On March 17, 2009 Pope Benedict stood before a group of reporters and said that condom distribution not only wouldn’t cure the AIDS crisis, it actually makes it worse. These comments reignited a long-simmering debate over the proper place of contraceptives in health and social policy. Does condom distribution actually encourage promiscuity and increase health risks, or is it smart and effective public policy?
Featured Image:
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
The policy that the Pope and others are touting has been in place for over 3,000 years starting with the Israelites and Moses. In that entire time it has not been effective in stopping unwed pregnancy or STDs. There hasn't been any time in history where there weren't "bastards" born or there weren't women doing self induced abortions.
It is time to shed ourselves of the cloak of fantasy and admit that "just say no" is not the answer and allow those with better or even just newer ideas to implement them.
"Politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors" - Robin Williams
The pope is obviousally speaking from the religious standpoint that people are to be married before they have sex and once married are commited to that partner. which being christian myself i have to agree with. God designed us to be with one partner our lives and to be completly monogamus to them. distrubiting out condoms is like a saftey blanket making it "ok" to do the things that God has excplicitly told us not to do. however, i believe that extremeist views are never the answer and do pose a little bit of a devils advocate: in the case of rape i can easily see haveing a condom on hand and atteepting to get the rapist to use it, it may not work but that could prevent an unessecary contraction the howevirius that was not a decision on the indivudals part. however the use of condoms with people who make the decision to have multiple sex partners and want to warn themselves against HIV i don't support , it makes it ok for people to do the things God has told them not to do.
While using condoms makes promiscuity safer, that doesn't mean it causes promiscuity. many people have promiscuous, unprotected sex. We already have healthcare so that violent people can continue fighting and be healthy enough to continue, but that doesn't cause people to fight.
I am often amazed that the very same people who are vehemently anti- abortion (often calling themselves pro-life ) are also opposed to condom distribution, opposed to aid to children of unwed mothers, in favor of the death penalty , unregulated gun possession, and most of all who do not now nor never have considered adopting an unwanted child.
The death penalty does not deter violent crime , and ignorance or inability to protect one's self sexually, does not deter sexual activity.
I simply don't understand the rationale.
"Faith-Based Approaches First" says it everything: Blind, irrational faith before factual scientific research. All research shows that condoms work, and irrational religions propaganda ( abstinence ) doesn't.
Would you rather have more underage pregnancies or would you have the chance that one of those teens is going to be a gold star and use the condom he's been given? The logic is there but everything is debatable.
does that makes sense! Of course it makes sense to distribute condoms . People as a whole do not do what they are told. Don't smike, don't drink to excess, don't do drugs ! When have any of those warnings been heeded? Never.
12,13,14 yr old children are having unprotected sex while we adults wonder what we should do. First, give them condoms , so they have protection from pregnancy and disease. Second , slap the bejesus out of their parents for not providing any kind of sense to their children. Then educate the parent to the responsibility of parents and parenting . And give the children lessons in morals, respect and responsibilty along with sex education .
NO it won't cure aids and other std's but it would help decrease the spread. As far as emcouraging promiscuity and increase health risks,I don't thinks so let's be real condoms help PREVENT THESE THINGS REMEMBER!!!!!Think about what your saying!!!
As one who is both gay and is HIV posiive, I definately take issue with the Roman Catholic Church. This church has forever been so far out of the mainstream and understanding of human sexuality and health issues!
If I was wearing a condom that time, I would never gotten infected. Fortunately, I have always been asymptomatic and the meds have always kept me from getting sick! The Roman Catholic Church, over time, has always stood in the way of trying to educate the masses of people in these impoverished countries, by denying family planning services, condom distribution to help stop the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies, and so forth! This church should be ashamed of itself by encouraging these people to have large families and to keep these people mired in never-ending povery and despair! Its no wonder we have had a major influx of unwanted masses trying to flee this misery and come here to start a new life! The Catholic Church needs to change their antiquated and dangerous health policies and start to address the needs of these people and work closely with the UN and progressive Christian organizations and others to combat these problems!
Promiscuity and AIDS control aren't the primary reasons why condom distribution makes sense. First and foremost, condom distribution make sense in preventing and/or controlling irresponsible reproduction. Because the presence of a growing human population puts ever-increasing stress on the Earth's environment and its ability to compensate, and because we human beings absolutely depend on a healthy ecosystem for ourselves and for the plant and animal life upon which we depend, population control is a health issue. I'd even go so far as to say it is the premier health issue of our species. The Earth is a finite resource. Human population growth MUST take into account that finite resource and its maximum ability to sustain that population. If human beings do not agree that population growth of the species can only be limited rather than unlimited, nature will eventually make clear their mistaken viewpoint and many argue it is making clear that mistaken view even now.
