bang for our Tax Dollar can be spent. Maybe instead of researching ways to treat AIDS we should research ways to change behaviors?

More insight:

Behavior change is clearly necessary for all people. But why limit it to just sexuality or sexual practises? If the Tax payer is being forced to treat diseases coming from elective live styles why can’t tax payers tart pushing back and demanding some changes in lifestyle? It used to be illegal for illicit sex - both hetero and homosexual. Stew on the deep cultural implications of that idea for a moment.

Rather than develop methods that motivate an increase in the frequency of intercourse why not teach personal morality and personal discipline? Right now we are teaching disciplines for “how to have safe sex and MORE of it” - the motivator being “more” but the safe part being in practise a lie. Why not teach instead “how to have more meaningful and responsible relationships with licit sex”?

The world has forgotten the virtue of chastity and thinks it is an outdated concept. HIV/AIDS and STDs are direct consequences of lack of chastity, sinful behavior, lack of personal responsibility and are no doubt interrelated to lack of self esteem and sense of self worth as well.

But the spiritual truth that no one in the medical community nor science wants to hear though (and certainly these can’t speak out of school on) is that it is impossible for a person to get control and discipline over one’s own bodily addictions (e.g. to lust, fornication, promiscuity) without developing one’s spiritual being and relationship with God. These uncontrollable appetites are all direct consequences of sin as are what are the underlying problems that lead to the devestating health consequences and deaths.

Break the addictions of sex and the problems will diminish and become very small.

James

James, why are you suddenly playing the homosexual angle now? I don’t doubt your figures, but I can see that once again, you have been very “selective” in which information you choose to present.

If you must resort to questioning the motives and credibilty of the World Health Organisation, and “other such organisations” then you clearly are unable to argue on any sensible level.

Reading between the lines I can see that your basic feeling is “they get what they deserve”. Especially homosexuals.

 

[thomfra]

Thomfra, you’re right. Telling people that fornication is wrong isn’t going to stop many of them from doing it if they’re bound and determined.

The point is neither does telling people that murder is wrong, that theft is wrong etc etc. Nonetheless we don’t and can’t simply give up and condone these harmful behaviours, and we don’t and can’t protect thieves and murderers from the consequences of their actions either. Why? Because the existence of consequences, especially the consequence of harm to innocent people which sexual misbehaviour entails, DOES stop at least some, whereas no consequences won’t stop ANYONE.

You can’t protect thieves and murderes from the consequences of their actions no.

But you can protect people, and their families (who are also victims) who choose to have sex outside of a monomogous marriage from the consequences of HIV/Aids. We can do this with condoms. It is not giving up.

 

[thomfra]

but we shouldn’t give them condoms so they can just fornicate anyway.

Why not, if it saves lives?

 

[LilyM]

Why not, if it saves lives?

Because firstly the health of the soul is more important than the safety of the body (we have an eternal destiny, remember?).

Because secondly contraception (including condoms) are an INTRINSIC evil, evil which doesn’t depend on the circumstances or ends for which it is used. Therefore unjustified even if a secondary good is done by their use.

Thirdly because for every life you’re saving from AIDS you’re destroying many many unborn lives through contraception (that’s what contraception does, remember, prevents conception and hence life?)

Finally because more condoms means a false illusion of perfect safety and almost certainly means more sex and more risk, so how do you know you’re really protecting anyone?

 

[Kaninchen]

Who are the ‘we’ who are doing (or not doing) these things (giving out condoms, for example)?

 

[Kaninchen]

Thirdly because for every life you’re saving from AIDS you’re destroying many many unborn lives through contraception (that’s what contraception does, remember, prevents conception and hence life?)

The last thing on earth I would want to do is to get into a discussion on the Catholic view of contraception but I how on earth is preventing conception ‘destroying unborn lives’? How can one ‘destroy’ something that doesn’t exist at all?

 

[LilyM]

The last thing on earth I would want to do is to get into a discussion on the Catholic view of contraception but I how on earth is preventing conception ‘destroying unborn lives’? How can one ‘destroy’ something that doesn’t exist at all?

