http://tinyurl.com/s7ctm

quote:Camino caused controversy on Tuesday when he said condoms "had a place" in fighting the Aids pandemic.

But on Wednesday the Church insisted its position had not changed, and the use of contraception was "immoral".



http://tinyurl.com/ggzuz

quote:Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said that in couples where one had HIV/Aids, which could pass to the partner, the use of condoms was "a lesser evil".

The Vatican says condoms should never be used, even to stop Aids spreading from one married partner to another.

http://tinyurl.com/cpxla

quote:Pope rejects condoms for Africa

quote:But he told them: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."

quote:More than 60% of the world's 40m people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.

quote:In South Africa alone, 600-1,000 people are thought to die every day because of Aids.

Stupid Catholics.

A fundie friend of mine in high school claimed "if god can't break a condom, we're all screwed."

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

A fundie friend of mine in high school claimed "if god can't break a condom, we're all screwed."



Heh. But don't you mean can, or am I not getting it?

I will never understand the Catholic dogma against birth control. What is the motivation? Wasting "potential" life? What do they think of the sperm and eggs that are never brought together? Every time a woman has her period, is she comitting the murder of unborn, unfertilized eggs, or what? Do they not eat chicken eggs?

What about sex that doesn't naturally result in a pregnacy anyway? Is that a sin? What about people who are sterile?

Don't they realize that there are already too many people on this planet and a wide majority of them don't have it nearly as good as most self-righteous, bible thumping Catholics? Couldn't we focus our energy on that instead?

Stemming the tide of a disease is a sin? Cut me a fucking break.

Jesus fucking christ, I don't get it.

[This message has been edited by Fate (edited 04-22-2006).]

Not just catholics. All christian religions are against them. Guys lets all stop having sex now ok?

Condoms won't stop AIDS.

So?

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



Heh. But don't you mean can, or am I not getting it?

I mean't can't. He was making fun of catholics (he is a lutheran).

Most Catholics have enough sense to disregard/ignore the "official" teachings on birth control. It's just another example of the pick-and-choose nature of religion.

Fucking morons.

Here I go again...blast away...

The reason why is because you can't teach "abstenance" and "birth control is good" in the same place. They contradict one another.

While using condoms is an effective means of protecting against disease and unwanted babies - not having sex is a sure fire way to avoid it all. Now, is it realistic to make all people accept that view..nope...but it is beyond debate that abstenance is the most effective form of birth control and disease prevention. Who can see the wisdom in this??

We just lack self-control because someone said it is ok behavior for unmarried couples to live like they were married. Nothing but countless problems and broken hearts and dreams...

Man..where do I begin with this and where does it end....

flame away!!

The sexual education system that the majority are proposing says that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and stds, but if you are going to have sex outside of marriage use birth control. In other words, contraception ok, abstinence best.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So?

Sooooo.......it's perfectly reasonable for the Catholic Church to be opposed to something that will not stop the epidemic, and they don't even have to use morality as the basis of their argument.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Sooooo.......it's perfectly reasonable for the Catholic Church to be opposed to something that will not stop the epidemic, and they don't even have to use morality as the basis of their argument.

While condoms do not "stop" it completely (the possibility of it spreading still exists) they reduce that possibility by a humongous amount. The point, still stands. Their attack on condom use is disgusting to say the least, and what's worse, many Christians have resulted to spreading incorrect statistics as so-called "facts" in order to disseminate their idiotic and immoral beliefs.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Sooooo.......it's perfectly reasonable for the Catholic Church to be opposed to something that will not stop the epidemic...

How is it perfectly reasonable for the Catholic church to oppose a practice which would severely reduce the rate at which a disease spreads, and therefore the suffering it causes?

In this case following the Church's teachings will increase the amount of suffering, are these the values you are attempting to defend?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

...and they don't even have to use morality as the basis of their argument.

Granted, immorality and hypocrasy are keystones of the Catholic church, they're being consistent if nothing else .

The point of married couples using condoms to stop AIDS is still against Catholic theology. Catholic theology teaches that sex is reserved for creation only and only for man and wife (marriage doesn't justify lust). Any couple having sex with a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS is still committing a sin in the eyes of the Catholics because they aren't using sex to create but to pleasure.

I don't think condoms should be outlawed and I don't think it is inherently sinful not to intentionally procreate. That's ridiculous. However, I agree that there is a longstanding fallacy that condoms are some magical cure to AIDS. This is just condom companies wanting to make money. Well, they certainly have the right to market how they want but it would be well with the consummer to figure out that condoms don't make you superman, either.

Who the hell has hailed condoms as a cure? It seems that "fallacy" is only prevalent in morons, because I've never seen anyone claim such a stupid thing, either here or publicly.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

True or not true: If everyone abstained from sex before marriage, unwanted pregnancies and sexualy transmitted diseases would decline dramatically. True or not true?

Now, I don't want any of you to give me the knee-jerk reactionary answer. Just answer the question. I don't want to hear, "Who is going to deny themselves the opportunity to have sex?" Just answer the question without rhetoric.

True. Now, since I obliged you, tell me how that question is at all significant - to the thread at hand of course.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

Condoms = 70% effective.

Abstinence = 100% effective.

I already shared that I don't think condoms are somehow 'evil,' I'm simply stating that putting a band-aid on an amputee solves nothing. For however misguided the Catholic Church has grown on this issue, the fact remains that original issue to them is following God's Law, because God's Law equals life.