Objections to promiscuity are childish and antiquated. The objections to condoms as adequate prevention of the spread of this disease or that one are petty bickering over minor detail compared to the grander problem of uncontrolled population growth. As I understand it, the primary purpose of a condom is to prevent pregnancy . If distributed condoms succeed in drastically reducing pregnancy in an overly-populated human world, yes, they are smart public health policy in that the finite resources of the Earth can continue to support the existing ecosystem despite the noticeable impact of overly-consumptive and destructive human beings.
This ad popped up (so to speak) when I was typing my response:
New Trojan Condoms
Try Trojan Ecstasy Condoms & Feel Pleasure, Not the Condom. Get Info!
TrojanCondoms.com/Ecstasy
They must have known I was talking about them.
Seriously, what can this old, white, supposedly celibate man know about lust, sex, and condoms ? That is like asking a man to explain the birth experience. He might be there looking on, but he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. I hope people will just ignore him. On the realistic side, condoms will help prevent disease and pregnancy , but they are not 100% effective, especially if a man refuses to use one. We need to provide education and condoms to anyone who wants them.
Genesis 1:28 (New International Version)
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
where does it say do not use a condom and so what we have already subdue the earth to its breaking point.
first
its very easy to say don`t have sex if you cant remember the last time you had sex.
second
the Catholic Church collect churchtax from everyone christened. so more babies more money .
but the distribution of condoms alone is use less.
the best preservative is education . its reduces s.t.d's and teen pregnancy . two things that realy can f*ckup our childhood or live.
Condom distribution and encouraging the use of condoms are two completely different things. If we distribute condoms in high school's then yes the Pope is right. Where just giving people a bigger opportunity to have sex and even encouraging them even if we don't mean to. But if were saying abstinence is better, but if you are gonna have sex then use a condom, we are improving the problem. We want to encourage them to wait but if they don't then use a condom.
The dilemma facing those of us who call ourselves believers is this: Will my suggestions to young people (or adults) asking them to use protection anytime they intend to satisfy their urges, especially when they have sexual encounters with strangers or people they do not know very well? As reported on the nightly news, abstinence-only education programs during the terms of the Bush administration did little to spurn the tide of pregnancies and spread of sexually-transmitted diseases (STD's) during the last 8 years. People who prophesy and witness as followers of the Almighty must also understand that young people and most adults are still going to engage in sex, no matter how much we encourage them not to. In this Age of AIDS , we cannot afford to ignore the truth staring us in the face. When given a variety of opinions and intelligent education providing both abstinence and protection from STD's, most people usually weigh the consequences of their actions and the probability of sexual contact usually goes down. As the old saying suggests, you can catch a lot more flies with the sweet stuff than you can with vinegar. And may it always be so!
People "must also understand that young people and most adults are still going to engage in sex, no matter how much we encourage them not to."
Absolutely. You are right that "we cannot afford to ignore the truth staring us in the face." The truth is that the nature of humans is to survive. People have evolved to carry on their genes and reproduce. It is essentially denying our humanity to say that we cannot or should not have sex.
Even if you do not believe in evolution , feeling the hormones that a person experiences while engaging in sexual activity is proof that humans are meant to reproduce. To speak French in France, denying human urges to reproduce is denying the hormones that God gave us.
.......before the world can grasp the concept totally that, by putting a bandaid on a problem, will accimplish nothing...///I see the problem as one of disregard for oneself and for each other.../ STD'S, AIDS , ETC..ARE SYMPTOMS OF A GREATER DISEASE THAT IS RUNNING RAMPANT GLOBALLY...
That disease is...?
It is known by many names: hedonism, selfishness, perversion, egoism,
lust, greed, .....all a lack of charity to others.......
Hold on, you're saying that handing out condoms and saving even one person from getting AIDS and having their life ruined is a lack of charity?
Putting a bandaid on the problem won't cure the disease but it will stop the bleeding. Maybe it's temporary, but distributing condoms is still absolutely worth it financially, morally, and in every way I can think of.
wow!! you say if even one person does not get aids and therefore their life will be hunky dory......condoms are worth it????
I believe if even one person is saved so that they can live in eternity with God...and have true joy and peace on this earth....condoms are not worth it.
I really don't understand your thought process and I would be interested to hear how you justify that condoms are not worth it.
If you do not understand my value system, you will not understand how I think...I believe that life on this earth is a preparation for eternity...It is important for me to walk with God..I also believe it is my duty to point out the ways that others can find the peace that I have found...It is not found in sex outside of the marriage bond, it is not found in doing what feels good...but in true respect for oneself as God's temple and in respect for others who have been created by God. His Son didn't come to earth and die for a lark...If one does not share the deep committment that I have to the natural law that comes to all men and women, one cannot understand how I think...It may all sound utopian, but, with discipline , prayer , work, and more prayer..it can become reality. I am not saying it is easy, but taking one day at a time, with perseverance and study....it works for today..
