CC in Spain bucking Vatican line

[Shake]

Finally. It's good to see that someone is taking a common sense position. This is in regards to condom use (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/19/spain.condoms.ap/index.html) and the spread of AIDS. The Catholic Church in Spain has decided to go against the official Vatican line, in what I believe is a first in the Catholic world outside of the US.I wonder how quickly before

other nations join on, and
the Vatican responds with some fire and brimstone sort of attack

Should be interesting anyway.

[Mustaphile]

Interesting stuff. :)

[Sweetie]

I suppose one of my questions is, who is the Church in Spain? Like, does that mean some Bishops, a Cardinal, an Archbishop, all Spanish Archbishops, etc.? It's a little general to say Church in Spain.

The articls says, "some Spanish Catholics", "spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference"..."In June, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, said condom use was "a form of Russian roulette" in fighting AIDS, El Pais said.

The remark was roundly condemned by the Spanish government, the World Health Organization and other organizations involved in fighting AIDS, the papers added."

The Spanish government, some Spanish Catholics, a spokesman, etc. Would have to see the documents the spokesman was speaking of I guess.

I mean, "The leading daily El Pais pointed out that as recently as November the Spanish Bishops Conference had vehemently opposed the Health Ministry's campaign to promote the use of condoms."

It changed it's tune drastically in the last two months?

[Beth]

Glad to hear it. I cringe everytime I read about misionaries and nuns spreading misinfo about condoms not preventing AIDS and STD's.

[Sweetie]

Glad to hear it. I cringe everytime I read about misionaries and nuns spreading misinfo about condoms not preventing AIDS and STD's.

You got some articles handy? I had heard of one Bishop or something suggesting with clinical data that it wasn't as effective as we thought it was but I never heard of this being a teaching. There was controversy, but I haven't heard much about it for awhile, in fact, it was dealt with by another Vatican official but I haven't looked at the case in over a year. That is not a Church teaching anyways. In certain circles it could revolve as a truth that this happens but.

[Sweetie]

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/005399.php

[TomJoe]

CNN. Hmph.

As you see in the Curt Jester blog, the spokesman for the Church simply said that Spain's sex ed approach of "use condoms" was not as effective as an "abstinence and as a last resort condoms" approach... obviously with an emphasis on abstinence.

How CNN gets "Spanish Catholic Church bucks Vatican" out of that is beyond me.

[livius drusus]

BBC's version (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4187181.stm) seems more circumspect on all counts.

"The Church is very worried and interested by this problem, and its position is backed by scientific proposals such as the one published in the prestigious magazine the Lancet," Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino said.

"The time has come, the Lancet magazine says, for a joint strategy in the prevention of such a tragic pandemic as Aids, and contraception has a place in a global approach to tackling Aids."

IOW, Camino was supporting Lancet's article which apparently suggested that the abstinence and fidelity programs the CC endorses are effective in preventing the spread of AIDS. The condom bit looks to me like Camino paraphrasing the Lancet, not making any kind of official pro-condom statement.

The last paragraph of that article, btw, mentions the CC's disinformation about condoms which I think is what Beth is referring to wrt missionaries spreading nonsense about condom pores and whatnot. Here's a Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) about that.

[Sweetie]

Yeah, I think it was that Guardian article that was being passed around awhile ago that I had spent some time working on refuting, they were being a bit too general with their use of "the Church." What it was, if I can recall correctly, was one man, a bishop or something, with some clinical data who gained instant publicity which the Church dealt with and issues their own statements. I don't know if I can find all the work and sources I put into that back then. It was a bit too much hype in that case, and a bit too much of the media putting their own spin on it, making it much larger then it was, making the story have more meaning than it actually did. One man who I think was saying that the Aids virus or cells or what have you, can slip through the holes in the condom. Then there was an issue of whether they were talking about the old style condoms, of which this was true, or the newer ones, or latex ones, I can't remember.

[Beth]

http://www.thebody.com/asp/janfeb04/lazarus.html
The Catholic Church. All over the world, the Catholic Church is telling people not to use condoms. The Church opposes any kind of contraception and Pope John Paul II himself proclaims that the only divinely approved sex is the kind that happens in the context of a heterosexual marriage for the sole purpose of procreation. That's old news.

Now, in a desperate attempt to impose this morality upon the entire world, cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns across four continents have mounted a brazen campaign of intimidation and lies. Catholic clergy in Mexico publicly castigated that country's First Lady, Marta Sahugan, after she advocated the use of condoms for protection against HIV. Bishops accused her of spreading propaganda and called her "depraved." The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, announced that HIV is smaller than sperm and can therefore pass right through a condom. Widespread scientific consensus disputes this, but when representatives of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization presented Cardinal Trujillo with evidence, he huffed, "They are wrong about that ... this is an easily recognizable fact." Then the archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, added his two cents: "AIDS has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." Reality check: condoms provide a highly effective barrier to HIV transmission. According to a mountain of research, condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by at least 90%. In the remaining 10% of cases, the condom was used improperly, broke, slipped off or had passed its expiration date. Wanna know something that really doesn't work? Celibate priests.
Sex and the Holy City transcript (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/sexandtheholycity.txt)
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .
Vatican in HIV condom row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm)

Catherine Hankins, chief scientific advisor to UNAids, condemned the Church's comments.

"It is very unfortunate to have this type of misinformation being broadcast," she told BBC News Online.

"It is a concern. From a technical point of view, the statements are totally incorrect.

"Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV transmission."

The WHO also attacked the Catholic Church's comments.

"Statements like this are quite dangerous, " a spokeswoman told BBC News Online.

Catholics, condoms, and Africa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1247745,00.html)
Some of the church's organizations are taking baby steps to step away from Vatican policy:
Catholic aid agency condones use of condoms (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1316657,00.html)"Typical risk reduction strategies include abstinence, mutual fidelity, reducing the number of sexual partners and condom use...Condom campaigns have been particularly effective with groups at the highest risk - sex workers, for example.

"[But] Cafod's approach advocates neither the condoms-only or even condoms-mainly campaigns for the general population, which have often been promoted with the same dogmatism as some abstinence-only campaigns."

The charity last week sought to play down any implication of a rift with official church teaching and stressed that it did not promote the use of condoms or assist their distribution. Some churchmen have said condoms cannot be used even if the consequence is illness or death, and the Vatican has argued that they are ineffective because the infection can pass through the sheath. But some theologians, including Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, suggest that condoms may be a lesser evil if their purpose is to avoid infection.Chris Bain, the charity's director, said: "Our stance has always been that the only solution is basically being faithful and abstinent, but you cannot lie to people if they are making their own choices. They have to be given factual information. There is more scientific evidence that condoms are an effective reduction of risk but they do not eliminate it."

"We are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people and currently affects around 42 million.

"There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through.

"Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong."

The aid agency Christian Aid also attacked the Vatican's attitude.

"Condoms are a straightforward and effective way of preventing HIV transmission and to suggest otherwise is dangerous," said Dr Rachel Baggaley, head of its HIV unit.

[Beth]

I highly suggest reading the entire transcript and the the articles containing quotes from Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, Pontifical Council for the Family. Apparantly he is speaking for the Vatican.

[Shake]

Well, baby steps are better than no steps, and the sooner that people realize that these are steps in the right direction, the better. Granted, that's not the only problem in places particularly like Africa, where AIDS is rampant, but it'd be a big help.
Ms Smith pointed out that to assume people become sexually active at the onset of puberty from choice was erroneous: "For many in Africa and Asia, sex is often the only commodity people have to exchange for food, school fees, exam results, employment, or survival itself in situations of violence...the spread of HIV is not always linked to promiscuity. Most HIV-positive women worldwide are infected by the person they considered to be their monogamous lifelong partners." Things like this need to change, too.

"A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step."

[TomJoe]

3.1 million new infections of people (adults and children) in sub-sahara Africa. This accounts for 81% of all new, reported infections worldwide.

How long have condom programs been running in Africa? Does this look like progress?

