Condoms Critical Part of Fight Against HIV/AIDs
As the pope traveled to Africa, he made what some reported to be his first unequivocal statement opposing condom use. In an interview on the papal plane to Cameroon, the pope acknowledged the HIV/AIDS crisis but claimed that the distribution of condoms would not resolve the problem. In fact, he said, condom use "increases the problem." A later transcript of the pope's comments on the Vatican's Web site altered the comment to suggest that condoms "risked" increasing the problem.
The pope quickly found that few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agreed with his stance. Several bishops in Africa, including especially Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms. Almost immediately, two bishops in Portugal, as well as the French and German governments and UNAIDS, came out to denounce his comments. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that many people who work with Catholic relief agencies distribute condoms to those at risk of infection.
While nobody claims that condoms are a panacea for HIV, they remain a critical part of the campaign to reduce the impact of the virus. Medical experts agree that the condom is a life-saving device: it is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission if used correctly and consistently, and is the best current method of HIV prevention for those who are sexually active and at risk.
For the Catholic hierarchy to deny the role that condoms play in preventing the further spread of HIV is irresponsible and dangerous. Not only that, the Catholic hierarchy has lobbied governments in the global north—including especially in the United States—against the inclusion of funding for condoms in development aid programs. The result is to deny the poorest of the poor in the global south the chance of protecting themselves by using condoms.
UNAIDS explains the situation simply and convincingly: “Conclusive evidence from extensive research shows that correct use of condoms every time one has sex significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Of all the stupid " government subsidized programs" to maintain sexual freedom and health , passing out free condoms seems the cheapest and most beneficial for prevention of STDS and possibly pregnancy if used correctly. People are going to have sex , so why not give out condoms so precautions can be taken! WHAT I OBJECT TO IS GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED ABORTION! LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OBAMA! I WOULD RATHER PAY FOR BIRTH CONTROL THAN ABORTIONS. (Obviously I am not Catholic.) If I was a baby in the process of fertilization and implantation, I would prefer to no implantation inutero than be chopped to pieces or sucked out or stabbed in the head by an abortionist.
In a room full of doctors , a speaker asked for a show of hands as answer to this question he posed, " if you are about to have intercourse with a person you are sure is HIV positive, would you consider a condom adequate protection?"
Not one hand was raised.
Sex outside of marriage is happening, even with Catholics. When it does, confession takes care of it.
You can present moral values and a moral system, but you can't levy a death sentence on those who don't share your values, just because they're different from you.
Condoms are a much better idea than circumcision which is being promoted in parts of Africa as a means of reducing or controlling HIV . HIV is contracted by having unprotected sexual relations with an infected person and not through being born with and having a foreskin.
I would much rather see the Gates foundation funding the supply of condoms for much better protection to the same dollar value results, than pushing huge funding toward male circumcision as being the answer.
Any circumcised male having sexual relations with an infected person would be totally foolish to expect his circumcision to be his protection, and would likely contract HIV, then in turn pass it on through bodily fluid; not again, his foreskin.
Hand them a condom with your left hand and a Bible with your right and see which one saves more lives. My bets on the Bible.
"My bets on the Bible."
Not if they are not Christian, and instead just chuck the Bible. A condom offers real, testable, protection against a real, observable. threat... that is something that the Bible does not offer.
have chucked the condom? If condoms are so effective then why are sooooo many kids dying of aids? I recommend reading the myth of safe-sex I think that might change your mind a bit.
Chucked the condom kind of answers it?
People are having sex and we can't stop them or force our values into them about sex. Until they have a change in heart as to their approach toward sex, lets offer the level of protection that condoms do offer. They just have different or lack of beliefs, right or wrong! If condoms break the link of passing on HIV to whole bunch of people in a few instances even, Then they are worth providing, and way better than leading people to believe that being circumcised is going to protect them. The US is the circumcision capital of the world and look at the HIV statistics here.
Children have HIV because their mother who birthed them has HIV. These children never will make adulthood, so HIV needs to be addressed on the adult level where more children come along.
Many don't have the condom and maybe would use it if they had it. Another problem re children is that the culture in parts of Africa has taught that the cure from HIV for a male is to have sexual relations with a virgin!
Go figure!
How many men and women have chucked the Bible?
A condom provides real protection against a demonstrable threat... one that can be seen, measured, and tested.
"If condoms are so effective then why are sooooo many kids dying of aids?"
Because their use is not yet wide spread. This isn't helped by the Catholic Churches refusal to promote condom use in third world nations.
"I recommend reading the myth of safe-sex I think that might change your mind a bit."
Why does abstinence happy Texas have such a high rate of teen pregnancy and STDs in the nation?
Besides the moral fabric of the Bible it has significant value in restraining of human impulses. One testable fact is that prison systems that have allowed, and even encouraged, the inmates to read the Bible, gather for services and studies of it, and to convert others have shown a high decrease in violent behaviours at those prisons . That is just one of many, many stories of how the Bible effected positive life situatations for those who have embraced its value system.