‘Destroyed’ is probably the wrong word. What I mean to say is that in Catholic theology a child who is intentionally never conceived can be said to be sinfully denied the life which God planned and willed for it to have* because* of that fact of its deliberately not being conceived in the first place.

Just as a conceived child can be sinfully denied life by the fact of its being aborted.

 

[thomfra]

Because firstly the health of the soul is more important than the safety of the body (we have an eternal destiny, remember?).?

Yes. Tell that to the orphans in Africa.

Because secondly contraception (including condoms) are an INTRINSIC evil, evil which doesn’t depend on the circumstances or ends for which it is used. Therefore unjustified even if a secondary good is done by their use.

This is where we differ I guess. I would say “letting people die” by not promoting safer sex is the greater evil.

Thirdly because for every life you’re saving from AIDS you’re destroying many many unborn lives through contraception (that’s what contraception does, remember, prevents conception and hence life?).

Weird logic. It’s like me saying “You are destroying many unborn lives by not getting married at 16 and reproducing as much as you can before menopause”.

Finally because more condoms means a false illusion of perfect safety and almost certainly means more sex and more risk, so how do you know you’re really protecting anyone?

Not sure 'bout this. Will people have more sex because condoms exist? What do you base this on?

 

[thomfra]

‘Destroyed’ is probably the wrong word. What I mean to say is that in Catholic theology a child who is intentionally never conceived can be said to be sinfully denied the life which God planned and willed for it to have* because* of that fact of its deliberately not being conceived in the first place.

Just as a conceived child can be sinfully denied life by the fact of its being aborted.

Hmmm. Unless you are planning on getting married and having as many kids as your body can take, then you will be sinning…

There is another thread started by a catholic woman with 10kids about this. She basically said that the catholic method of timing sex so you didn’t get pregnant because it wasn’t convienent was basically “sinfully denying the life which God willed it to have”.

As much as I disagree with the concept. She made a good point.

 

[LilyM]

Hmmm. Unless you are planning on getting married and having as many kids as your body can take, then you will be sinning…

There is another thread started by a catholic woman with 10kids about this. She basically said that the catholic method of timing sex so you didn’t get pregnant because it wasn’t convienent was basically “sinfully denying the life which God willed it to have”.

As much as I disagree with the concept. She made a good point.

What a crock. God did NOT make women constantly fertile - they naturally have quite long periods of infertility each month. Some, like my older sister, go for years (in her case about a decade) being naturally infertile (no ABC of any kind) and then boom, the kids come. More than that, God’s will for all married folk is monogamy. All of which militates against the idea that we’re designed to simply squeeze out maximum kids in minimum time.

But God’s will for the unmarried is total celibacy - which is not only not wrong (Jesus Himself was celibate, as were Mary and Joseph), but is praised by Him (‘those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom’.)

If you know what a eunuch is, eunuchs were incapable of sex (hence their being used in later centuries to guard royal harems). So while abstaining from sex is laudable, Christ nowhere mentions or approves of those who have sex but avoid the children which are the natural result. It’s the abstaining from sex that is praiseworthy!

But there’s much more to it than that.

You really need to learn and understand the critical difference between

a) on the one hand sinfully putting up an ***artificial ***chemical or synthetic barrier (ABC) which interferes with the perfectly normal and healthy God-ordained bodily reproductive process, and interferes with God’s own plans for the human species moreover, and

b) on the other hand a process (NFP) which fully co-operates with and is integrated with both nature and God’s plan. Which amounts to no more than knowing and taking advantage of the natural periods of infertility that God Himself in His wisdom grants us, and which moreover has the healthy sid-effect of requiring a Christlike self-control and self-denial from both husband and wife.

Can’t you see that the first is simply you imposing your will upon your fertility no matter what God thinks or wants for you, while the second is adhering to God’s own designs for the human reproductive cycle in general and your own in particular?