So, if we're going to get the culture to accept condoms, what's the problem with teaching them to accept abstinence and monogamy as well?

The thing I found equally disturbing, if not moreso was the following excerpt:

Ms Smith pointed out that to assume people become sexually active at the onset of puberty from choice was erroneous: "For many in Africa and Asia, sex is often the only commodity people have to exchange for food, school fees, exam results, employment, or survival itself in situations of violence...the spread of HIV is not always linked to promiscuity. Most HIV-positive women worldwide are infected by the person they considered to be their monogamous lifelong partners."

If people are going to use sex as a tool, do you think that they're going to use a condom?

Edited to add: If what is quoted above is the truth, and I have no reason to doubt it, then condoms alone, abstinence/monogamy alone, condoms and abstinence/monogamy combined programs probably won't mean shit. It sounds as if the entire area needs social programs that start from the bottom up. If people need to provide sex for food... talking about condoms, or abstinence won't mean a thing. :(

[Sweetie]

Beth,

The first article you quoted was so packed full of generalities and too many people saying this or that, it certainly wouldn't stand up in court as is. You are the court, you decide what is admissable and what isn't. Articles such as those which are obviously biased, which have a large room for distortion and insinuation are hearsay. I go back to source documents, I try and find a variety of unbiased sources and if not unbiased, a mixture of bias, ie: he said she said, which makes the most sense and which is supported the most by the available evidence?

From Planned Parenthood:

"A male condom is a thin sheath which is placed on the penis to trap sperm. When used properly and consistently, male condoms are 86% - 97% effective in preventing pregnancies. Latex or polyurethane condoms also provide protection against some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV. They do not protect against HPV (genital warts) or herpes.

Beware of novelty condoms and those made from sheep membrane – viruses and bacteria may be able to pass through the pores of these condoms. People who are allergic to latex can often use condoms made of polyurethane."

http://www.fredericton.ppfc.ca/barrier.htm

This is a question of what type of condom one is using it seems and what type of condom they are talking about. My first question from the very first sentence is if it is obvious that an Aids cell is smaller than a sperm cell and some condoms are only 86-97% effective against pregnancy, then how effective are they then in that case against the transmission of Aids?

The best this source can say is:

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm

This is mostly about different types of condoms and how effective they are because some are certainly and factually not as effective.

This is about he said/she said, what others want him or her to have said. I did my research a year ago, like I said, source documents are lacking for me at present, I put the case into perspective, and that's that. What you continue to think and believe on the subject is up to you.

[Beth]

I understand your perspective, but you have not changed mine. The first article I presented you with was a commentary that gave a fairly decent quote from Pontiff Trujillio. I provided many more reports and a transcript from reliable news sources.

None of the sources you cited provided any evidence to support the Church's stance, nor your hint that the virus particles may actually pass through the 'tiny holes' in latex condoms. (Natural skin condoms, well, that is a given.) What it does suggest is that the condoms, when used correctly and consistantly, are an effective barrier method that does dramatically reduce the transmission, although it is not a perfect barrier, of HIV as compared to no condom use at all.

As far as HPV and genital warts, well, there are other factors involved with the spread of these infectious diseases, including skin to skin contact of infected areas not covered by the condoms.

[Adora]

in what I believe is a first in the Catholic world outside of the US.
Not really. Much of the Brazillian Catholic church is extremely liberal and left-wing, and has been promoting condom use in the country for decades. Of course, there are still strong factions that toe the official line, but yeah, just another example.

And condoms not preventing HIV and STDs? *snorts* Yeah, right, tell that to the Nevada brothel industry. XD Hahahahaha.

[Beth]

I also like to add the Planned Parenthood of America's info (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/fact-truth-condoms.xml) on condoms. It is much more informative than what I assume is the Canadian site.

Condom Effectiveness

Condoms are effective because they block contact with body fluids that cause pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection. Most reports of condom failure are the result of inconsistent or incorrect use, not breakage (Macaluso, et al., 1999). A recent study of college students found that condom use errors were very common — 40 percent of the young men surveyed reported that, within the previous three months, they had not left space for ejaculate at the tip of a condom, and 15 percent had taken a condom off before completing intercourse (Crosby, et al., 2002). In the U.S., the actual breakage rate is a low two per 100 condoms (CDC, 1998). High failure rates in some studies occur because many people lie about contraceptive use to shift the responsibility for an unintended pregnancy to a "faulty" contraceptive. Such over-reporting artificially inflates failure rates (Trussell, 1998).
HIV

Given the serious consequences of HIV infection, much of the research about condom efficacy has focused on HIV transmission. The condom is recognized as a highly effective barrier against HIV infection (CDC, 2004).

Condom-use opponents, however, have manipulated the findings of flawed laboratory tests to create public doubt about the condom's effectiveness against HIV. For example, one study erroneously concluded that latex condoms leak HIV virus even though it used particles that were 100 million times smaller than the HIV particles found in semen (Stone, et al., 1999). In fact, the risk of HIV transmission with a condom is reduced — as much as 10,000-fold (Carey, et al., 1992; Cavalieri d'Oro, et al., 1994; Weller, 1993).

In a study of couples in which one partner was HIV positive, only one case of infection (two percent) occurred among those who remained sexually active and used condoms consistently and correctly. In contrast, the incidence of HIV infection was 14 percent with inconsistent use (Deschamps, et al., 1996). A similar study that followed couples for an average of 20 months found there were no new cases of infection among couples who used condoms consistently (de Vincenzi, 1994). Another study found that among a group of couples who used condoms consistently, two percent of the uninfected partners contracted HIV over the course of the two year study. This contrasts with 12 percent of partners who became infected in couples that reported inconsistent or no condom use (Saracco, et al., 1993). A meta-analysis of 25 studies on HIV transmission and condoms found that efficacy rates ranged from 87 percent to 96 percent against HIV infection (Davis & Weller, 1999).

HPV and Herpes

Condoms provide some protection against viruses such as human papilloma virus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV), that infect the general genital area (CDC, 2004). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend condom usage as a way to reduce the risk of both infections (CDC, 1998). Since HPV and herpes viruses 'shed' beyond the covered area, however, condoms do not provide as complete protection as they do for other pathogens, but two recent Dutch studies have found that condom use promotes the regression of HPV lesions in women and men, as well as the clearance of HPV infection in women (Hogewoning, et al., 2003; Maaike, et al., 2003).

Unlike HIV, most HPV and HSV infections do not have catastrophic health consequences. In general, they are not as dangerous as HIV or chlamydia, which condoms can more successfully prevent. HIV infection is considered fatal, and chlamydia and gonorrhea can result in infertility or permanent disability (Friedman, et al., 1998; Howell, et al., 1998; OWH, 1997).

[seebs]

I think the problem is that condoms are not a complete resolution to the problem, but they probably help.

In short, I think that teaching other things (like, say, reading) would help a lot too... But that condoms will in the mean time contain the damage and reduce the number of people dying.

When we're talking about people whoring themselves out for lunch, I don't think the question of whether the use of a condom is a sin is really on the radar.

[Beth]

Seebs, I agree, but discouraging condom use with misinfo is downright immoral and endangers lives.

Alot has to be done to help Africa. I do believe in teaching abstinence in combination with teaching proper use of barrier methods, alternatives to sexual intercourse, such as masturbation-solo or mutual, frottage with shield, and grinding. I would suggest oral sex, but I cannot because it does allow for risk of certain STD's but it is safer than unprotected intercourse. I also would like to see girls being taught more that they do not need to be used for sex by older men and not to fall into the trap of a sugar daddy. I know that there are some countries in Africa that are promoting these other methods and self esteme. There also needs to be warning to women and men in married relationships; adultery is very common in some areas, from what I understand. They need to be taught that condom use is really a must in combination with providing incintives for monogamous units (not sure how, maybe just really stress the benefits of it). There do need to be programs to help the poor and to save them from selling their bodies. And I agree, a good education is the path.

