Bishops say Pope still anti-condom 2


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 787 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Earlier, I posted this link

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bishops-say-pope-still-anti-con doms-for-hiv/story-e6frg6nf-1225958832267

And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

I, also, pointed out that

Liliths Thrall wrote:


The Catholic Church has a "sex only in marriage" policy. This is -not- a "anti-HIV policy" as anyone who has even the smallest knowledge of HIV knows that HIV can be contracted outside of sex.

That previous thread only ended up with me being called a "heterosexist" (among other things) by certain posters and led Liz to jump in and say

Liz Courts wrote:


While the topic is an excellent point of discussion, the behavior in this thread has not been so exemplary.

Nevertheless, I do believe we can have a civil discussion on this topic.

To do that, I'd like to repeat a question to Mathew Morris

Liliths Thrall wrote:


What's the Pope's recommendation, for example, if a Nurse or Paramedic or someone like that accidentally exposes themselves to a contaminated needle? Is having sex only in marriage really going to prevent them from passing that disease on to their spouse?

Along these same lines Ambrosia Slaad asked

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


Matthew, I'm certain you are aware that law enforcement, lab techs, doctors, emts, paramedics, etc. all come into regular contact with possibly contaminated needles and/or blood & tissue samples. Also, since most of the world's billions are stuck with Third World medical care (if any), the lack of medical precautions and sanitary conditions lead to an even greater risk of infection. Since many of these people lack the money to buy food, ready access to HIV testing isn't exactly convenient. So those people all choose to live with high risk?

Ah, what about trauma and organ transplantation? Risk, gotcha. If you hadn't been driving to work, you wouldn't have gotten t-boned by an idiot and need blood donations and a new spleen.

And of course, HIV tests never come back with false negatives. And blood- and organ-screeners never screw up.

Oh yeah, before I forget, what about female genital mutilation and rape? But that comes back to choice and risk again, right?

And a simple reminder that viruses readily mutate. Just because a strain of HIV does not currently spread via other fluids or skin-to-skin, doesn't mean it won't always.

And again, in this discussion, please refrain from the derogatory insinuations about GLBT people for being born non-hetero.

I hope we can discuss this topic without any posters being called names


Oh no all over again. :(

The Exchange

LilithsThrall wrote:
And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Abstinence is 100% effective against sexually transmitted HIV. Just sayin.

This is a BS topic serving only to troll the 'religious nut jobs'. We all know you have an agenda. OTOH, I see the flagging system seems to be working again.


Wolfthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Abstinence is 100% effective against sexually transmitted HIV. Just sayin.

This is a BS topic serving only to troll the 'religious nut jobs'. We all know you have an agenda. OTOH, I see the flagging system seems to be working again.

Of course I have an agenda. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Nevertheless, this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

The Exchange

Not by you it seems.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Not by you it seems.

CJ, tell me where I have personally attacked any poster in this thread. I haven't done it. In fact, I'm not even going to respond to the personal attack you just made.

The Exchange

Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?


LilithsThrall wrote:


More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?

I vote with my feet and give the Pope as much attention as I believe he deserves, and similarly do not contribute towards religious charitiable institutions as they link the offer of aid to accepotabnce of their dogma.

Aside from pointing out to them (when the opportunity arises) that I believe their views are harmful and outdated, I simply have to leave it at that. Grandstanding the point won't change much that I can see.

The good thing is that here in Australia we have a separation of church and state and can choose not to participate.


If the Padian Study is accurate, a condom doesn't matter.

None of the couples tracked in that study ever transmitted AIDS to their partner, even though some didn't use condoms.

The Exchange

LilithsThrall wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?

Again, abstinence is 100% fool proof vs STDs.


Wolfthulhu wrote:
Again, abstinence is 100% fool proof vs STDs.

As is death. 100% guaranteed to avoid STD's.

About as usefull as recommending abstinance as an avoidance technique too.

The Exchange

Shifty wrote:
Wolfthulhu wrote:
Again, abstinence is 100% fool proof vs STDs.

As is death. 100% guaranteed to avoid STD's.

About as usefull as recommending abstinance as an avoidance technique too.

So, the Catholic church is bad because their traditional view on condoms would prevent them from being used to prevent the spread of AIDS. At the same time the churches prefered method that guarantees prevention of the vast majority of cases is unacceptable to you, yet somehow you have the moral high ground.


Wolfthulhu wrote:
So, the Catholic church is bad because their traditional view on condoms would prevent them from being used to prevent the spread of AIDS. At the same time the churches prefered method that guarantees prevention of the vast majority of cases is unacceptable to you, yet somehow you have the moral high ground.

Well the Ku Klux Klan would recommend that Apartheid and racial separation would be 100% effective in curbing the incidence of racially motivated hate crimes; yet would you be ready to accept that as a legitimate and morally steadfast position?

No?

Really?

But it would SOLVE THE PROBLEM 100%.

How could you say no to that kinda solid logic?

(The only difference I see is that the KKK isn't in a significant position of trust and power)

Edit: Just so we don't get confused later, I'm not anti-religion by any stretch, its simply that condoms aren't mentioned in the bible, and thus, as no precedent was set, later rulings have been decided upon by the clergy. Thats not the same thing as the Biblical RAW.