You're totally correct that people should act ethically by having responsible sexual relationships . One form is this is no pre/extramarital sex, but another form is protecting yourself and your partner from STIs and unwanted pregnancies.
When are We, the people, going to wake up out of our deep sleep and RIGHTLY divide what our government was set up to do. Was it set up, in the beginning, to take care of personal, private, and public issues? Number one our Constitution set up to form a "more perfect union". Does the Condom Issue have anything to do with that at all?
Does it have anything to do with "establishing justice, insure domestic Tranquilty, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Our government was not formed to take care of SEXUAL ISSUES nor was our Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was not ordained and established for making public policies when it comes to sexual ISSUES. Sex is a private and personal Issue.
I believe that we are a little mixed up in our world today as to what government was even made for. There is a fine dividing line here as to what policies the governemnt should be making. Should they be concerning themselves with personal and private sexual policies? What is the next government policy going to be? A policy is any governing principle, plan, or course of action. This course of action, providing condoms to the public is not a smart and effective PUBLIC policy. Our government was not formed to take care of any sexual problems whatsoever. It was formed to protect the rights of the good people and it was formed with Armed Forces in mind to protect the good people from any harm and danger. How have we gotten so far off track? Throw the sexual policies out the window and let the people pay the price for their own sexual pleasures. That is a personal and private ISSUE, not the governments.
Folks, let's compare and contrast two statements by lyntel.
From commentary on http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-obama-urged-to-withdraw-nod-to-gay-activist-for-school-post :
"You are an absolute SICK PERSON. Our world is in such an unmoral mess because of people who THINK LIKE YOU. Have your fun now because this dis--ease is going to come to an end soon. Homosexuality will be voted out--Good and right always wins in the long run--and that ain't YOU!"
- lyntel June 3, 2009 9:20AM
And from commentary in this issue:
"Our government was not formed to take care of SEXUAL ISSUES nor was our Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was not ordained and established for making public policies when it comes to sexual ISSUES. Sex is a private and personal Issue."
- lyntel May 19, 2009 10:03PM
So which is it, lyntel? Is sex a "private and personal issue" or is it subject to the whims of the voters? Or do the goalposts shift when homosexuality is involved? And why?
There is much more to the Constitution then was presented in the preamble.
"Does it have anything to do with "establishing justice, insure domestic Tranquilty, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity""
Yes. By ensuring that people have access to birth control methods you allow them to make choices regarding their reproduction. This allows for people to have children when they are willing and able to support them (emotionally and financially). This contributes to the over all economic and social stability of the country.
First, the Pope is from the old school and doesn't have much concept of human nature, technology . His establishment is behind the times, but not as badly as the Muslim world.
Offering condoms will reduce pregnancies and disease, but will not change the mind set that needs to be changed in society , and where religious leaders and followers have failed to learn and act.
Children aren't psychologically ready for sex, and it shouldn't be encouraged by handing them condoms . Also, they believe condoms prevent STD's. Of course, this might be true in some cases, but certainly not all. They don't prevent Aids, and children can convince themselves that they do prevent aids and everything else. They can prevent pregnancy in most cases, but many diseases can still be transmitted. Children should be encouraged to be children, not little adults.
I'm amazed at some of the unthinkable ideas that educated adults believe should be visited upon our children. Moms and Dads should keep a close eye on what is being taught to our kids , and discuss everything possible with them in order to keep up with the condom pushing (and who knows what else) types who have access to our children.
Why has the length of time you are considered a child lengthened and lengthened? People are only ignorant as long as they aren't educated. Your brain is firing off the same hormones as that seventeen year old. Your job is to tell them to be smart, make the right choices...and to provide for them a safety net (or latex bag) in case they feel they are ready even when you don't. If they are going to disobey you regardless, don't you feel better knowing that they have some form of protection available to them? Believe me, with or without the condom, if they have already found a good excuse for sex ...they will do it. Condom availability has nothing to do with it.
It is not possible to protect your children by keeping information away from them. Regardless of how you teach your children, the things they encounter in the world will not disappear or fail to approach them if you leave things out. Only by educating them can they respond in an intelligent and appropriate way to what they encounter. If they know how condoms are properly used, there is no evidence to suggest that will make them run out and have sex any more often or earlier than they would if they did not. What it does change is the likelihood that they will have an unwanted pregnancy or an STD due to the ignorance they had inflicted upon them by a dim and overprotective adult.
The pope espouses the views he does because he is terrified that more people will discover that the only real reason contraceptives are frowned upon by the church is that they NEED reasons for people to feel guilty for having sex, and that they must suffer any and all consequences from such.