[Godless Dave]

Sweetie, what Beth is talking about are the direct quotes from Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo in which he gives out demonstrably false information.

[Godless Dave]

So, if we're going to get the culture to accept condoms, what's the problem with teaching them to accept abstinence and monogamy as well?

Being monogamous doesn't do you any good if your husband's out banging hookers.

[TomJoe]

So, if we're going to get the culture to accept condoms, what's the problem with teaching them to accept abstinence and monogamy as well?

Being monogamous doesn't do you any good if your husband's out banging hookers.

So we're teaching the women how to wear a condom?

No wonder those programs aren't working...

[Godless Dave]

No, teaching the women to ask or insist that their partners use condoms.

[TomJoe]

No, teaching the women to ask or insist that their partners use condoms.

In a male dominated culture, where wearing a condom wilts their masculinity, and woman are not much more than property, you may as well teach the woman to tell the man to go screw himself.

Remember, 3.1 million new infections in 2004, 81% of the worlds new HIV cases, in the area we're talking about.

A radical solution is needed for this extreme problem. At this point, telling men to wrap it, and women to request such, probably is not going to work.

[Beth]

Well, then, the male dominated culture needs to change because they are leaving behind a culture of HIV orphans.

[Godless Dave]

But it's better than nothing, and it's only one of several tactics being used. Got another idea?

[livius drusus]

A quick note: there are female condoms now which could take the persuade the man element out of the equation. However, I personally find them quite perplexing and I'm not unfamiliar with the general product line; I doubt someone with less knowledge and experience would be likely to try them. They are also externally visible, so to some degree the man will probably need to be persuaded anyway.

It does make it easier for the woman, though, I think, in a possession is 9/10ths of the law kind of way.

[Beth]

In my area, we are an abstinence only county, meaning that is the official school sex education stance. Since we have switched to abstinence only, the incidence of teen pregnancy has risen , as has the STD incidence, as has the rate of youth becoming infected with HIV. It seems to me that teaching ways to prevent infection and pregnancy worked better than just telling the kids not to do it.

[Beth]

A quick note: there are female condoms now which could take the persuade the man element out of the equation. However, I personally find them quite perplexing and I'm not unfamiliar with the general product line; I doubt someone with less knowledge and experience would be likely to try them. They are also externally visible, so to some degree the man will probably need to be persuaded anyway.

It does make it easier for the woman, though, I think, in a possession is 9/10ths of the law kind of way.
Actually, if I were single again and wanted to use a condom for STD prevention rather than as a birth control method, I would be using female condoms. They provide a better barrier over the gentitals and do help better protect against HPV and Herpes. The way I feel is that if a guy does not want to be bothered with a female condom then I certainly would not bother with him.

[TomJoe]

But it's better than nothing, and it's only one of several tactics being used. Got another idea?

I thought I did, and I thought I suggested them earlier in the thread.

I think in certain areas of sub-saharan Africa, ravaged by war and genocide, the culture needs to be renewed. If people have no hope of living past the age of 30, what's an HIV infection?

Economies need to be propped up (or in some cases established), governments need to be established which actually get the aid that is given to them to the people (ie: government corruption needs to be crushed), and we need to give the people hope. Hope that they can survive on their own, hope that they'll be able to feed their children, that they'll have money to buy the basic necessities... things of that nature. Then we can begin to properly combat the problem of STDs.

Throwing condoms at these people is akin, in my mind, to throwing money at a situation where no one knows how to properly spend it. It winds up being ineffective.

I've read about programs (Beth mentioned it too) where such stuff is being enacted, and it's working, but these instances are, from what I can tell, isolated. I've never been to Africa, so I can't tell you how bad things really are, but 3.1 million new cases tells me that things aren't so hot.

[TomJoe]

Actually, if I were single again and wanted to use a condom for STD prevention rather than as a birth control method, I would be using female condoms.

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy but... if I don't want to get an STD, I just won't put my dick in it. Sounds crude, but it's wonderfully effective. I haven't gotten an STD by going this route.

So a condom reduces by 90%, HIV transmission? Take a gun with 10 chambers, put a bullet in one of them and then give the chamber a spin. Put the gun to your head... would you pull the trigger?

1 in 10, odds are in your favor... no? Give it a pull...

[livius drusus]

Actually, if I were single again and wanted to use a condom for STD prevention rather than as a birth control method, I would be using female condoms. They provide a better barrier over the gentitals and do help better protect against HPV and Herpes. The way I feel is that if a guy does not want to be bothered with a female condom then I certainly would not bother with him.

Well sure, but choosing it for ourselves is a whole other thing than teaching it to people who might be resistant to the whole idea of using condoms in the first place. The learning curve is a factor for women and the external visibility is a factor for men. They can both be overcome, but it's not any kind of solution really, just another option to help counter male reluctance to don a condom and female reluctance to ask or insist on it.

[Beth]

Actually, if I were single again and wanted to use a condom for STD prevention rather than as a birth control method, I would be using female condoms.

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy but... if I don't want to get an STD, I just won't put my dick in it. Sounds crude, but it's wonderfully effective. I haven't gotten an STD by going this route.

So a condom reduces by 90%, HIV transmission? Take a gun with 10 chambers, put a bullet in one of them and then give the chamber a spin. Put the gun to your head... would you pull the trigger?

1 in 10, odds are in your favor... no? Give it a pull... Better than nothing if you do sleep with someone without getting tested first. I would never sleep with another man without having known that he is clean from disease, but even then, I have no way of knowing he is totally faithful. I have no problem making condom use a requirement if he wants to be inside me. I suppose having one's father die from AIDS complications kinda makes you more cautionary than others.

[Godless Dave]

It seems to me that teaching ways to prevent infection and pregnancy worked better than just telling the kids not to do it.

And even if they abstain till marriage, once they are married they should know about birth control options.

[livius drusus]

So a condom reduces by 90%, HIV transmission? Take a gun with 10 chambers, put a bullet in one of them and then give the chamber a spin. Put the gun to your head... would you pull the trigger?

I don't think this is an apt analogy, Tom, because it assumes total ignorance of the odds of your sexual partner/s having an STD. You can never know for sure, of course, but you can reduce the probability by getting tested together, for example, and by sharing sexual histories.

That's not to say some STDs aren't good hiders and that some sexual partners aren't lying, but the russian roulette argument implies a blind recklessness which I don't think you can assume.

[Beth]

Actually, if I were single again and wanted to use a condom for STD prevention rather than as a birth control method, I would be using female condoms. They provide a better barrier over the gentitals and do help better protect against HPV and Herpes. The way I feel is that if a guy does not want to be bothered with a female condom then I certainly would not bother with him.

Well sure, but choosing it for ourselves is a whole other thing than teaching it to people who might be resistant to the whole idea of using condoms in the first place. The learning curve is a factor for women and the external visibility is a factor for men. They can both be overcome, but it's not any kind of solution really, just another option to help counter male reluctance to don a condom and female reluctance to ask or insist on it.I know, Liv. I would just think that seeing so many dying or so many orphaned children would make people more willing to be cautious. This is where education comes into play, that and ingraining a knew thought process into the societies that are most at risk.

[Godless Dave]

I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy but... if I don't want to get an STD, I just won't put my dick in it. Sounds crude, but it's wonderfully effective. I haven't gotten an STD by going this route.

I've never gotten an STD either, but I get to have sex.

So a condom reduces by 90%, HIV transmission?

More like 98% I believe.

[TomJoe]

So a condom reduces by 90%, HIV transmission? Take a gun with 10 chambers, put a bullet in one of them and then give the chamber a spin. Put the gun to your head... would you pull the trigger?

I don't think this is an apt analogy, Tom, because it assumes total ignorance of the odds of your sexual partner/s having an STD. You can never know for sure, of course, but you can reduce the probability by getting tested together, for example, and by sharing sexual histories.

That's not to say some STDs aren't good hiders and that some sexual partners aren't lying, but the russian roulette argument implies a blind recklessness which I don't think you can assume.

