Pope Benedict XVI Promotes Abstinence to Fight AIDS in Africa

[Stunt]

If people decide to have sex...it's fun and pleasurable (there is a reason we started producing); absinence is 0% effective, condoms are still 90% effective.

Although I agree Rip, the first and formost to fix the problem is to fully encourage abstinence, it is obviously the best way to stop the spread of this vicious disease. They've made a lot of progress, but they have a long way to go to fix this epidemic.

I think a lot of the sex that occurs in Africa is to reproduce such that these poor people have kids who can help provide, make life easier for them (on a micro scale) and give them a retirement plan of sorts.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms, at best, are 90% effective.

Would you jump out of an airplane if there was a 1 in 10 chance that your parachute woudn't open?

Relying on condoms is suicidal.

Compare the number of people that will listen to these three messages. Then tell me which is "better"

[*]Don't have sex.
[*]Use a condom when you do have sex.
[*]Don't have sex, but if you do, wear a condom.

Nobody here is argueing that abstinence is 100% effective. That's an irrefutable fact.
What we're (or atleast I am) saying is that most people won't practice it. That is why abstinence is a great theory on paper, but it doesn't work out perfectly in the real world.

Obviously method two is also flawed. Condoms aren't perfect. Using your statistic, 10 out of every 100 uses would fail and some/most of those would result in the transfer of the disease.

Combining the two methods is, in my opinion, the best way.

Whether or not you agree with condoms morally is pretty much irrelevant. Method three minimizes the total number of affected people.

 

[rickn]

they act like monkies, they're gonna hump like monkies.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Sexuality is very much a part of human nature (you could argue that it's at the very core of human nature), and the Catholic Church continues to seek to deny this.

they just deny it when they get caught with 12 and 13yr old boys and girls

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Sexuality is very much a part of human nature (you could argue that it's at the very core of human nature), and the Catholic Church continues to seek to deny this.

they just deny it when they get caught with 12 and 13yr old boys and girls

You're welcome to quit thread crapping now.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Sexuality is very much a part of human nature (you could argue that it's at the very core of human nature), and the Catholic Church continues to seek to deny this.

they just deny it when they get caught with 12 and 13yr old boys and girls

You're welcome to quit thread crapping now.

did I hit your catholic nerve?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: rickn
did I hit your catholic nerve?

No. I'm not even catholic.

This topic is about the African AIDS epidemic.

If you want to discuss the ethics of Catholic priests, you're more than welcome to create a thread for it.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms, at best, are 90% effective.

Would you jump out of an airplane if there was a 1 in 10 chance that your parachute woudn't open?

Relying on condoms is suicidal.

Compare the number of people that will listen to these three messages. Then tell me which is "better"

[*]Don't have sex.
[*]Use a condom when you do have sex.
[*]Don't have sex, but if you do, wear a condom.

Nobody here is argueing that abstinence is 100% effective. That's an irrefutable fact.
What we're (or atleast I am) saying is that most people won't practice it. That is why abstinence is a great theory on paper, but it doesn't work out perfectly in the real world.

Obviously method two is also flawed. Condoms aren't perfect. Using your statistic, 10 out of every 100 uses would fail and some/most of those would result in the transfer of the disease.

Combining the two methods is, in my opinion, the best way.

Whether or not you agree with condoms morally is pretty much irrelevant. Method three minimizes the total number of affected people.

Unfortunately, international "do-gooders" are undermining Uganda's highly successful home grown ABC program.

It's a pity.

Link

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Unfortunately, international "do-gooders" are undermining Uganda's highly successful home grown ABC program.

It's a pity.

Link

Would you care to answer my question.

It's great that Uganda is being successful in their program, but I would that they're more an exception rather than the rule. 🙂

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms, at best, are 90% effective.

Would you jump out of an airplane if there was a 1 in 10 chance that your parachute woudn't open?

Relying on condoms is suicidal.

Not taking a flight is 100% effective in staying out of an air crash but is that practical? If you are on a flight and you have a better chance with a parachute would you ignore it?

Abstinence is 100% effective, BUT ONLY if it is practiced. The problem is you are dealing with human who have desires and you cannot eliminate sexuality in humans. Abstinence also requires a strong amount of self control which people don;t have, thus is bound to fail as a large scale measure. The sexual revolution has come and is here to stay. Get real.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: rickn
did I hit your catholic nerve?

This topic is about the African AIDS epidemic.

.

as long as it aint killing me, why should I care? and asking these people to give up sex, you might as well take away the teaspoon of food they get everyday

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: rickn

as long as it aint killing me, why should I care? and asking these people to give up sex, you might as well take away the teaspoon of food they get everyday

You can give them the then 🙂

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Unfortunately, international "do-gooders" are undermining Uganda's highly successful home grown ABC program.

It's a pity.

Link

Would you care to answer my question.

It's great that Uganda is being successful in their program, but I would that they're more an exception rather than the rule. 🙂

I think that the Ugandan program is a good model. Its emphasis is on abstinence and monogamy, with condoms as a poor fall back position for those that can't practice the former.

Any sex-ed should acurately highlight the inadequacy of condoms in preventing STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Any sex-ed should acurately highlight the inadequacy of condoms in preventing STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies.