Tocqueville (1833) was correct when he observed that rehabilitation and reformation are two different things: We can measure rehabilitation, but we cannot measure reformation. Though we can observe that some inmates unquestionably may have changed in positive ways, there is no way of observing whether they have "repented." The former inmate still may be a "very bad" person "on the inside," but as long as he does not commit illegal acts when he leaves prison, as he did previously, he is "rehabilitated." This intriguing distinction warrants research.
Other than anecdotal accounts, the literature contains relatively little research linking the possible influence of religion to its potential beneficial, neutral, or even harmful influence on the rehabilitation of offenders. This deficit is somewhat surprising because most of the published studies have found inverse and essentially beneficial relationships between measures (usually single-item measures) of religiousness and various measures of crime or delinquency. In a recent, important study, Evans et al. provide perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the topic and conclude that "among our religiosity measures, participation in religious activities was a persistent and noncontingent inhibitor of adult crime (1995:195)." This finding held even after controlling for secular constraints, religious networks, and social ecology . The results of that study are noteworthy because some research has shown that various measures of religiosity or religious commitment lose their significance in the presence of secular controls (Albrecht, Chadwick, and Alcorn 1977; Cochran, Wood, and Arneklev 1994; Elifson, Peterson, and Hadaway 1983). Evans et al. (1995) succeeded in resolving some of these issues, however, by testing the religion-crime relationship with a comprehensive crime measure and three separate dimensions of religiousness, not merely with a single item. Their results are consistent with other published research showing that religion has similar benefits in other areas of impulse control or deviance, such as drug and alcohol abuse (Gartner, Larson, and Allen 1991; Larson et al. 1994).
If religion can inhibit delinquent and criminal activity, why might it not facilitate the process as well as the outcomes of prison rehabilitation? Aside from complex and difficult theological discussion about the possible spiritual roles of religion, as well as the evidence demonstrating the mental and physical health benefits of religion (Bergin 1983, 1991; Gartner et al. 1991; Larson, Sherrill, and Lyons 1994; Levin and Vanderpool 1987, 1989), there are scientific reasons to predict that religion might effect behavioral and social change. Religion targets antisocial values, emphasizes accountability and responsibility, changes cognitive approaches to conflict, and provides social support and social skills through interaction with religious people and communities (Bergin 1991; Levin and Vanderpool 1987; Martin and Carlson 1988). Such emphases seem to be consistent with what many rehabilitation workers would call principles of effective treatment.{3}
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/johnson.html
Here is the last and most important part of article above:
Religion targets antisocial values, emphasizes accountability and responsibility, changes cognitive approaches to conflict, and provides social support and social skills through interaction with religious people and communities (Bergin 1991; Levin and Vanderpool 1987; Martin and Carlson 1988). Such emphases seem to be consistent with what many rehabilitation workers would call principles of effective treatment.{3}end quote
Can I get an AMEN!
Those who are not religious or of a specific faith are not going to conduct themselves to the manner of that Faith. To expect them to is unrealistic.
Translation: people sin because they are sinners. They are not sinners because they sin!
A dog barks because it's a dog. Barking doesn't make it a dog.
It's OK for people to declare religion or a faith to be the answer, but best these people get out there and make converts instead of demanding that non regenerate people should conduct themselves the same as the Redeemed of The Lord! It isn't going to happen, and in the mean time something like condoms needs to happen to protect those outside of the household of faith until and if someone of faith bring redeeming light into their lives. Refraining from having sex as is the world's standard, outside of marriage , is not going to make these people numbered among the Redeemed, but only (the better behaving lost)!
Aside from believing the same and having an inner change, why would, and why should a person outside of your faith perform to a Biblical conduct? Don't expect it! The prerequisites just are not in place to make that possible. Just think a little!
AMEN
In fact, the most successful effort in decreasing the spread of AIDS was in Uganda, called ABC, for Abstain, Be Faithful (strictly monogamous sexual relationships), Condoms. There were striking reductions between 1989 and 1995 in the rate of AIDS transmission, as well as in sexual activity outside of strictly monogamous sexual relationships. A reduction from 75% overall (this was not broken down in my reference) to 33% of 15-17 year old sexually experienced males and to 58% of 18-19 year old sexually experienced males. Then, before 2000, there was in intervention done to lower the barriers to acquiring condoms . The 2000 statistics showed about 120% increase over 1995 statistics in the rates of sexual activity among sexually experienced teenage males, along with an increase of extramarital sex among some cohorts of married men.
UNAIDS. 2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic, page.72
Preferred sources of condoms among young men in Kampal, Uganda. KamyM, Kapiriri L, Kamy S, Biryabarema C, Kajubi P, Hearst N, McFarland W, International Conference on AIDS.
I don't understand the denial of evidence of research that shows that the more accessibility to condoms , the HIV pandemics rise, all over the globe.
"20 years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS ," stated Dr. Edward C. Green of Harvard’s' Center for Population and Development Studies.
Green continued to say that "we are not seeing what we expected: that higher levels of condom availability result in lower HIV prevalence."
Besides it teaches that lust=love, which is such a painful deceiving message to our young people, who are now entering the new pandemic: depression .
When people (young or old) feed their ids, a sense of not being worthy enters the mind, and is very hard to get rid of.
Of coarse, there's always Prozac to help numb the inner pain.
Can condoms teach us to love, to sekf-give and help us find our true self?
Good luck facing the truth