For pure shock value, I think it's a good analogy... but every analogy typically has a weak spot, as you pointed out.

I'll admit that the number, even if the person you were having sex with was HIV infection, would be less than 1 in 10 (given a 90% condom effectiveness) because not everyone gets infected the first time they have sex.

However... I do not think it can be denied that there are many people out there who are not responsible individuals, and they do employ a blind recklessness when establishing a sexual encounter. So perhaps I should save my analogy for them?

[TomJoe]

I've never gotten an STD either, but I get to have sex.

Congratulations, on both counts.

More like 98% I believe.

I'm just going with what was already provided as evidence in this thread.

[Sweetie]

Condoms are that effective:

if there are no manufacturer defects, of which there has been cases of in the past

if the packaging is intact

if they are stored properly

if they are put on properly

if they aren't expired

if they are used everytime, something I would have trouble with if using condoms as a longer term thing

if between partners or between ejaculations the gentleman in question would be properly cleaned so as not to have a sort of transfer thing going on

if after all that they don't decide to break anyways

Do they ever slip off? I've never heard of that happening but perhaps some guy picks the wrong size and?

if they are not made of other materials than latex or polyurethane

if you have an available supply to meet your needs so you don't decide to cheat just because you have no self-control



Honestly, against those odds I made a tough decision which was made easier by the fact that I personally hate condoms ie: sex and me and condoms don't get along well which left me with two choices, abstinence or a committed relationship or a couple committed relationships with documentation to the effect that the one I'm with is clean.

How this relates to Africa? I just am skeptical about how much handing out condoms can do. I see the same thing as Tom does, this just won't cut it, it isn't the answer, they need help from the ground up. It's like you know the story with the man and the fish, giving a man a condom is like just giving him a fish, teach him to fish and. I mean yes, I think education and more education, people do need to know their options, the risks even if they think they're safe. Honestly, before I started researching that case I would have thought that all condoms I purchased were the same and just as effectual. How many years did they use these other types of condoms telling people they were effective, they'll protect you? I don't know, I don't have any data on that and I don't use them so it's not of personal importance, but.

[Sweetie]

As far as the Church is concerned, this is a complex issue. To be honest, I don't think many people really understand why the Church is against birth control in the first place and why she considers it absolutely necessary to stand her ground in this case. In her eyes one would be asking her to use evil to fight evil, evil which is the cause of the disaster in the first place, immorality as she might say. The only real change I think she sees possible is inner change, ie: making the right choices not just seeing how safe you can be while making the wrong choices, I mean truly and factually, the sexual revolution and the free love, free sex, if it feels good do it, if you want to go ahead mentality is what she would see as causing the trouble in the first place, a sort of rampant immorality.

I would almost think that she would love to be able to back down on this issue, I would love to but it's one of those things, hold to the principle for the future or sacrifice it and even in her case she has no choice, she cannot sacrifice the principle without sacrificing everything that she is, and that would need some understanding to understand why I would say that. She's like a Captain at war and things are looking so good but the Captain is standing his ground.

What people are seeing in the case is that it is a greater evil for another to kill another by not using a condom than for them using birth control so they want the Church to approve a lesser evil in that sense but she can't.

The Church is against any and all premarital and extra-marital sex which means that's she's against both the use of birth control and the casual sex involved. If she backs down an inch, she has approved birth control and has contradicted herself which is ultimately the sacrifice of all her other teachings about sex and morality. Birth control is a fundamental issue, she can't back down an inch and especially not six. :wink:

As far as I'm concerned then, in my own personal actions, she says it is sinful to do this and do that. If I decide to have premarital/extra-marital sex, that is my choice and my sin. If I am going to, I will protect myself but I don't expect the Church to approve it or hand me the condoms to do it with.

[Goliath]

I find it absolutely sickening that the catholic church* tries to outlaw birth control, especially in countries that need it the most. When are they going to understand that not everyone wants to have 12-15 or more kids and/or get STDs?

* - And no, I will not insult humanity by anthropomorphising the catholic church by referring to it as a "he" or "she".

[TomJoe]

I find it absolutely sickening that the catholic church* tries to outlaw birth control, especially in countries that need it the most. When are they going to understand that not everyone wants to have 12-15 or more kids and/or get STDs?

* - And no, I will not insult humanity by anthropomorphising the catholic church by referring to it as a "he" or "she".

Goliath,

Before you make these sweeping generalities, can you please check your facts first? It'd save you from some embarrassment too.

The Catholic Church is against all forms of artificial birth control. For reasons that Sweetie stated. In the encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/docs/humanae_vitae.html), Pope Paul VI dedicated the entire document to outlining the Catholic Church's unwavering, official position on artificial birth control, and why she* was against it.

However, the Catholic Church does allow what is called Natural Family Planning (http://ccli.org/) if done under the proper circumstances and for the "right reasons", outlined as well in Humanae Vitae. NFP can serve as birth control (because it targets the exact dates of fertility in a woman, allowing the couple to abstain during this period) and as a means to enhance the chances of pregnancy. So, for you to say that the Catholic Church prohibits birth control, is fallacious.

The Catholic Church teaches, whether you agree with it or not, that sex is a procreative and unitive act, which means that it should be performed and fostered in the environment of marriage. If two people are "clean" going into a marriage, and then stay monogamous throughout that marriage, neither one of them will contract an STD through the other... it's impossible. Then, with the practice of NFP, the family can plan the births of their children in such a way that their family size is what they feel called to. Do you realize Goliath, that if a woman breast feeds her child, that she can stay infertile* for up to a year after the birth of that child, as long as she is consistent in breast feeding that child on a regular basis?

The Catholic Church thinks that it has a useful working model, yet no one wants to seem to put it into practice. Like Chesterton said (about Christianity... but I think it could apply here too)... [This] has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.



*I like anthropomorphising.
*It's no guarantee, but it is possible, which would work toward spacing out births.

[Beth]

I'm sorry, but after hearing more about the church's stance-which I already knew about- I find the stance even more sickening and disgusting and oppressive.

[TomJoe]

I'm sorry, but after hearing more about the church's stance-which I already knew about- I find the stance even more sickening and disgusting and oppressive.

To each their own.

[viscousmemories]

How this relates to Africa? I just am skeptical about how much handing out condoms can do. I see the same thing as Tom does, this just won't cut it, it isn't the answer, they need help from the ground up.
Are you suggesting that condoms shouldn't be distributed, then? Because it seems to me that if the distribution of condoms doesn't increase the incidence of HIV infection (and I've never heard of a circumstance where it has been shown to) then there is no practical reason not to do it.

[livius drusus]

I find it absolutely sickening that the catholic church* tries to outlaw birth control, especially in countries that need it the most.

I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church tries to outlaw birth control. Do you have a source for this?

[TomJoe]

Are you suggesting that condoms shouldn't be distributed, then? Because it seems to me that if the distribution of condoms doesn't increase the incidence of HIV infection (and I've never heard of a circumstance where it has been shown to) then there is no practical reason not to do it.

Handing out KY jelly and Penthouse probably wouldn't increase the incidence of HIV infection either... doesn't mean it's practical. :P

Sorry... not really relevant to the discussion, I just found it a funny thing to say.

[Goliath]

The Catholic Church is against all forms of artificial birth control.

What, exactly, do you mean by "artificial" in this instance?

In the encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/docs/humanae_vitae.html)...

I will not read this hate-filled drivel. Enough of that shit was forced upon me when I was a child, and you will not succeed in forcing it on me now.

However, the Catholic Church does allow what is called Natural Family Planning (http://ccli.org/)...

Yeah, as in "if you're female, plan on becoming a baby factory!" No thanks.

The Catholic Church teaches, whether you agree with it or not, that sex is a procreative and unitive act,

I have no idea what you mean by "unitive", but the church is wrong (as usual) about sex being a procreative act. Thanks to numerous methods of birth control, sex need not lead to procreation. Sex is now at least as much of an act of intimacy and pleasure than it is an act of procreation.