Yet that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, because nobody is debating the effectiveness of abstinence, only the idiocy inherent in not also promoting the use of condoms if abstinence is not followed.

P.S. Thank you for not replying with rhetoric... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

If you remember quote:The Vatican says condoms should never be used, even to stop Aids spreading from one married partner to another.

Now the married partner part is whats sad. hyroglyphx, this isn't related to sex before marriage. It isn't related to curing aids, it's about the church saying they would rather you die a painful death by aids than use a condom, and when a bishop stood against this, he was shuned.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

original issue to them is following God's Law, because God's Law equals life.

Then why make married couples die of AIDS?

Also hyroglyphx you keep trying to make it look like christians don't have similer views, and your religion is so rightous, when in fact, last time I checked, the two are very similer.

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

How is it perfectly reasonable for the Catholic church to oppose a practice which would severely reduce the rate at which a disease spreads, and therefore the suffering it causes?

In this case following the Church's teachings will increase the amount of suffering, are these the values you are attempting to defend?

Whether or not condoms would reduce the rate at which AIDS spread isn't known, so you can't say that condoms will do that.

Which makes more sense though, support a plan that may reduce the rate at which AIDS spread, but nothing else? Or, a plan where medication and abstinence are the main focus, and these two things WILL have a huge effect on the rate at which AIDS spreads?

You act as if the Church's ONLY position is that condoms are bad. If every Catholic in Africa followed the Church's teachings, then the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is.

The fact remains that people aren't listening to the Church. I find it hard to believe that African Catholics are pious enough to not use condoms but they aren't pious enough to abstain from extra-marital sex. It doesn't follow.

Abstinence only education is based on people plugging their ears and closing their eyes and wishing we had a perfect society, ignoring reality to take what they see as the moral high ground.

Of course in the real world just telling teens "don't have sex" doesn't work. Take the study that showed teens who signed abstinence pledges (you would assume those that signed pledges would be much less likely to have sex than those that ignore the anti-sex class) ended up with an STD rate of about the same as those that didn't sign pledges. They figured that sex was only intercourse and found ways around that. A lack of education in protection meant they didn't use it when participating in even more dangerous activities.



Speaking of HIV the single largest group to get HIV are african women, an oppressed class that often get it from their husbands and can't "say no to sex." Some Catholic groups in Africa do their moral duty and pass on false information about condoms and try to prevent their use.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Whether or not condoms would reduce the rate at which AIDS spread isn't known, so you can't say that condoms will do that.

It most certainly is known. Numerous studies show a direct link between promoting the use of condoms among a population, and a reduction in the amount of HIV/AIDS cases. Other studies exist that show that the majority of latex condoms where succesful in preventing any virus from passing, that is, HIV failed to penetrate the latex condom; among the attempts where HIV did penetrate the condom, a much lower amount of the virus than expected in regular intercourse, was passed.



quote:

Which makes more sense though, support a plan that may reduce the rate at which AIDS spread, but nothing else? Or, a plan where medication and abstinence are the main focus, and these two things WILL have a huge effect on the rate at which AIDS spreads?

Those are not the only choices.

We can support both a campaign that promotes abstinence, and a campaign that supports the use of condom for those couples who are not willing to follow a vow of abstinence or can't (as Beta quite wisely pointed out, many women simply cannot say "no" to sex, for fear of abuse or even death). The two are not mutually exclusive.

quote:

You act as if the Church's ONLY position is that condoms are bad. If every Catholic in Africa followed the Church's teachings, then the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is.

The fact remains that people aren't listening to the Church. I find it hard to believe that African Catholics are pious enough to not use condoms but they aren't pious enough to abstain from extra-marital sex. It doesn't follow.

They don't have to listen to the Vatican directly in order for it to have an effect.

The Vatican has made outrageously mistaken claims on the case of condoms and HIV/AIDS, which is not helpful to a anyone, even those who practice abstinence - unless of course, you promote idiocy and ignorance.

But what's worse, their attack on the use of condoms means that missionaries and other organizations which have more "credibility" and exposure in countries where there is an HIV/AIDS epidemic, will not support the use of condoms, but actually end up attacking the use of condoms and spreading more of those lies.

There is a large portion of people in the world that are so ignorant of HIV and condoms, that they actually believe that simply using condoms could give you HIV - the mere fact of using condoms regardless if their partner has HIV/AIDS or not. The Vatican, and the numerous worldwide organizations and groups which listen to it, worsen the issue by passing off false information on the use of condoms, and not promoting their use so that new organizations and groups can be created in order to join on the issue.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

quote:The fact remains that people aren't listening to the Church. I find it hard to believe that African Catholics are pious enough to not use condoms but they aren't pious enough to abstain from extra-marital sex. It doesn't follow.

A good example of ignoring reality. Many of those spreading HIV in africa aren't "pious enough to not use condoms" most reports I have read say they dislike the feel of condoms and the bother to use them, and there are a number of myths about condoms including that they wont protect against STDS. Thus they don't wear them.

As studies have shown, telling people not to have sex is ineffective.

Condoms do prevent the spread of HIV,

"From the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%. These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV. " http://tinyurl.com/ggjzt (1.2mb pdf file, a report on the effectiveness of condoms against STDs).

Don't you think we should be teaching abstinence and safe sex and not spread false information about condoms?

