Since I don’t doubt the study, there is no reason to look for further detail. Be honest, I could produce mountains of text showing that condoms save lives and you would just chant the company line of the RCC. Meanwhile, people will die in Africa.
I was refering directly to the Chief of CDC’s Women’s Health and Fertility, Peterson, comment where he said nothing of abstinence and faithful relationships, so I don’t see what I was disagreeing with. His only other comment did not contain the said stuff either
(From the article linked by the OP.)
Try making an intelligent argument instead of accusing others of “chanting the company line.”
Because you already stated “I’m against condoms”.
On this, we agree.
No offence taken, I actually found it rather amusing. However, with a certain someone now suspended, I am likely the only one left for your sights.
Actually, it is only the summary that neglects the measure of promiscuity, the study does indeed document what the story leaves out. I can’t provide a link because the study isn’t available on the web (at least not for free).
I’m glad we agree, but please don’t make the mistake of assuming someone won’t concede a point because of personal, religious beliefs. If you showed me that killing any children born with blue eyes effectively decreased the future rates of blue-eyed births in a country, I would certainly have to agree with the data. Of course it would! I would still be firmly against killing children with blue eyes.
Please accept my apologies rlg94086, I did just what I accused and jumped to conclusions.
The caveat in all the reports on Condom use is the “when used consistnetly and correctly” The problem is that no one EVER uses condoms this way 100% of the time. When used "consistently and correctly they are effective 98% of the time. The true rate, however, is around 90% of time. I suspect if you told people there was a 1 in 10 chance they would be killed when they drive to Church on Sunday most would abstain from driving to Church-in fact if you told people they had a 2 in 100 chance of getting killed by driving to Sunday Mass( menaing that the odds were that you would die within two years) most would abstain.
The same caveat applies to abstinence and lets be honest, its use, in Africa and everywhere else, is not consistent.
Is the 98% figure for pregnancy or to stop the HIV virus? I haven’t seen any figures that directly addresses the success rate for blocking the HIV virus except what in the new article. I’d like independent confirmation.
Let’s assume condoms, used consistently and correctly, are 99% effective against blocking the HIV virus. The logical conclusion is that after 100 sexual encounters with HIV positive partners, you will most likely be infected.
One is either abstinent or they are not. However it is a dangerous lie to tell people that condom use protects them from AIDs or preganancy. it simply is not true.
The Church’s position also affirms the dignity of man. Too many organizations who purportedly fight AIDS`consider man(especually Africans) to be sex crazed individuals who cant control their sexual urges. Those, like the Church, who call on ALL of us to a life of sexual responsibilty are considered naive.
Tell that to a young woman in Africa who must choose between chastity and starvation.
The “dignity of man” is an interesting notion in Africa. Women are considered property and they are often subjected to in marriage what we would call rape. Men are not “sex crazed” in Africa, but they do not have a Western attitude about sex, relationships and women.
By not reply to the logic, I guess you conceded the point. Do you think it morally acceptable to resort to cannibalism in order to avoid starvation?
If the victims have to be killed, then it is not acceptable. If they are already dead, then it is acceptable.