Why the Catholic Church Is Wise to Ban Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JamesG:
I’m saying that BOTH of the US parties n most situations only care about their own pocket book. That is the primary motivation.

I have yet to see any true acts of compasion for the people in affrica. All I have seen is the US stick its dirty nose into the afairs of other countries for its own benifit.

Do you have any idea how much money the US Dems lost because they couldn’t sell birth control to a few of the affrican nations ? That is truely all they care about . And that is the true source of their complaints against the church.
Click to expand...
How much money did they lose?
 
40.png
Aquarius:
How much money did they lose?
Click to expand...
well lets see

p=number of people in affrica the catholic church
protected
d=donation money given to aid birth control manufacturers.
t=any tax reductions granted to birth control companies
n=number of times bithcontrol method could be used per person
s=sale price
m=manufacturing and distribution cost

total money lost = (p * n * (s-m) ) + d + t
 
the big question is how much of that money would go back into the democratic campaign funds?

Furthermore, as time goes on and AIDS increases and more people are tricked into buying birth control the number of sales will go up.

Also don’t forget about all the sales in AIDS druges that the US would be losing out on.

oh… yeah they might even be able to sell health insurance

lol… it is just one big money fund
 
First JamesG says:
I’m saying that BOTH of the US parties n most situations only care about their own pocket book. That is the primary motivation.
Click to expand...
Then JamesG says:
Do you have any idea how much money the US Dems lost because they couldn’t sell birth control to a few of the affrican nations ?
Click to expand...
You really crack me up, talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you saying all pharmaceutical companies are owned by the “Dems”? Take a look at business contributions to political parties and you will see for yourself what party benefits.

It is extremely difficult to take you seriously.

Nohome
 
40.png
JamesG:
well lets see

p=number of people in affrica the catholic church
protected
d=donation money given to aid birth control manufacturers.
t=any tax reductions granted to birth control companies
n=number of times bithcontrol method could be used per person
s=sale price
m=manufacturing and distribution cost

total money lost = (p * n * (s-m) ) + d + t
Click to expand...
How much?
 
40.png
JamesG:
the big question is how much of that money would go back into the democratic campaign funds?

Furthermore, as time goes on and AIDS increases and more people are tricked into buying birth control the number of sales will go up.

Also don’t forget about all the sales in AIDS druges that the US would be losing out on.

oh… yeah they might even be able to sell health insurance

lol… it is just one big money fund
Click to expand...
This is why your arguments are not taken seriously by policy makers. Use some imagination.
 
40.png
Nohome:
You really crack me up, talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you saying all pharmaceutical companies are owned by the “Dems”? Take a look at business contributions to political parties and you will see for yourself what party benefits.

It is extremely difficult to take you seriously.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I wonder if various Catholic dioceses have drug companies in their portfolios? Anyone know?
 
40.png
Nohome:
You really crack me up, talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you saying all pharmaceutical companies are owned by the “Dems”? Take a look at business contributions to political parties and you will see for yourself what party benefits.

It is extremely difficult to take you seriously.

Nohome
Click to expand...
No I never said that. I do not speak from both sides of my mouth because I am not a democrate and I am not a republican.

all polical parties in the us only care about money
 
40.png
Aquarius:
I wonder if various Catholic dioceses have drug companies in their portfolios? Anyone know?
Click to expand...
I’ve occasionally read where the Church is invested in something embarrasing; however, I believe she tries to be very careful to avoid conflicts like this.

Nohome
 
40.png
JamesG:
do the math yourself
Click to expand...
Hey, you brought up the issue. Is it fact or just the opinion of JamesG? The ball is in your court and we eagerly await the facts on how much money “the Dems” lost in Africa because of abstinence programs.