I can't imagine why the Catholic Church is so adamant against the use of condoms. Using condoms will help prevent diseases from being spread, henceforth making it easier for priests and cardinals to get away with molesting little boys.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Whether or not condoms would reduce the rate at which AIDS spread isn't known, so you can't say that condoms will do that.

As Rust has already pointed out, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Or do you dismiss all evidence of STD prevention using condoms out of hand without checking the relevant facts?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Which makes more sense though, support a plan that may reduce the rate at which AIDS spread, but nothing else? Or, a plan where medication and abstinence are the main focus, and these two things WILL have a huge effect on the rate at which AIDS spreads?

Medication prolongs life, is expensive and has yet to prevent anything whilst abstinence is impractical for the majority of people with normal drives.

The use of condoms is both cheap and practical.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You act as if the Church's ONLY position is that condoms are bad. If every Catholic in Africa followed the Church's teachings, then the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is.

The fact remains that people aren't listening to the Church. I find it hard to believe that African Catholics are pious enough to not use condoms but they aren't pious enough to abstain from extra-marital sex. It doesn't follow.

The appropriate response to this has already been given;

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



A good example of ignoring reality. Many of those spreading HIV in africa aren't "pious enough to not use condoms" most reports I have read say they dislike the feel of condoms and the bother to use them, and there are a number of myths about condoms including that they wont protect against STDS. Thus they don't wear them.

As studies have shown, telling people not to have sex is ineffective.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

[B]Condoms = 70% effective.

Abstinence = 100% effective.

B]

Abstinence = 100% not going to happen = not effective.

Condoms = reduced spread of AIDS and HIV, which are the real problems.

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

As Rust has already pointed out, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Or do you dismiss all evidence of STD prevention using condoms out of hand without checking the relevant facts?

No, it's just the last time I read about this issue I couldn't find anything conclusive. I'm not someone who ignores facts. I'm not Digital Savior by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:Medication prolongs life, is expensive and has yet to prevent anything whilst abstinence is impractical for the majority of people with normal drives.

The use of condoms is both cheap and practical.

It would cost billions to get enough condoms in Africa to make a significant dent in the AIDS problem, so saying it's cheap isn't exactly correct. I just think that if you're going to end up paying billions of dollars, it's better to go the way of the more long-term solution. I think that if you talk to ANY doctor in Africa, they'll tell you that condoms aren't the solution. At best they'll be a stop gap.

As for that other reply, I fail to see how that's a problem caused by the Church.

If condoms were provided much sooner, then there would be a significantly smaller number of people with HIV/AIDS.

The Catholic Church decided to promote abstinence(waste time) while the problem was worsening to the point of being irreversible.

You're right they do need a better solution, such as a cultural revolution. Try to take a guess as to how much time and money that will cost. Here's a clue, we have been trying to perform a cultural revolution in the middle east for years now, how far have we got and how many billions have we spent?

In the mean time condoms are an effective means to prevent AIDS, there are quite a few in africa the trick is getting people to use them. The church hasn't been very helpful swinging around their high moral ideas while contributing to the death of others (yes I would call spreading myths about condoms contributing to death).

Welcome to reality.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No, it's just the last time I read about this issue I couldn't find anything conclusive. I'm not someone who ignores facts. I'm not Digital Savior by any stretch of the imagination.

Hehehe. Well, that's reassuring. Well, just a heads up, get ready for digital_savior to come in with one of her typical posts. I'm guessing quoting the bible, self-righteously declaring that her interpretation means exactly what she thinks it does, and assuming that anything she interprets the bible to say is absolute indisputable fact, and will make no reference to any of the facts or truth of the reality of the situation.

Anyway, this goes to show how easy it is to lose sight along the way and become completely consumed with self righteous religious ideals. To quote myself in a song my band wrote, "whatever it takes to help you to sleep."

quote:The latex condom, an efficient barrier against sexual transmission of AIDS-related viruses.

Van de Perre P, Jacobs D, Sprecher-Goldberger S.

Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Laboratory of Microbiology, Brussels, Belgium.

Using a mechanical model, we studied human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) leakage through six different trademark condoms. The presence of the recovered virus was determined after passage to MT-2 cells and to cultured mitogen-stimulated normal human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMC). Only the natural membrane condom showed virus leakage after inside pressure. In addition, the kinetics of virus inactivation at 37 degrees C were followed inside and outside the condom. The virus was partially inactivated after 10 min at 37 degrees C inside the condom, but the degree of inactivation seemed higher in some of the trademark condoms.

PIP: 6 trademark condoms, 5 made of latex (Durex Coral, Ortho Shields, Prime, KLV, and Man-To-Man) and 1 lubricated natural membrane condom (Kling-Tite Naturalamb) were tested mechanically to determine whether they were effective barriers to leakage of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A 3 ml suspension of HIV concentrate was put into each condom and the condom placed over the plunger of a disposable syringe. The plunger was vigorously pumped as many as 50 times for each condom. No virus crossed the membrane of any of the latex condoms, but a significant passage of retroviral antigen through a leak in the natural membrane condom occurred after only 10 pumping movements. In addition some of the latex condoms were treated with spermicide, and these showed varying degrees of virus inactivation inside the condom. Further studies should be done on the use of spermicide-treated condoms. In any case, the use of condoms should be promoted among groups at high risk for AIDS such as prostitutes in Central Africa where condom use remains unpopular.