Do you realize Goliath, that if a woman breast feeds her child, that she can stay infertile* for up to a year after the birth of that child, as long as she is consistent in breast feeding that child on a regular basis?

I did not know that. But how is this relevant to couples who do not wish to have any children?

The Catholic Church thinks that it has a useful working model, yet no one wants to seem to put it into practice.

Wrong again. For hundreds of years, the tyrannical church was able to do whatever it wished.

*I like anthropomorphising.

I'm sorry that you seem to hate humanity so much.

[livius drusus]

You are quoting Sweetie, Goliath, not TomJoe. You've got your tags wrong. Just FYI.

[Goliath]

I find it absolutely sickening that the catholic church* tries to outlaw birth control, especially in countries that need it the most.

I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church tries to outlaw birth control. Do you have a source for this?

On second thought, "outlaw" was a bit of an overstatement...the CC certainly discourages the use of birth control, though.

[Goliath]

You are quoting Sweetie, Goliath, not TomJoe. You've got your tags wrong. Just FYI.

Ummm...I don't think so. I responded to post #43, which was made by TomJoe....

:?

[livius drusus]

Not an overstatement, Goliath, an inaccuracy. Discouraging a given behavior and attempting to make them against the law are two entirely different things. In any case, thanks for the retraction.

[livius drusus]

You are quoting Sweetie, Goliath, not TomJoe. You've got your tags wrong. Just FYI.

Ummm...I don't think so. I responded to post #43, which was made by TomJoe....

:?

No you're right. I was looking at the wrong post. Sorry about that. :blush:

[Goliath]

No you're right. I was looking at the wrong post. Sorry about that. :blush:

No problem. :)

[TomJoe]

What, exactly, do you mean by "artificial" in this instance?


Artificial means "not natural". Condoms, diaphragms, sponges, the pill... all instances of ABC (artificial birth control).


I will not read this hate-filled drivel. Enough of that shit was forced upon me when I was a child, and you will not succeed in forcing it on me now.


Curses... foiled again. :rolleye1:


Yeah, as in "if you're female, plan on becoming a baby factory!" No thanks.


Another ignorant comment.


I have no idea what you mean by "unitive"...


Consult with my friends Merriam and Webster:

...characterized by or tending to produce union.

but the church is wrong (as usual) about sex being a procreative act.

Oh really? I didn't know you still thought storks delivered babies.

Sex is now at least as much of an act of intimacy and pleasure than it is an act of procreation.

Like I said, and you failed to comprehend... unitive and procreative.


I did not know that. But how is this relevant to couples who do not wish to have any children?


A family need not have 12-13 children, as there are natural ways to space children... the body knows its own limits. That was my point.


Wrong again. For hundreds of years, the tyrannical church was able to do whatever it wished.


Oh boy, here we go with the same old bullshit. When we start living 400 years in the past, then you can bring up this tired line of argumentation... but we live in the here and now. I contend that things were not half as bad as you imply they were, since you can't get half your facts straight on issues that are relevant today, but this isn't the place to air it out.

I'm sorry that you seem to hate humanity so much.

LOL... I can't believe you indulge in such asinine behavior. It's unbefitting anyone over the age of 10.

[TomJoe]

On second thought, "outlaw" was a bit of an overstatement...the CC certainly discourages the use of birth control, though.

Wrong. The CC discourages the use of artificial birth control, for reasons outlined in Humanae Vitae. A document which you want to rail against but refuse to read.

[Goliath]

Artificial means "not natural". Condoms, diaphragms, sponges, the pill... all instances of ABC (artificial birth control).

Condoms, diaphragms, etc, are completely natural.

Curses... foiled again. :rolleye1:

Good to see that you're beginning to realize that this is one atheist that you will not push around.

Oh really? I didn't know you still thought storks delivered babies.

Oops. I meant "strictly procreative", not "procreative". Of course sex can be procreative, but it need not be.

Like I said, and you failed to comprehend... unitive and procreative.

And you fail to comprehend...intimacy and pleasure.

A family need not have 12-13 children, as there are natural ways to space children... the body knows its own limits. That was my point.

Okay, how do you space zero children?


Oh boy, here we go with the same old bullshit.


Unless you're alleging that the CC never engaged in any atrocities, then what you're referring to as "bullshit" is not, in fact, bullshit.

LOL... I can't believe you indulge in such asinine behavior. It's unbefitting anyone over the age of 10.

Sometimes I think the same of catholics.

[TomJoe]

Condoms, diaphragms, etc, are completely natural.


Of course... everyone knows they grow on trees.


Good to see that you're beginning to realize that this is one atheist that you will not push around.


LOL... paranoid, huh?


Oops. I meant "strictly procreative", not "procreative". Of course sex can be procreative, but it need not be.


No one said "strictly procreative" Don Quixote... go tilt at another windmill why doncha?

And you fail to comprehend...intimacy and pleasure.

Nope, I do not fail to comprehend that at all. Intimacy is a unitive act.


Okay, how do you space zero children?


By avoiding having sexual relations during a womans fertile period, which usually equates to a week to ten days of the month.


Unless you're alleging that the CC never engaged in any atrocities, then what you're referring to as "bullshit" is not, in fact, bullshit.


Like I said, I don't think this is the thread for it, but I'd like to see what you consider atrocities sometime.

Sometimes I think the same of catholics.

Figured that'd be your response. :cool:

[Goliath]

Of course... everyone knows they grow on trees.

Ah, so you don't consider tomatoes (for example) to be natural. How ridiculous.

No one said "strictly procreative" Don Quixote


First of all, my name is not Don Quixote.

Secondly, if the CC doesn't mean "strictly procreative", then why mention the obvious?


By avoiding having sexual relations during a womans fertile period, which usually equates to a week to ten days of the month.

That's not anywhere near reliable enough for me. I will therefore continue to use artificial birth control with any future partners that I may have. The fact that the CC doesn't approve even further cements said decision.

[TomJoe]

Ah, so you don't consider tomatoes (for example) to be natural. How ridiculous.


Oh brother... one would think you would have picked up on my sarcasm.


First of all, my name is not Don Quixote.


Sorry, it was the nicest thing I could think to call you at the time. :D

Secondly, if the CC doesn't mean "strictly procreative", then why mention the obvious?

Because I was speaking on the position of the Catholic Church, that's why.



That's not anywhere near reliable enough for me. I will therefore continue to use artificial birth control with any future partners that I may have.

If you would stop speaking in ignorance, you would know that NFP is more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill. Reliable? Extremely.

[Goliath]

Because I was speaking on the position of the Catholic Church, that's why.

And I should give a shit about what the CC thinks about any topic whatsoever because.....? (actually, you can replace "the CC" with yourself in that question, for all I care)



NFP is more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill. Reliable? Extremely.

Unproven assertion.

[TomJoe]

Unproven assertion.

Man, you really need to stop putting your foot in your mouth on these things.

Maclyn E. Wade, Phyllis McCarthy, et al., "A Randomized Prospective Study of the Use-Effectiveness of Two Methods of Natural Family Planning," Am J. Ob. and Gyn. 141:4(Oct 15, 1981) 368-376.

World Health Organization, "A Prospective Multicentre Trial of the Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning. II. The Effectiveness Phase," Fertility and Sterility 36:5 (November, 1981) 591-598.

G.K. Döring, "The Reliability of Temperature Records as a Method of Contraception," (Über die Zuverlassigkeit der Temperaturmethode Zur Empfangnisverhutung) Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift 92:23 (June 9, 1967), 1055-1061.

Frank J. Rice and Claude A. Lanctot, "Results of a Recent Study of the Sympto-Thermal Method of Natural Family Planning," Linacre Quarterly 45:4 (November, 1978), 388-391.

Josef Roetzer, "The Sympto-Thermal Method: Ten Years of Change," Linacre Quarterly 45:4 (November, 1978) 370.