Nohome
 
40.png
JamesG:
the big question is how much of that money would go back into the democratic campaign funds?
Click to expand...
40.png
JamesG:
Do you have any idea how much money the US Dems lost because they couldn’t sell birth control to a few of the affrican nations?
Click to expand...
40.png
JamesG:
The US Dems don’t give a damn about Affrica or the black man for that matter. They only care about their own pocket book.
Click to expand...
40.png
JamesG:
I am not a republican.
Click to expand...
Right JamesG, you are “fair and balanced”, just like FOX News!
Richard Nixon:
I am not a crook
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Aquarius:
Sure. That makes it subjective. Each person evaluates risk/reward differently.
Click to expand...
No, I disagree. There is an objective standard of what is reasonable. For instance, if I considered the thrill of lying in the middle of the road, taking illegal drugs, sleeping in snowbanks etc. worth the risk, or allowed my one year old to wander unsupervised outdoors because I considered the “freedom” worth the risk for her, society would step in and put a stop to it.
 
40.png
Aquarius:
The argument from risk is different from the argument that extramarital sex is wrong.
Click to expand...
It’s not entirely separate. If “sexual freedom” is considered a good thing, that makes the risks more acceptable, because one is taking the risk for a good reason. If it is seen as wrong to begin with, there is less to justify the risk.
Usually people bring up the risk argument when they can’t demonstrate that extramarital sex is wrong without resorting to religion.
Click to expand...
One can demonstrate that extramarital sex is unwise from a sociologiclal psychological or health perspective, but scientific perspectives cannot demonstrate that *anything *is actually wrong. Anytime a person uses the language of right and wrong, they are leaving the realm of science and that should be understood. If you would like to call anything that isn’t science “religion”, that’s not quite accurate, but go ahead. However, you will have to admit that by this definition it is impossible to demonstrate that murder, stealing, rape, etc. are wrong without resorting to religion either. After all, if an action is simply risky for the individual or harmful to society, reducing the risk or harm may make it acceptable, but if an action is morally wrong, it remains so even when the temporal harm is prevented.
 
In response to Nohome’s request to back up my post claiming scientists and liberals are reluctantly adopting the Ugandan ABC model.
“I am a public health physician. I take data seriously,” Dr. Peterson said.
"Thinking people have to ask the question: ‘What works? What saves lives?’ " said Elaine Murphy, a global health specialist at George Washington University who has researched the Uganda experience from a feminist perspective.
Click to expand...
Ms. Murphy, who calls herself a "knee-jerk liberal," said: “Uganda mobilized as if it were World War III. They did this without donor money, on their own. What happened in Uganda is an exhilarating story.”
Click to expand...
“It is not what you think will work, but what works,” said** Norman Hearst,** an epidemiologist at the University of California at San Francisco and another self-described liberal sold on ABC.
Click to expand...
usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/uganda030313.html
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
No, I disagree. There is an objective standard of what is reasonable. For instance, if I considered the thrill of lying in the middle of the road, taking illegal drugs, sleeping in snowbanks etc. worth the risk, or allowed my one year old to wander unsupervised outdoors because I considered the “freedom” worth the risk for her, society would step in and put a stop to it.
Click to expand...
Society would do that. However, there are many more areas where the risk taking is subjective.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
It’s not entirely separate. If “sexual freedom” is considered a good thing, that makes the risks more acceptable, because one is taking the risk for a good reason. If it is seen as wrong to begin with, there is less to justify the risk.

One can demonstrate that extramarital sex is unwise from a sociologiclal psychological or health perspective, but scientific perspectives cannot demonstrate that *anything *is actually wrong. Anytime a person uses the language of right and wrong, they are leaving the realm of science and that should be understood. If you would like to call anything that isn’t science “religion”, that’s not quite accurate, but go ahead. However, you will have to admit that by this definition it is impossible to demonstrate that murder, stealing, rape, etc. are wrong without resorting to religion either. After all, if an action is simply risky for the individual or harmful to society, reducing the risk or harm may make it acceptable, but if an action is morally wrong, it remains so even when the temporal harm is prevented.
Click to expand...
Does extramarital sex include sex between two unmarried people? If so, why is it unwise from a sociologiclal psychological or health perspective?
 
40.png
Nohome:
Right JamesG, you are “fair and balanced”, just like FOX News!
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand what I am trying to say.

I’m saying that both parties in the US only get their hands in the afairs of other countries if and when there is money to be made or money to be lost.

When the dems or the reps claim that they are doing something for the greater good I have to question that.

The fact is there is money to be made in Iraq and there is money to be made in affrica.

Unlike you, I am not an american that thinks in terms of left or right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top