PMID: 3122790 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Welcome to 1987, napolean-comlex.

Now let me welcome you to 1999. http://tinyurl.com/s5xan

quote:Context: It is not established whether the condom is as effective at preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV as it is for preventing conception. An overall estimate of condom effectiveness for HIV prevention is needed. Methods: Information on condom usage and HIV serology was obtained from 25 published studies of serodiscordant heterosexual couples. Condom usage was classified as always (in 100% of acts of intercourse), sometimes (1-99%, 0-99% or 1-100%) or never (0%). Studies were stratified by design, direction of transmission and condom usage group. Condom efficacy was calculated from the HIV transmission rates for always-users and never-users. Results: For always-users, 12 cohort samples yielded a consistent HIV incidence of 0.9 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.8). For 11 cohort samples of never-users, incidence was estimated at 6.8 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 4.4-10.1) for male-to-female transmission, 5.9 per 100 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.1) for female-to-male transmission and 6.7 per 100 (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.6) in samples that specified the direction of transmission. Generally, the condom's effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission is estimated to be 87%, but it may be as low as 60% or as high as 96%. Conclusions: Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-23-2006).]

Or...

"BACKGROUND: Because of the possible presence of small holes, the effectiveness of condoms as barriers to virus transmission is controversial. GOALS: To determine the proportion of condoms that allow virus penetration and the amounts of virus that penetrate. STUDY DESIGN: A sensitive, static test was used to evaluate different condom types as barriers to a small virus, including brand with or without lubrication and ones of different materials. The test included some physiologic-based parameters and some parameters that exaggerated expected actual use conditions. RESULTS: Under test conditions, 2.6% (12 of 470) of the latex condoms allowed some virus penetration; the median level of penetration was 7 x 10(-4) ml. Lubricated condoms performed similarly to nonlubricated ones. Polyurethane condoms yielded results higher than but not statistically different from those for latex condoms. CONCLUSIONS: Few condoms allowed any virus penetration. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 1 x 10(-5) ml (volume of semen). Thus, even for the few condoms that do allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen would be several orders of magnitude lower than for no condom at all.

PIP: Nine brands and 470 samples of latex condoms and two brands and 76 samples of polyurethane condoms bought from retail distributors were tested in vitro for their ability to block the penetration of virus. A sensitive, static test apparatus was designed for and used in the evaluation. The test included some physiological-based parameters as well as some which exaggerated the expected actual use conditions. Both lubricated and nonlubricated condoms were tested. Before testing, however, most of the lubrication was removed from the lubricated condoms through rinsing with Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline and blotting with sterile paper towels. The 0X174 bacteriophage of 27 nm particle diameter, 32 nm including its bulky spikes, was used as the proxy challenge virus. Under test conditions, 12 of the latex condoms (2.6%) allowed some virus penetration of median quantity 0.0007 ml. Just two of the latex condoms were responsible for 99.8% of the total penetration among latex condoms overall. The performance of lubricated condoms was similar to that of nonlubricated ones. Four of the polyurethane condoms allowed penetration, but only one condom was responsible for 98.6% of total penetration. The difference in performance between latex and polyurethane condoms is not statistically significant. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 0.00001 ml of semen. Therefore, even for the few condoms which allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen is several orders of magnitude lower than the amount of exposure expected when not using a condom."

http://tinyurl.com/7jk6g

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-23-2006).]

I never claimed to be well read on the subject of condoms...It isn't exactly an area of interest of mine.

Regardless,

quote:You're right they do need a better solution, such as a cultural revolution. Try to take a guess as to how much time and money that will cost. Here's a clue, we have been trying to perform a cultural revolution in the middle east for years now, how far have we got and how many billions have we spent?

In the mean time condoms are an effective means to prevent AIDS, there are quite a few in africa the trick is getting people to use them. The church hasn't been very helpful swinging around their high moral ideas while contributing to the death of others (yes I would call spreading myths about condoms contributing to death).

I already said they could be an effective stop gap, but I don't know how you can blast the Church for wanting to put its focus on the solution that in the end will likely be better long term. I mean, IF(big, huge fucking if) abstinence were to catch on(while prostitution, gang rape, and other sex related problems prevalent in Africa were to decrease through education) then the AIDS problem would be much easier to deal with. I really think that education and medication is the better solution to pump money in, because when you get down to it, that's the only way the AIDS problem will truly be brought under control.

I don't oppose condoms for moral reasons(I've used them myself), but when dealing with such a widespread problem, I just think there is a better solution.

More reading for napolean-complex:

http://tinyurl.com/pbu7p

quote: HIV incidence and sexually transmitted disease prevalence associated with condom use: a population study in Rakai, Uganda.

AIDS. 15(16):2171-2179, November 9, 2001.

Ahmed, Saifuddin; Lutalo, Tom a; Wawer, Maria b; Serwadda, David c; Sewankambo, Nelson K. c; Nalugoda, Fred a; Makumbi, Fred a; Wabwire-Mangen, Fred c; Kiwanuka, Noah a; Kigozi, Godfrey a; Kiddugavu, Mohamed a; Gray, Ron

Abstract:

Objective: Evidence of condom effectiveness for HIV and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention is based primarily on high-risk populations. We examined condom effectiveness in a general population with high HIV prevalence in rural Africa.