All 5 studies reported effectiveness rates of either 99% or 100%.

[Goliath]

All 5 studies reported effectiveness rates of either 99% or 100%.

Which is about the same rate of effectiveness as a vasectomy. So...what was your point, again?

[TomJoe]

And I should give a shit about what the CC thinks about any topic whatsoever because.....? (actually, you can replace "the CC" with yourself in that question, for all I care).

Well if you don't give a shit, then why even bother posting in a thread, the subject of which is the Catholic Church? And if you don't give a shit what I have to say either, put me on ignore or don't respond to me... I mean how pathetic is it to reply to someone and then when they reply to you say "I don't care."... it's the virtual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Nyah nyah nyah... I don't hear you." It's slightly annoying, and juvenile.

[TomJoe]

Which is about the same rate of effectiveness as a vasectomy. So...what was your point, again?

Fucking unbelievable. You said NFP wasn't reliable, I say it is, you claim unproven assertion, I give you scientific data, you blow it off.

My point is... you are ignorant and you speak before you check your facts. It's a testament to your stubbornness that you haven't skulked off in shame yet for your faux pas.

[Goliath]

Well if you don't give a shit, then why even bother posting in a thread, the subject of which is the Catholic Church?

Because I wanted to express my hatred of catholicism.

And if you don't give a shit what I have to say either, put me on ignore or don't respond to me...

*BZZT!*

Oh, sorry...but you don't control what I do.

You are the weakest link.

:D

[Beth]

I'm sorry, but after hearing more about the church's stance-which I already knew about- I find the stance even more sickening and disgusting and oppressive.

To each their own.Yes, but when uneducated people rely on the church as an authoratative body and the church's stance is unyielding and contributing to the increased infection and death of those who see the church as an authority, it is more than a matter of taste or opinion. It is immoral and disgusting.

[Goliath]

Fucking unbelievable. You said NFP wasn't reliable, I say it is, you claim unproven assertion, I give you scientific data, you blow it off.


Wrong again. You claimed that NFP was reliable, I asked for support, you half-assedly cited 5 studies without any explanation as to what the authors actually did, I noticed that the effectiveness rate that you cited was about the same as that of a vasectomy (which I plan to get somewhat soon).

It's a testament to your stubbornness that you haven't skulked off in shame yet for your faux pas.

I've found that stubborn is about the only way to be around most xians. And I'm getting damn tired of xians expecting me to skulk off in shame.

[TomJoe]

Yes, but when uneducated people rely on the church as an authoratative body and the church's stance is unyielding and contributing to the increased infection and death of those who see the church as an authority, it is more than a matter of taste or opinion. It is immoral and disgusting.

Since they're not practicing monogamy and abstinence, they're obviously not following the Catholic Church's stances in the first place. So to blame this on the Catholic Church doesn't make much sense.

[Goliath]

I'm sorry, but after hearing more about the church's stance-which I already knew about- I find the stance even more sickening and disgusting and oppressive.

To each their own.

If only all catholics felt the same way...

[TomJoe]

You claimed that NFP was reliable, I asked for support, you half-assedly cited 5 studies without any explanation as to what the authors actually did...

The NFP site I originally linked you to gives an explanation of each study. I gave you the references, I didn't know I needed to give you a thorough run down of each study... would you like me to wipe your nose too if it's runny?

I noticed that the effectiveness rate that you cited was about the same as that of a vasectomy (which I plan to get somewhat soon).

I don't care if you plan on getting snipped or not, not even relevant to the discussion. However, NFP is just as effective, and doesn't require surgery.

[Goliath]

... would you like me to wipe your nose too if it's runny?

Ah, derision...the last bastion of a retreating xian.

No, you needn't do that. However, let's not forget that you are the one making a claim, whence you need to support it.

[Beth]

Which is about the same rate of effectiveness as a vasectomy. So...what was your point, again?

Fucking unbelievable. You said NFP wasn't reliable, I say it is, you claim unproven assertion, I give you scientific data, you blow it off.

My point is... you are ignorant and you speak before you check your facts. It's a testament to your stubbornness that you haven't skulked off in shame yet for your faux pas. NPF is good with some people if both spouses are willing to commit to the responsibility of following it strictly. We use it in combination of condoms on the allowed days- if I were to become preggers, I would most likely have to abort for medical and other personal reasons- so we are very careful not to let it happen.

But it still will not protect a woman if her spouse is running around on her unawares.

[Beth]

Yes, but when uneducated people rely on the church as an authoratative body and the church's stance is unyielding and contributing to the increased infection and death of those who see the church as an authority, it is more than a matter of taste or opinion. It is immoral and disgusting.

Since they're not practicing monogamy and abstinence, they're obviously not following the Catholic Church's stances in the first place. So to blame this on the Catholic Church doesn't make much sense.
Right, so blame it on the faithful spouses who are obedient to the church.
The point is, people are following the church's advice on AIDS prevention, i.e. that virus particles will pass through tiny pores. They may not even believe in the Church, but are getting misinfo from the church. They see the church as an authoritative source because it has much influence in their area. The church should state thier moral stance but also provide info on how to prevent the spread of AIDS when dealing with countries that are the largest AIDS hotbeds and have poor education.

[Adora]

...outlined as well in Humanae Vitae.
Am I the only person here who has a problem with a heirarchy of very old, celibate men telling millions of people across the world how to reproduce and have sex? You want to talk about what's natural and what is unnatural? That's unnatural!

I mean, I wouldn't give a fuck whether they were saying "Have as much contraceptive smart, pleasurable, non-reproductive sex as you want" or "Abstain until marriage". It's just Fucking (haha) STUPID! If I want to learn how to cook, I'm not about to go ask a miner who's never been near a stovetop in his life, and thinks said stovetops should be used for boiling peas and boiling peas only.

*hedesk*

[TomJoe]

Right, so blame it on the faithful spouses who are obedient to the church.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that if these men who are acting like man-whores are not listening to the Church's teaching on monogamy, then I doubt they're listening to the Church when she says that use of condoms is against the teachings of the Church. It just doesn't compute.

Now, the women at home may very well be faithful to the teachings of the Church, but I doubt that they have any control (or they feel they have any control) over whether or not their husbands who return home with HIV, wear a condom or not. It's the culture.

The point is, people are following the church's advice on AIDS prevention, i.e. that virus particles will pass through tiny pores. They may not even believe in the Church, but are getting misinfo from the church.

I haven't gone over the source material in a long time (this was a huge issue a long time ago, I know) but if it was stated that condoms do not prevent HIV infection at all (rather than saying that condoms have ~90% effectiveness, or such to that effect) then that was an error, misinformation, and should never have been said... was this stance clarified or recanted?

The church should state thier moral stance but also provide info on how to prevent the spread of AIDS when dealing with countries that are the largest AIDS hotbeds and have poor education.

As far as I know, the Church does tell people how to prevent the spread of HIV... people just don't agree with the methods they tell people to use. Also, I would imagine that the Church is trying to help establish a culture where such teaching will be more readily accepted... but this can't be solved overnight, and the Vatican certainly can't do it on her own.

[TomJoe]

Am I the only person here who has a problem with a heirarchy of very old, celibate men telling millions of people across the world how to reproduce and have sex?

So, if you ever get cancer, will you only seek medical counsel from a doctor who has had cancer too?

Oh, and it's not just "millions of people"... it's a bit over one billion, and counting. ;)

[Goliath]

Oh, and it's not just "millions of people"... it's a bit over one billion, and counting. ;)

Oh, I'm keenly aware of, and sickened by, that.

[TomJoe]

Oh, I'm keenly aware of, and sickened by, that.

How much of your two cents would you like returned to you? :P

[Goliath]

Oh, I'm keenly aware of, and sickened by, that.

How much of your two cents would you like returned to you? :P

Nope...I'm not seeing the tiniest bit of substance in your response.

Next!

[livius drusus]

I had no idea NFP was as effective as a vasectomy. Thanks for the link, TomJoe.