Do you agree that the use of condoms should be included in sex-ed? Including how to use them, their effectiveness, etc.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Any sex-ed should acurately highlight the inadequacy of condoms in preventing STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies.

Do you agree that the use of condoms should be included in sex-ed? Including how to use them, their effectiveness, etc.

Yes, so long as the effectiveness of condoms isn't overstated and the emphasis is on monogamy, abstinence, and preferably, waiting until marriage to have sex.

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, I can just see the results of the Cathoic Priest trying to make the Africans abstain from sex. Missionary Stew anyone?

What is your position on this issue?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: her209
Why are they so concerned with people and their sex lives?

'cause it's killing people

I meant in general. They would just love it if everyone just stopped having sex altogether (unless its for purposes of procreation). Here's another solution that's just as effective. Don't want AIDS, don't have sex with somone who has it.

because Catholicism has a mis-understanding of the covenant of marriage and the basic flesh/spirit war that makesup the Christian walk.

If choosing to only having one monogamous partner would free africa of aids then it?d be a lot easier to dismiss this problem, unfortunately for the moral this isn?t the case.

What we're (or atleast I am) saying is that most people won't practice it

why?
because those who chose to be immoral try to bring down those around them, because people refuse to hold a higher standard to themselves or others.
this doesn't have to be the case.

 

[canadageek]

Pro-life groups tout abstinence and abortion organizations favor using condoms.

heh. so promoting condoms is in league with abortions? shucks. I thouht i was "pro-choice"

just wanted to pint out some extreme bias there....


now, to business.
In africa, people do not have sex excessivley because it's pleasurable, but that they need to have more childeren to lead a decent existence. the average lifespans there are much shorter. as such, they compensate by haveing more kids. thats how nature works. you adapt or you die out. thats why abstinence is pointless. that population must constantly procreate or it will die out. (just imagine how long a group of sterile rabbits would last)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms, at best, are 90% effective.

Would you jump out of an airplane if there was a 1 in 10 chance that your parachute woudn't open?

Relying on condoms is suicidal.

Rip -- < sigh > You know I've posted that you're really a lot brighter than most of your posts make you look. Why do you continue to work so hard to prove me wrong about that? :roll:

Abstinence is only 100% effective for those who practice it 100%. As I said, the problem with your "solution" is that you'll never get 100% compliance from 100% of the human beings. Pope Benny can't even get close to that from the priests and nuns working for him. Hypocricy at its finest.

Promoting condom use simply adds another layer of protection. Condom use and abstinence for those who are able to do so are not mutually exclusive conditions. Only an arithmetically challenged idiot would promote one to the exclusion of the other. And yes, I include the Pope in that statement.

As an exercise, assume (optimistically) that you can get 80% of a given population to go along with complete abstinence. That leaves 20% of the population unprotected.

Using your assumption that condoms are 90% effective, that means, if all of the 20% that still continue to play bump tummy use them, an additional 18% of the population will be protected.

That raises the overall protection from 80% to 98%. Which would you rather see?

Would have, could have and should have don't mean squat in the world of IS. 😛

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Harvey
Abstaining, especially under dangerous circumstances, if you can, as long as you can stand it will always help.

Considering that we're dealing with human beings, and relying on it, alone, to stop the spread of AIDS and other STD's among a large population is suicidal. :shocked:

Abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms, at best, are 90% effective.

Would you jump out of an airplane if there was a 1 in 10 chance that your parachute woudn't open?

Relying on condoms is suicidal.

Abstainence is 100% if you can get 100% of the people to practice it. However, even during the times when people were stoned for having sex outside of wedlock people were sneaking around looking to knock off a quickie.

 

[NeoV]

Rip, you know NOTHING about the people in Africa other than what you read on your right-slanted, pro-life, one-sided web sites.

How in the heck do you expect an entire continent to suddenly practice Abstinence?

The FACT of the matter is that people in Africa are going to continue to have sex - are they better off with or without condoms?

Can abstinence programs work? Yes, assuming you can find people willing to participate. For those who won't abstain, however, THEY NEED PROTECTION! Yes, we've had to read, about 80 times this year, that condoms "only" are effective 90% of the time (and don't forget your little 'probably less' quote, even though you have nothing to back that up with), but isn't 90% better than nothing?

WAKE UP!

I vote that the next Lifenews.com link from Rip earns him a permanent ban

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
If choosing to only having one monogamous partner would free africa of aids then it?d be a lot easier to dismiss this problem, unfortunately for the moral this isn?t the case.

For the moral? Please. As I said above, the same results can be achieved if people only had sex with people who are not infected. The church isn't interested in this solution tho because people would still be having sex.

Here's a hypothetical. Assume that a cure for AIDS was discovered tomorrow. Would the church's stance on the African AIDS situation change or would they still preach abstinence?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Unfortunately, international "do-gooders" are undermining Uganda's highly successful home grown ABC program.

It's a pity.

Link

Actually, the problem is Uganda undermining the ABC program by making it more of an AB program - which is a recent development; that is, the abstinence part has not been pushed for so heavily until recently. Or did you already forget what the C stands for?

Also, for the person who mentioned condoms not being as available in Africa, many governments in Africa purchase and distribute condoms.