Methods: Data were from a randomized community trial in Rakai, Uganda. Condom usage information was obtained prospectively from 17 264 sexually active individuals aged 15-59 years over a period of 30 months. HIV incidence and STD prevalence was determined for consistent and irregular condom users, compared to non-users. Adjusted rate ratios (RR) of HIV acquisition were estimated by Poisson multivariate regression, and odds ratios of STDs estimated by logistic regression.

Results: Only 4.4% reported consistent condom use and 16.5% reported inconsistent use during the prior year. Condom use was higher among males, and younger, unmarried and better educated individuals, and those reporting multiple sex partners or extramarital relationships. Consistent condom use significantly reduced HIV incidence [RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-0.88], syphilis [odds ratio (OR), 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94] and gonorrhea/Chlamydia (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-0.97) after adjustment for socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics. Irregular condom use was not protective against HIV or STD and was associated with increased gonorrhea/Chlamydia risk (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.99). The population attributable fraction of consistent use for prevention of HIV was -4.5% (95% CI, -8.3 to 0.0), due to the low prevalence of consistent use in the population.

Conclusions: Consistent condom use provides protection from HIV and STDs, whereas inconsistent use is not protective. Programs must emphasize consistent condom use for HIV and STD prevention.

AND http://tinyurl.com/rq553

quote:ABSTRACT

In June 2000, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) organized a review of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The review concluded that condoms were effective in protecting against transmission of HIV to women and men and in reducing the risk of men becoming infected with gonorrhoea. Evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing other STIs was considered to be insufficient. We review the findings of prospective studies published after June 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs. We searched Medline for publications in English and included other articles, reports, and abstracts of which we were aware. These prospective studies, published since June 2000, show that condom use is associated with statistically significant protection of men and women against several other types of STIs, including chlamydial infection, gonorrhoea, herpes simplex virus type 2, and syphilis. Condoms may also be associated with protecting women against trichomoniasis. While no published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, two studies reported that condom use was associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of cervical HPV infection in women and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. Research findings available since the NIH review add considerably to the evidence of the effectiveness of condoms against STIs. Although condoms are not 100% effective, partial protection can substantially reduce the spread of STIs within populations.

And there are tons more go look for them yourself, it's obvious you have done zero research. Fact: condoms are about 90% effective at stopping transmission of HIV.

In future discussions where you aren't versed in something maybe you should think twice before making statements about said thing.

In other words, if you aren't well versed in condoms and studies about them, saying things such as, "Condoms won't stop AIDS." and "Whether or not condoms would reduce the rate at which AIDS spread isn't known, so you can't say that condoms will do that."



Yes condoms aren't a perfect solution but they shouldn't be ignored. Condoms AND a culture change is better than one or the other. Unfortunately the church has decided to sacrifice millions of people so they can feel more moral.

Many people do listen to the church and the church spreading lies about condoms (many officials have held to the claim condoms don't work, and often claim they spread AIDS).

Oh it should also be noted that studies show sex-education and condom availability does not drastically increase sexual activity.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never claimed to be well read on the subject of condoms...It isn't exactly an area of interest of mine.

Well then you aren't qualified to comment on methods to reduce HIV transmission in Africa or anywhere else.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It would cost billions to get enough condoms in Africa to make a significant dent in the AIDS problem, so saying it's cheap isn't exactly correct. I just think that if you're going to end up paying billions of dollars, it's better to go the way of the more long-term solution.

So one week’s supply of an anti viral cocktail of high grade pharmaceuticals is less expensive than one week’s supply of condoms.

I haven't got a price list in front of me but off the top of my head unless said condoms are made from some kind of developmental NASA space material, I simply can't see how you can justify this statement.

Abstinence is not followed, or if so by very few, drugs don't stop people from transmitting the disease and you think condoms are a waste of money. So what other long term solution are you referring to, because short of finding a cure I can't see one.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I think that if you talk to ANY doctor in Africa, they'll tell you that condoms aren't the solution. At best they'll be a stop gap.

Been on some missionary work recently have we? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

As for that other reply, I fail to see how that's a problem caused by the Church.

You fail to see how telling people to avoid using STD prevention, whilst telling them to do something blatantly impracticle, is not exacerbating the problem!?

You can't blame everyone in afirca for whats happening. What about the people forced to have sex without consent? I heard that there are crazy rumors there like having sex with a virgin will cure aids. Condoms arn't the biggest problem in afirca right now...misinformation is.

Proper education would be a start for afirca, as to wether or not condoms are 105% effective isn't why the church is against them.

If they're not willing to not fuck their wives and give them aids, then they're probably not willing to wear condoms anyway.

quote:Originally posted by kaos_ill:

If they're not willing to not fuck their wives and give them aids, then they're probably not willing to wear condoms anyway.

Yes, Because putting on a condom is just as much of a hassle as going through a legal procedure to get married and paying for thousands of medical tests to see if the prospective mate has an STD



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

You fail to see how telling people to avoid using STD prevention, whilst telling them to do something blatantly impracticle, is not exacerbating the problem!?

No, I fail to see how people not wearing them because of tribal myths or because they don't feel good is a problem of the Church. Did you fucking read what you wrote?

"A good example of ignoring reality. Many of those spreading HIV in africa aren't "pious enough to not use condoms" most reports I have read say they dislike the feel of condoms and the bother to use them, and there are a number of myths about condoms including that they wont protect against STDS. Thus they don't wear them.