[Adora]

So, if you ever get cancer, will you only seek medical counsel from a doctor who has had cancer too?
No, because a doctor has experience in treating people with cancer, as part of his job. They have training in the objective diagnosis of said cancer. They know the scientific rules and reasons that lead to people having cancer, and in the case of specialists, how to treat it. I will go to a doctor because they have a responsibility to their clients to try and maintain a level of physical and/or mental health through their profession.

The Catholic Church does not have objective experience in treating people with HIV and STDs. Nor does it do actual reasearch in regards to birth control, sexual psychology, sexual practices, said STDs/Is etc etc. Like creationists, they glean bits and pieces from the works of actual professionals who know something about human sexual practices, and cobble them together around their own twisted agendas. They do not have a responsibility to the sexual health of their minions - only their spiritual one.

Oh, and it's not just "millions of people"... it's a bit over one billion, and counting. ;)
Which just makes their position worse.

[TomJoe]

However, let's not forget that you are the one making a claim, whence you need to support it.

Goliath, Goliath... Goliath.

You were the one who made the original claim that NFP was unreliable. So actually, you're the one who needed to provide some support, not I.

[TomJoe]

No, because a doctor has experience in treating people with cancer, as part of his job. They have training in the objective diagnosis of said cancer.

Exactly... because these doctors are trained. A doctor does not need to have cancer to be trained, to relate, to treat. Likewise, priests are trained, they don't need to have sex to relate and to treat those they minister to.

The Catholic Church does not have objective experience in treating people with HIV and STDs.

Oh really? Hmmm, so much for all those Catholic hospitals, all those Catholic missions, and all those Catholic doctors in the world, who do this very thing.

[Goliath]

You were the one who made the original claim that NFP was unreliable.


I do not recall making any such claim.


So actually, you're the one who needed to provide some support, not I.

Wrong, as usual. You will not succeed at shifting the burden of proof onto me.

[TomJoe]

I do not recall making any such claim.

Post 60 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35832&postcount=60)

And I quote:
That's not anywhere near reliable enough for me.

Wrong, as usual. You will not succeed at shifting the burden of proof onto me.

If you want to force others to provide proof, when you're unwilling to do so yourself, so be it... I can't stop you from being a hypocrite.

[Goliath]

Post 60 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35832&postcount=60)

And I quote:
That's not anywhere near reliable enough for me.


So what? I didn't say that NFP was absolutely unreliable.

If you want to force others to provide proof, when you're unwilling to do so yourself, so be it... I can't stop you from being a hypocrite.

When I make a claim, I'm sure you'll know it, xian.

[livius drusus]

:rolleye1:

[TomJoe]

So what? I didn't say that NFP was absolutely unreliable.


Here we go... backtrack mode.

Goliath, I bet you couldn't even tell me what NFP constitutes... so any comment you make would be an ignorant one. Which means... you really need to check your facts before you suffer from verbal diarrhea.

[Sweetie]

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_hiv_recent_rep.cfm?dr_cat=1&show=yes&dr_DateTime=12-20-04#27313

Interesting article on the subject, raises interesting questions.

[Goliath]

Here we go... backtrack mode.

I'm not backtracking at all. You, however, aren't listening to me.



Goliath, I bet you couldn't even tell me what NFP constitutes...

I think I have a decent idea of what it is (it was what I thought it was before looking at the NFP link you provided).

Which means... you really need to check your facts before you suffer from verbal diarrhea.

Right back at ya, asshat.

[TomJoe]

I'm not backtracking at all. You, however, aren't listening to me.


You haven't said anything worthwhile in this entire thread. Even so, I am listening to you... in the hopes that at some point in this thread, you'll wisen up and apply the same standards to your posts as you expect from everyone else.

I think I have a decent idea of what it is (it was what I thought it was before looking at the NFP link you provided).

Well that's funny, because you referred to it as a "baby factory" back in Post #49 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35817&postcount=49).

Right back at ya, asshat.

Asshat. LOL.

[Beth]

Post 60 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35832&postcount=60)

And I quote:
That's not anywhere near reliable enough for me.


So what? I didn't say that NFP was absolutely unreliable.Well, NPF is not nearly as realiable for me as I could want. the 2% fail rate out a hundred is not enough so we combine it with another method as added protection. But it is very, very reliable. It has nearly the same odds of effectiveness as properly used birth control pills-without hormones. The downfall is that not everyone has a libido that wants to take a sexual break for about ten days a month. Some men do not like it at all and prefer the wife or girlfriend to be on the pill. My hubby likes me better off of the pill.

[Goliath]

You haven't said anything worthwhile in this entire thread.

Worthwhile to you? If so, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. I try to enjoy non-hate-filled things that many xians obsess with.

Even so, I am listening to you

I am not even slightly convinced of that.



Well that's funny, because you referred to it as a "baby factory" back in Post #49 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35817&postcount=49).



Hmmm, so I did. Okay, I retract that statement and apologize (although I doubt that you'll give a shit).

[TomJoe]

Well that's funny, because you referred to it as a "baby factory" back in Post #49 (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35817&postcount=49).

Hmmm, so I did. Okay, I retract that statement and apologize (although I doubt that you'll give a shit).

An apology is only worthwhile if the person apologizing intends to correct future behavior in light of what has already been pointed out to them. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether or not your apology is, truly an apology. We'll have to determine this based on future discussions and your propensity to make comments which lack any sort of accuracy, while at the same time holding those whom you interact with to a level of accountability above that which you hold yourself.

In the meantime however, I gladly accept your apology. :)

Good day.

[Adora]

Likewise, priests are trained, they don't need to have sex to relate and to treat those they minister to.
Trained by who? The Catholic Church itself? HA! That's worse than not being trained at all. Which is why the members of the Church who are the ones actually promoting proper medical, reality... I mean "scientifically" based sexual health are the ones going against the official line- ala certain parts of Brazil, a minority of ones in Sub-Saharan Africa, and other countries who are being heavily affected by HIV/AIDS.

Catholic hospitals, all those Catholic missions, and all those Catholic doctors in the world, who do this very thing.
Note the bold. I'm not touching missions with a fifty foot pole, since they end up doing more harm than good, but the whole point of being a hospital, or a doctor, relates to my comments above about resposibility to the physical body. It doesn't matter what your religion is beforehand, if you're a doctor, you're a doctor, and you've taken the Hippocratic Oath. They haven't taken an oath to a god to collect souls, they haven't taken an oath to a hierarchy to always help keep in place said hierarchy before all else.

[TomJoe]

It doesn't matter what your religion is beforehand, if you're a doctor, you're a doctor, and you've taken the Hippocratic Oath.


LOL, how many doctors do you know that have taken the Hippocratic Oath?

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant...

[TomJoe]

Trained by who? The Catholic Church itself? HA! That's worse than not being trained at all. Which is why the members of the Church who are the ones actually promoting proper medical, reality... I mean "scientifically" based sexual health are the ones going against the official line- ala certain parts of Brazil, a minority of ones in Sub-Saharan Africa, and other countries who are being heavily affected by HIV/AIDS.

First of all, the Catholic Church consists of the clergy (Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons) and the laity (the rest of us peeps). We're talking one billion people, some of which have this "scientific" training you speak of. I'm a Catholic, I'm a microbiologist, I have done programs on STDs for Church related programs (Catholic Charities).

Also, you do realize that a majority of priests go through secular training (at a four year college) before entering seminary, right? My parish priest was a math major in college, with a minor in accounting.

[Adora]

LOL, how many doctors do you know that have taken the Hippocratic Oath?
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant...
Yes, because Louis Lasagne never existed, right? Uh huh. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. And I'll tell that to the med-students I know, and we will all laugh. A lot.

Suggestion: Replying to the one post, make it the one post. Like this! (OMG so hard...)