The Exchange

LilithsThrall wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?

Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.

The Exchange

KKK? Really? Why not go all the way and just invoke Godwin?

C'mon, call me a nazi, you know you want to.

Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Wolfthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.
Abstinence is 100% effective against sexually transmitted HIV. Just sayin.

Abstinence is a good idea, and will stop the majority of cases.

Unfortunately, the science does not completely support you on the 100% idea. HIV can be transmitted through other methods then Sex.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Wolfthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.
Abstinence is 100% effective against sexually transmitted HIV. Just sayin.

Abstinence is a good idea, and will stop the majority of cases.

Unfortunately, the science does not completely support you on the 100% idea. HIV can be transmitted through other methods then Sex.

Which goes back to the question asked in the first post of this thread - which no one has answered.

Do you advocate that professionals who regularly come into contact with blood (nurses, paramedics, police officers, etc.) be abstaining from having sex with their spouse?

By the way, the technique promoted by HIV/AIDS experts who use _science_ to combat the disease is ABC (abstinence, be monogamous, condoms). An abstinence-only policy has been shown to not be effective.


Crimson Jester wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.

The Catholic church's position wrt condoms has done a lot to spread it, though.


Wolfthulhu wrote:
Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Really?

You simply posit that your (church based) solution is 100% ok, and people should just accept it on the chin, regardless of the human death toll that comes from such reckless indifferece.

I find that pretty morally bankrupt; it goes beyond mere indifference and enters the territory of malice.

Besides please point to the Anti-Condom clause in the 10 Commandments RAW? Its just Papal fiat and you know it.


Abstinence is not reality, it is exceedingly naive to believe that it can be enforced. People have been preaching abstinence since religion was invented and it has been ignored by almost everybody since some killjoy thought the idea up.

So while abstinence will stop sexually transmitted disease spreading - abstinence is not a social reality.... I also wonder how many people preaching abstinence actually practice what they preach.

When I was younger and at uni during my first Orientation Week I was cornered by a person with deep religious convictions who tried to lecture me about abstinence. I didn't stop laughing for ages.... "I said Mate I am at university, its my duty to get drunk, do stupid s&*# and try and hook up with anybody that would have me.."

So while it is noble to suggest abstinence it is practical and responsible to practice safe sex.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

Ambrosia Slaad, thanks for the link in previous thread. I had never seen that before. :) And who could not agree with "lawyers" (sorry Sebastian) Of course politicians should have had a place there too. :)


Wolfthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
Again, abstinence is 100% fool proof vs STDs.

If people actually where abstinent, you might have a point. But the evidence is that abstinence only policies do not work. To sum up the point, i will hand over to John Santelli, M.D., M.P.H.a, Mary A. Ott, M.D.b, Maureen Lyon, Ph.D.c, Jennifer Rogers, M.P.H.d, Daniel Summers, M.D.e, Rebecca Schleifer, J.D., M.P.H.f, and the abstract to their paper Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs

From the Journal of Adolescent Health wrote:
Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents. Many adolescents, including most younger adolescents, have not initiated sexual intercourse and many sexually experienced adolescents and young adults are abstinent for varying periods of time. There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic. A recent emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining more comprehensive sexuality education and other government-sponsored programs. We believe that abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.

This is entirely typical of work in the field, and also of the work carried out on adults. The evidence is that abstinance is not, and cannot be the whole answer.

Especially as to stop all sexual transmission of HIV, we would have to stop every person on earth having sex, until HIV was eradicated. Why? Because other sources of infection are possible, and married people can become infected by means other than sexual intercourse and pass on the virus, to their spouse. Are you suggesting the married couples shouldn't be having sex?


Crimson Jester wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.

More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?

If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.

Yet educational and social policies which they know do not work, did play a major part in the causation of this pandemic.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Because other sources of infection are possible, and married people can become infected by means other than sexual intercourse and pass on the virus, to their spouse. Are you suggesting the married couples shouldn't be having sex?

Everybody on the other side of this discussion keeps dodging answering this question.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?

Thanks.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Sigil wrote:

So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?

Thanks.

Sigil,

Given that LT was caught red handed making up numbers in the last thread I'd take any 'stats' he gives with a grain (or more) of salt.

I'm staying out of this to a) remain civil and b) not feed the lying troll.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm staying out of this to a) remain civil and b) not feed the lying troll.

Um...


Matthew Morris wrote:
Sigil wrote:

So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?

Thanks.

Sigil,

Given that LT was caught red handed making up numbers in the last thread I'd take any 'stats' he gives with a grain (or more) of salt.

I'm staying out of this to a) remain civil and b) not feed the lying troll.

The kind of personal attack you just made is exactly the kind of thing I want to not have in this thread. I realize that everyone feels strongly about this topic, but we can have a civil discussion.

As for where I got the statistics, I got them from a documentary which I got a sneak preview of before it goes out on PBS. I'm looking for the original source.


Sigil wrote:

So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?

Thanks.

Does it matter?