As studies have shown, telling people not to have sex is ineffective. "

None of that is the Church's fault. Do you see?

quote:In future discussions where you aren't versed in something maybe you should think twice before making statements about said thing.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to have a Phd on condoms to post on an internet message board... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Silly fucking me...

quote:Well then you aren't qualified to comment on methods to reduce HIV transmission in Africa or anywhere else.

What are your qualifications then? What school did you get your doctorate from?

quote:So one week’s supply of an anti viral cocktail of high grade pharmaceuticals is less expensive than one week’s supply of condoms.

I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. I said you're going to end up spending billions of dollars either way, so if you're going to be doing that, you might as well bite the bullet and take the route that will end up being the long term solution. I know, that sounds so unreasonable... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Abstinence is not followed, or if so by very few, drugs don't stop people from transmitting the disease and you think condoms are a waste of money. So what other long term solution are you referring to, because short of finding a cure I can't see one.

Talking strictly about African Catholics, abstinence should be enough. This is what I'm talking about basically. If you're an African Catholic and you're abstinent, then you should be ok. It's really that simple I'm not talking about making every African do this.

quote:Been on some missionary work recently have we?

So you concede the point?

quote:You fail to see how telling people to avoid using STD prevention, whilst telling them to do something blatantly impracticle, is not exacerbating the problem!?

Do you fail to see that you won't be able to do anything about the AIDS problem if you just hand out condoms? Aids isn't going to go away, and it'll still be spread. At best condoms will slow the spread, but what happens after that? How do you cure the people and stop AIDS from spreading? Abstinence, medication, and education will do that condoms won't. You must explain to me why picking the longterm solution is insane. Please? Also don't forget that I'm basically talking about African Catholics, not ALL Africans.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No, I fail to see how people not wearing them because of tribal myths or because they don't feel good is a problem of the Church. Did you fucking read what you wrote?

"A good example of ignoring reality. Many of those spreading HIV in africa aren't "pious enough to not use condoms" most reports I have read say they dislike the feel of condoms and the bother to use them, and there are a number of myths about condoms including that they wont protect against STDS. Thus they don't wear them.

As studies have shown, telling people not to have sex is ineffective. "

None of that is the Church's fault. Do you see?

If the Church continues preaching an ineffective teaching rather than, as you point out, 'educating' them then yes they must share a portion of the blame.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. I said you're going to end up spending billions of dollars either way, so if you're going to be doing that, you might as well bite the bullet and take the route that will end up being the long term solution. I know, that sounds so unreasonable...

Drugs don't cure AIDS. No pharmaceutical company is going to give them away and neither is any government in the quantities needed until such time as they become much cheaper. Which brings us back to condoms.

And education is of course an option as long as it isn't the catholic church doing the educating.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Talking strictly about African Catholics, abstinence should be enough. This is what I'm talking about basically. If you're an African Catholic and you're abstinent, then you should be ok. It's really that simple I'm not talking about making every African do this.

Abstinence is not realistic, which bit of this concept are you having trouble with?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you concede the point?

No, I'd like to know what the source of your information is.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Do you fail to see that you won't be able to do anything about the AIDS problem if you just hand out condoms? Aids isn't going to go away, and it'll still be spread. At best condoms will slow the spread, but what happens after that? How do you cure the people and stop AIDS from spreading? Abstinence, medication, and education will do that condoms won't. You must explain to me why picking the longterm solution is insane. Please? Also don't forget that I'm basically talking about African Catholics, not ALL Africans.

Cure? Fine, if you find a cheap, mass producible one and I'll shut up.

Education, great as long as it isn't a catholic 'education'.

Abstinence, this much talked about but globally insignifigant practice only works in certain groups of American religious nutters.

Condoms for teh win!!!!!111!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

If you remember Then why make married couples die of AIDS?

Why make married couples die of AIDS? What exactly do you mean by that?

Also hyroglyphx you keep trying to make it look like christians don't have similer views, and your religion is so rightous, when in fact, last time I checked, the two are very similer.

So let me get this straight: You are judging me because I ascribe to a certain belief? You have prejudiciously assumed that I must somehow be against condoms in response to my beliefs. If the two beliefs were so similar then the Reformation would never have come about. Furthermore, I don't anyone who is against condoms. I'm not against them and I've never met anyone against them. I was simply pointing out that perhaps you are glancing over the more obvious statement of the Catholic Church. To me the no-brainer statement is that abstinence until marriage is a good thing and it would destroy all venereal diseases. However, their staunch opposition to condoms is absurd to me. So, in essence I'm playing the devil's advocate because I understand both sides of the coin.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

Abstinence only education is based on people plugging their ears and closing their eyes and wishing we had a perfect society, ignoring reality to take what they see as the moral high ground.

Its unquestionable that sexuality is a powerful and potent part of the overall physiology in humans. But I really do think that a society can achieve parity with the 1950's again. We have to remember that its been done for thousands of years. Loose sexuality comes in waves where it is quelled by moral standards and where it is inflamed by the baser appetites of the flesh. No society will ever be perfect and no society will have 100% abstinence until marriage. Nonetheless, if we look at what is happening with the anti-smoking campaign, we could easily expect similar results. Truth-be-told, I'm shocked to see how well the anti-smoking campaign is going. Its to the point where smokers are social lepers who have to hide their dirty little secret. Its become so taboo.