First of all, the Catholic Church consists of the clergy (Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons) and the laity (the rest of us peeps). We're talking one billion people, some of which have this "scientific" training you speak of.
Thus, my comments about some who toe the official line, and some who don't. When I say "The Church" with Teh Capital, I'm refering to the global hierarchy (which again, has some dissenters depending on their social environments). If I wanted to talk about the global community of Catholics, I use a little c. *shrugs* Semantic misunderstanding.

I'm a Catholic, I'm a microbiologist, I have done programs on STDs for Church related programs (Catholic Charities).
That's nice. Would you like a cookie?

Also, you do realize that a majority of priests go through secular training (at a four year college) before entering seminary, right?
I still don't see your point. It doesn't matter if you're a manwhore or an accountant before you take the robes. When you become a priest, you put yourself in the hierarchy, which means generally, they own your ass. You can choose to dissent from the Church if you please, but it takes some extreme circumstances for people to do that, and statistically, it's fucking rare.

[TomJoe]

Yes, because Louis Lasagne never existed, right? Uh huh. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. And I'll tell that to the med-students I know, and we will all laugh. A lot.

I don't know about Louis Lasagne, but I know about Louis Lasagna, who wrote a "Modern Hippocratic Oath" in 1964. Which, by the way, is not required to be recited by any specific medical school. Being/teaching/studying at a medical school I'll just forgive your ignorance on this issue, I also will remember the doctors (both MD and DO) who I know who never recited any oath at any ceremony (before or afterwards either). Ask your friends what will happen to them if they refuse to recite this oath by the way...

Also, tell me... will your medical student friends repeat this part of the Hippocratic Oath... Neither will I give a woman means to procure an abortion.? It's there in the original you know. Which is interesting. You think that because a doctor recites some sort of non-binding oath that you're bound to get proper, sound healthcare? Talk about naive!

You speak of a Hippocratic Oath as if there is some universal oath which all medical students recite at the end of their training. This is not the case. Some schools may ceremoniously recite some sort* of drawn up oath for pomp and circumstance, but in no cases are these oaths ever binding and they're not uniform.

Thus, my comments about some who toe the official line, and some who don't. When I say "The Church" with Teh Capital, I'm refering to the global hierarchy (which again, has some dissenters depending on their social environments). If I wanted to talk about the global community of Catholics, I use a little c. *shrugs* Semantic misunderstanding.

You are making distinctions without a difference. Referring to lay Catholics as "catholics" but the clergy as "Catholic" is pointless. It might make sense in your head, but I'm not a mind reader, and I'd prefer that if we're going to speak on issues, we use the conventional terminology. When you speak of Catholics, capitalize it. If you want to speak of the clergy, just call it the clergy.

That's nice. Would you like a cookie?

Typical insult and evade tactic. I'm not biting today, even if cookies are involved. My point, which you so blatantly sidestepped was that the Catholic Church does consult people in "positions to know".

I still don't see your point. It doesn't matter if you're a manwhore or an accountant before you take the robes. When you become a priest, you put yourself in the hierarchy, which means generally, they own your ass. You can choose to dissent from the Church if you please, but it takes some extreme circumstances for people to do that, and statistically, it's fucking rare.

"Generally"? What do you mean by "generally"? There are the basics of the faith which define what it is to "be Catholic" and which all subscribe to, but when it comes to the running of a parish, a priest is given wide berth. Same goes for bishops in the running of their (arch)diocese. I've been on enough committees to know this, and sometimes be dismayed by the liberties people take with what I see as sound tradition, but which are ultimately allowed by Canon Law.

All of which is beside the point. Going back to your original comment where you said you found it strange that old men should tell people what to do about sex, my point is that... you are wrong. Humanae Vitae was written by the Pope who institued Vatican II, the council that requested the laity to become more involved in the workings, decision makings and direction of the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church speaks on matters, it's not as if Pope John Paul II makes a decision on his own, in a vacuum and then demands adherence. No, the Catholic Church seeks out the council of those "in the know", doctors, scientists, specialists on critical subjects, so she can present an informed position on said matter.

If you really think that, when the Catholic Church does this, that a Catholic doctor who is consulted on the issue of HIV/AIDS feels more bound by a ceremonial, non-binding oath said after his first two years of medical school than his faith... I think you should think again.

*According to a 1993 survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, for example, only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11 percent hold covenant with a deity, 8 percent foreswear abortion, and a mere 3 percent forbid sexual contact with patients -- all maxims held sacred in the classical version. Cited here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_today.html).

[Adora]

Which, by the way, is not required to be recited by any specific medical school.
No, it's not. It's a rite of passage, as much as anything else, and this is what I was told from the horses mouth. Maybe it's different in your neck of the woods. *shrugs*

will your medical student friends repeat this part of the Hippocratic Oath... Neither will I give a woman means to procure an abortion.? It's there in the original you know.
Yes, but I'm not talking about the original, am I? Do you go to Latin Mass?

You are making distinctions without a difference. Referring to lay Catholics as "catholics" but the clergy as "Catholic" is pointless.
Yes, it is. because that's not what I do. I make a difference between "The Catholic Church" and "The Catholic church" because I don't buy into the Church propaganda about "The People are The Church".

My point, which you so blatantly sidestepped was that the Catholic Church does consult people in "positions to know".
Right. Sure. Catholic layity who toe the Catholic moral line count as "consulting". Yep. Uh huh. I'm sure the Neo-Cons in the White House agree with you.

"Generally"? What do you mean by "generally"?
What I mean by "generally", quite obviously, is that there is a minority in the Church of radical dissenters, from St Mary's in Brisbane to the clergy of Sao Paulo, who both do a fine job of pissing off the Church because they bother to tell it like it is. If you want to take the cloth, you can choose to be like them. Or, you can choose not to. Unfortunately, too many choose not to. Thus, my term, "generally".

No, the Catholic Church seeks out the council of those "in the know", doctors, scientists, specialists on critical subjects, so she can present an informed position on said matter.
Yes. Of course. Silly me. And Young Earth Creationists have informed positions as well. Why didn't I see this earlier.

If you really think that, when the Catholic Church does this, that a Catholic doctor who is consulted on the issue of HIV/AIDS feels more bound by a ceremonial, non-binding oath said after his first two years of medical school than his faith... I think you should think again.
Why? Because you say so? Even though this goes against my own experience, the experience of others around me, and the textual evidence I've read? Right. Uh huh.

[TomJoe]

No, it's not. It's a rite of passage, as much as anything else, and this is what I was told from the horses mouth.

Yes, it's a "rite of passage" which is the same as saying it's purely ceremonial, for show, and carries no weight.

Which makes your admitting this kind of perplexing when you earlier stated:
It doesn't matter what your religion is beforehand, if you're a doctor, you're a doctor, and you've taken the Hippocratic Oath. -Adora

Taking the Hippocratic Oath don't mean shit.


Yes, but I'm not talking about the original, am I? Do you go to Latin Mass?


Not every weekend, but I do go on ocassion. And though I've already established that the current Hippocratic Oath isn't binding, and is essentially worthless, I'd just like to ask... if you're not talking about the original, which one are you talking about? Just about every medical school has it's own version (see the footnote I supplied with my last post).


Catholic layity who toe the Catholic moral line count as "consulting".

Why not? If I am consulted by the Catholic Church, on issues pertaining to microbiology, when I myself am a microbiologist, why would you not consider that truly "consulting"?


Yes. Of course. Silly me. And Young Earth Creationists have informed positions as well. Why didn't I see this earlier.


Why are we pulling YECs into this?

If you really think that, when the Catholic Church does this, that a Catholic doctor who is consulted on the issue of HIV/AIDS feels more bound by a ceremonial, non-binding oath said after his first two years of medical school than his faith... I think you should think again.
Why? Because you say so? Even though this goes against my own experience, the experience of others around me, and the textual evidence I've read? Right. Uh huh.

Your experience, and the experience of others is purely anecdotal. I would however like to see this textual evidence you claim, that shows that Catholic doctors feel more bound to a non-binding (and oft non-recited) Hippocratic Oath or similar derivative, than their faith.