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the incidence is "1". If that's not enough, let's say it's "2". When does it become "enough"? When do the number of painful and needless deaths become significant enough to address?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mothman wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm staying out of this to a) remain civil and b) not feed the lying troll.
Um...

Yeah yeah, I know. But commenting that 'facts' coming from LT is like weight loss tips coming from me isn't 'participating' it's more of a caveat. (hint: Pointing out where someone made up numbers isn't a personal attack).

I have political blogs I read (and have linked to) for 'topics' like this. I don't need the grief on gaming boards.


Just so everyone knows,

The statistics Matthew Morris is harping about regards the number of people who have died of AIDS in the US.
We know that there have been more than 590,000. The problem is that we don't know how many of them died before the early 1990s because we were still wrestling at that time with trying to understand HIV/AIDS. People don't die of HIV. HIV attacks the immune system and makes it more likely for people to die of other diseases. Also, for social reasons, for the longest time there was a stigma regarding dying of AIDS. All of this is further exacerbated by the fact that, while we know that over 1 million people have AIDS in the US are living with AIDS, we also know that this is far below the actual number of people living with AIDS (because only 37 states keep records, because it doesn't include the number of people who discovered they have AIDS using a home kit, because one in five people living with HIV have not been diagnosed, etc.)

The question is whether or not, during the first 10 years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic - during the time when we -know- the AIDs epidemic was at it's worse - during the time when we had no drugs to treat HIV/AIDS - when having HIV/AIDS was a death sentence - before the incidence of HIV/AIDS started decreasing - were there more people dying of it than have died in the last, well, it's been less than 20 years since HIV/AIDS statistics have gotten better.

Like I said, I got my original statistics from a documentary which is scheduled to be on PBS in the next couple of months. I'm looking for original data. But, it's reasonable that, yes, during the time when the HIV/AIDS epidemic was at it's worse, more people were dying of it.

Now, stop lobbing ad hominems and answer the question I posed at the beginning of this thread.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
Sigil wrote:

So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?

Thanks.

Does it matter?

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the incidence is "1". If that's not enough, let's say it's "2". When does it become "enough"? When do the number of painful and needless deaths become significant enough to address?

It absolutely matters. If it can be demonstrated in a person, then it is no longer a theory. If it can be demonstrated in a group of people it can be demonstrated to be more than a statistical anomaly and worth discussing at all. If it can be demonstrated in a population then it becomes something more serious and certainly something worth diverting the thread to talk about.

At this point, (with no malice intended) it seems these secondary transmissions fall more into the category of anecdotal evidence at best and urban myth at worst. If you or anyone else has more information I am willing listen.

My question is... If when the Pope says to be abstinent, it can be demonstrated that people do not listen (though I am not sure we have established that it is Catholics that have been studied in info so far presented, apologizes if I am wrong on that), then do we have any evidence that Catholics are more inclined to listen when he says to not use condoms?


Sigil wrote:
If it can be demonstrated in a group of people it can be demonstrated to be more than a statistical anomaly and worth discussing at all.

What specifically are you implying is a statistical anomaly -professionals contracting HIV/AIDS through exposure to contaminated blood?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

I am not implying anything. I am trying to understand the question and evidence so I can further the discussion, and share an opinion if indeed I have one.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Shorter LT "I made a wild statement, and can't prove it. I admit I can't prove it, and how dare anyone bring acutal numbers into the conversation. I'm making wild estimates. Oh, and calling me out on making up numbers and wild estimates is a personal attack."


"Kevin Smith says Ben Affleck still kills hookers."

NOT TRUE!


Bixby Snyder says "I'd buy that for a dollar!"


Brodie says his cousin Walter is a "weird guy".


Matthew Morris wrote:

Shorter LT "I made a wild statement, and can't prove it. I admit I can't prove it, and how dare anyone bring acutal numbers into the conversation. I'm making wild estimates. Oh, and calling me out on making up numbers and wild estimates is a personal attack."

Since you really don't want to contribute to the discussion - except to make ad hominems, I'll be ignoring you.


Lord Whorfin says I'll see him in hell.


I say the next feller that says "shenanigans" gets pistol-whipped.


Julia Child says to let the wine breath.


The East India Trading Company says we have a right to drill.


Sigil wrote:
I am not implying anything. I am trying to understand the question and evidence so I can further the discussion, and share an opinion if indeed I have one.

Can we agree on the following facts

1.) It is possible for a professional who works with blood (whether it be a nurse, a police officer, etc.) to contract HIV/AIDS through exposure to contaminated blood?

2.) It is possible for someone with HIV/AIDS to pass that virus on to someone else via sex

?

If we can agree on that, then what exactly are you having trouble with in understanding the question?


The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says that Vogon poetry is one of the worst in the universe.


Ramirez says there can be only one.


Dunkelzahn said "run fast, die young".


Buckaroo Banzai et al, you have the ability to create your own threads if you want to discuss Ben Affleck.

This thread is about a different topic.


Sauron said the ring wasn't that pretty.

1 to 50 of 787 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Bishops say Pope still anti-condom 2 All Messageboards