Despite what some of you might think, we are molded and shaped by what funnels out of the tv. The actors on the screen set the quota for what the youth are going to act like. No one seems to notice. For instance, the younger Totseans are practically carbon copies of each other, naively conforming to the standard set forth. Its an unspoken thing, but ask any psychologist and they'll tell you the same thing. That's what I find so hysterical about people reffering to Christians as sheeps as if they are somehow exempt from being followers of something. They follow someone. They follow something. And tragically, it might be to their shame.

Speaking of HIV the single largest group to get HIV are african women, an oppressed class that often get it from their husbands and can't "say no to sex." Some Catholic groups in Africa do their moral duty and pass on false information about condoms and try to prevent their use.

LOL! So the mean husbands are all of a sudden going to listen to their wives and throw on a condom??? If they were oppressive husbands before, they'll continue to do the same. This just further supports that you have to change people's thoughts on morals. There is no society apart from this. For however small of a philanthropic act handing out condoms really is, no one wants to consider that its the reprobate mind that got us in this mess to begin with. The only way you're ever going to change and sustan a society is to show them the right way.

quote:Loose sexuality comes in waves where it is quelled by moral standards and where it is inflamed by the baser appetites of the flesh.

I would question whether it is ever quelled or if it just goes underground.

Supposed good morals seem to be based more around a don't ask don't tell policy than actual good morals. Just look at the church sex scandal where they moved offending priests around to try to hide the issue.

quote:if we look at what is happening with the anti-smoking campaign, we could easily expect similar results.

Well people don't have an inherent drive to smoke. But I agree the anti-smoking campaign built on education has worked much more effectively than telling people "Don't smoke, it's a sin, and I don't want to hear another word about it."

quote:That's what I find so hysterical about people referring to Christians as sheeps as if they are somehow exempt from being followers of something.

Ha. I agree with you here.

quote:LOL! So the mean husbands are all of a sudden going to listen to their wives and throw on a condom??? If they were oppressive husbands before, they'll continue to do the same. This just further supports that you have to change people's thoughts on morals.

The first goal would be to get them to put on a condom when going around with the local whore. Getting them to wear one is much easier than getting them to stop doing it all together.

quote:no one wants to consider that its the reprobate mind that got us in this mess to begin with. The only way you're ever going to change and sustan a society is to show them the right way.

Actually they have considered it plenty. Groups don't just hand out condoms but try to educate the users including teaching abstinence. Abstinence is not bad, it's abstinence-only education with some lies tossed in that is.

The data says abstinence only education doesn't work, that condoms do prevent AIDS and they do not increase sexual promiscuity. The deaths of many men women and children are on the churches hands because they ignore the data and stick to preconceived notions to make themselves feel better.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Abstinence only education is based on people plugging their ears and closing their eyes and wishing we had a perfect society, ignoring reality to take what they see as the moral high ground.

Of course in the real world just telling teens "don't have sex" doesn't work. Take the study that showed teens who signed abstinence pledges (you would assume those that signed pledges would be much less likely to have sex than those that ignore the anti-sex class) ended up with an STD rate of about the same as those that didn't sign pledges. They figured that sex was only intercourse and found ways around that. A lack of education in protection meant they didn't use it when participating in even more dangerous activities.



Speaking of HIV the single largest group to get HIV are african women, an oppressed class that often get it from their husbands and can't "say no to sex." Some Catholic groups in Africa do their moral duty and pass on false information about condoms and try to prevent their use.



This is one misconception that always occurs regarding religion. The issue isn't about contraception in the case of the religious but, more about being obediant to God.

The truth is:

Religion is not here to prepare us for the world but to prepare us for Heaven.

The rules being taught by the "church" regarding things of this matter is supposed to be applied to those who seek God and the evetnually inheritence of Heaven. This is why it doesn't make sense and why the Catholic church looks like a bunch of morons when they do try to apply the rules handed down by Heaven to earth. They are trying to apply a discipline to those who don't understand why there should be a discipline as a worldy creature belongs to the world. How can it understand the rules of another place?

People fail to recognize the abundance of problems created by the free exercise of sex. These people do not have a reason not to do these things but it is more often then not they understand the risks involved.

as in their view "it is ok" and "it could never happen to me anyway since I am such a good person." Well - a "good person" doing "bad things" can not change the outcome of doing those bad things. Therefore, by the nature of a "good person" doing "bad things", it is the "bad things" that will testify louder then the persons claim of being good. (This is so very simple)

What you have said is true. The world will cover over it's ears and not listen to what it is that will save us or fix the problems we create.

Just because people do not want to listen does not mean we are supposed to yield to them and stop warning them or others of the place their behavior can eventually lead them. That would be unloving. If someone thinks it is ok to let someone harm others or themselves by their actions then I would call that unloving, wouldn't you.

There is ABSOULUTLY NO DOUBT that the behavior you described here is HARMING OTHERS. How much more clear on this can we be!?!? We must tell people that abstaining from sex is the only sure way of preventing disease and unwanted babies despite the "impossibility" of it being followed. Anything else is appeasment to the weak willed. The only way out is to go back to the doctrines that bring people back to a true "good" and "straight and narrow" lifestyle.

Handing out condoms will not fix this problem or educating people about the potential problems created by it. This requires a much deeper "change of heart"

Wow, good job not reading what I said and then twisting it around. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

quote:What are your qualifications then? What school did you get your doctorate from?

I have no qualifications on the issue other than that I actually read some of the literature. That is why I referenced peer reviewed articles written by doctorates. My opinions are based on the evidence, yours are based on abosolutely nothing. As you said (and as is made obvious by your ignorance), you did little reasearch on the topic before making comments. Condoms stop HIV transmission by 90%. Deal with it, fool.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Wow, good job not reading what I said and then twisting it around. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

I did, you placate the situation instead of looking at the solution.

Your stance is it is impossible to do the right thing.

I'm saying it is not possible for the church to teach things to the world when those thigns they teach are meant for the church.



Because you didn't read my response and comprehend it, I'll be more direct -



quote:Abstinence only education is based on people plugging their ears and closing their eyes and wishing we had a perfect society, ignoring reality to take what they see as the moral high ground.

by saying this - You believe that teaching abstinence will have no effect or bearing on the problem and those that do teach this are blind to reality that we are all just wild beasts with no self-control.

I somewhat agree, because what needs to happen is a change in the culture as a whole. Not just fixing a symptom to the problem.



quote:

Of course in the real world just telling teens "don't have sex" doesn't work. Take the study that showed teens who signed abstinence pledges (you would assume those that signed pledges would be much less likely to have sex than those that ignore the anti-sex class) ended up with an STD rate of about the same as those that didn't sign pledges.

Obviously those who took the pledge were not being honest and it had no real infulence over these people. The only real evidence this points out is we are without self-control. Pledge or no pledge.

quote:

They figured that sex was only intercourse and found ways around that. A lack of education in protection meant they didn't use it when participating in even more dangerous activities.

So abandon ship? Then more education is required and we should stop following the Bill Clinton guide to sexual definitions.

quote:

Speaking of HIV the single largest group to get HIV are african women, an oppressed class that often get it from their husbands and can't "say no to sex."

Some Catholic groups in Africa do their moral duty and pass on false information about condoms and try to prevent their use.



I think this is very near sighted.

The missions aren't just trying to prevent disease and hunger. This is where the term " give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach them how to use the Internet and he will never bother you again." or something like that, comes true...

quote:by saying this - You believe that teaching abstinence will have no effect or bearing on the problem and those that do teach this are blind to reality that we are all just wild beasts with no self-control.

I somewhat agree, because what needs to happen is a change in the culture as a whole. Not just fixing a symptom to the problem.

So I tell you to read what I said again, you did, but still don't get it. Pay Attention. abstinence only, I have said numerous times that abstinence education has its place along with sex education, however abstinence only education (where only abstinence is taught and not a full array of sex education) is not effective and has been shown to fail time and time again.

quote:Obviously those who took the pledge were not being honest and it had no real infulence over these people. The only real evidence this points out is we are without self-control. Pledge or no pledge.

Pay attention. They were being honest and most didn't have "sex" (intercourse) but they did do a number of other things. You might consider it all sex but they didn't, whether it was a lack of knowledge or purposeful semantics I'm not sure.

quote:So abandon ship? Then more education is required and we should stop following the Bill Clinton guide to sexual definitions.

Good idea, more education, including such things as condom use (which does not increase promiscuity) and a proper understanding of STDs.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So let me get this straight: You are judging me because I ascribe to a certain belief?

Not at all, but there are certain beliefs shared between the religions, which are extremely apparent that the two religions are similer, correct?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

You have prejudiciously assumed that I must somehow be against condoms in response to my beliefs. If the two beliefs were so similar then the Reformation would never have come about.





Good point, but certain undeniable major simularitys exist between christiananity, and catholosism, correct?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Furthermore, I don't anyone who is against condoms. I'm not against them and I've never met anyone against them. I was simply pointing out that perhaps you are glancing over the more obvious statement of the Catholic Church. To me the no-brainer statement is that abstinence until marriage is a good thing and it would destroy all venereal diseases.



No they are not saying this. If they are then in addition to this they are going against condoms in use between married couples.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

However, their staunch opposition to condoms is absurd to me. So, in essence I'm playing the devil's advocate because I understand both sides of the coin.



No actually your not understanding to the full extent what they are saying, which is that condoms should never be used, even in married couples when one member of the relationship has aids, and I disapprove.

You didn't read the first half of my post and this is evident.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Now the married partner part is whats sad. hyroglyphx, this isn't related to sex before marriage. It isn't related to curing aids, it's about the church saying they would rather you die a painful death by aids than use a condom, and when a bishop stood against this, he was shuned.



Dispite this instead you still insisted:

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

abstinence until marriage is a good thing and it would destroy all venereal diseases



Also please note it WOULD NOT destroy all venereal deseases.

quote:

The Vatican says condoms should never be used, even to stop Aids spreading from one married partner to another.





See? Did you not read the article? The church is clearly against the use of condoms in marriage.

Also you clearly didn't read what I posted after the post from which you quoted.

Since you overlooked it (I hope, since otherwise you would have just closed your eyes to views contrary to yours) here it is again.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

You can't blame everyone in afirca for whats happening. What about the people forced to have sex without consent? I heard that there are crazy rumors there like having sex with a virgin will cure aids. Condoms arn't the biggest problem in afirca right now...misinformation is.

Proper education would be a start for afirca, as to wether or not condoms are 105% effective isn't why the church is against them.

I put things related to venereal desease, and the point of the thread, in italics, although I hope you read it all.

I hope I clarified my previous statement since you didn't understand what I said and misjudged my intentions.

Edit: Spelling



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-24-2006).]