You do also realise that parents are often the last people to know when their kids have started having sex, right? They can gauge a parent's reaction to that topic of behavior and if the parent is likely to drag out the guilt and outrage circus, they will just make sure the parent knows nothing of their actions. Supportive and informative parents are more often invited into the discussion.
Then, while you're busy keeping the "condom pushers" from providing comprehensive and medically accurate information to your children , they'll be busy having sex with the other ignorant children and making you the youngest grandparent on the block. It's parents like that who kept me busy pregnancy-testing twelve- and thirteen-year-olds who didn't know that what they were doing was "sex".
I hope "discussing everything possible" with them includes a comprehensive discussion of reproductive health . Then the "condom pushers" wouldn't have to do your job. What the self-righteous and indignant parents generally fail to understand is that those who provide comprehensive sex- education in schools (and yes, distribute condoms ) are not doing it for those few children who have attentive parents, who live in supportive families where sensitive topics can be broached openly and honestly, who feel like they can go to their parents if they're feeling pressured into more adult-type relationships than they want, or if they get in trouble. Those educators do it for the teenagers who have parents too busy, too embarrassed, too misguided, too uncaring, too "whatever" to actively guide and support their children into adulthood . The trouble is, most parents have become acutely lazy, and want the schools to raise their kids except when they don't. It's too bad the objections usually center around topics like science , literature, and reproductive health.
It's the same story with opposing parental notification for abortions. The teenagers with supportive and loving parents don't need protection from such laws. The trouble is, there are far more teenagers in need of this kind of protection and education than you, apparently, can possibly imagine.
Seatbelts obviously encourage speeding and advocate wreckless driving. Since the now o-so-common safety restraint of today has been implicated in automobiles we have seen a dramatic rise in auto related fatalities. Take away the "click it or ticket" laws and remove all safety device regulations with auto manufactures. Lets see what happens. Think anyone will die from that? Naahhhh....
If Pope Benedict is right then the implications of the Papal prophylactic pronouncement have ramifications beyond HIV / AIDS .
If the Pope is right about the effectiveness of condoms then surgeons will have to abandon latex gloves to reduce the likelihood of transmitting bugs: If latex won’t work on a lone phallus, then what chance does it have against ten digits – with nails on the tips!
If the Pope is right about condom distribution unleashing lust then he should publish a paper showing the relationship between condom quantity and the distance needed to avoid promiscuity.
The truth is the Pope has an ideological objection to condoms and he’s abandoned truth to propagate dogma.
The cruel history of religious authority, leading from the rear, continues - no matter what the subject of contention - witches, slavery, evolution , cosmology, democracy , and now public health .
The scenario plays out the same way every time: human reason discovers a truth and must fight for it against religious dogma. The battle ends with the religious position in tatters; yet the religious generals declare victory - the new paradigm has become God's will!
It’s interesting to note that part of the Pope’s solution to HIV includes “friendship for those who suffer”. Despite this sanctimonious platitude, the Pope keeps his own suffering to a minimum. Like Mother Theresa before him, Benedict avails himself of the best that scientific medical advances can offer.
Claims that sexual abstinence or fidelity reduce the spread of AIDS/HIV doesn’t imply that condoms increase it. So powerful is his desire for sex without condoms, the Pontiff is prepared to propagate lies in the face of an indisputable fact – compared to au naturale, sex with condoms decreases the risk of infection.
Pope Benedict exerts enormous influence – his lie will spread confusion, misery and death.
The ABC approach in Uganda was strictly an education approach. Barriers to condom use (cost, inconvenience, embarrassment) remained in place from 1989 to 1995. Sometime between 1995 and 2000, a study was done to find an effective intervention that would reduce barriers to condom use. I include the abstract at the end of this post.
First, from the Guttmacher report. UNAIDS. 2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic, page.72
Between 1989-1995 there were large declines in the proportions of men 15-17 and 18-19 who had ever had sex. Declines were smaller between 1995-2000. “However, men 15-17 and 18-19 who were sexually experienced were more likely to be sexually active in 2000 than in 1995 (the proportions increased from 33% to 44% and from 58% to 72% respectively.)”
The proportion of unmarried women with more than one sexual partner continued to decline between 1995-2000. However, some age-groups of unmarried men were more likely to have multiple partners in 2000 than in 1995.
The proportion of married men with multiple partners increased among some age groups between 1995-200 and decreased among other age groups.
Current use of condoms was very low among married women and men, but increased slightly between 1995-2000
Since the distinction between experienced and active is very relevant here, I will elaborate. In 1995, sexually experienced teenage men ages 15-17 had a sexual activity rate of 33%. In 1995 the 18 and 19 year-old men who were sexually experienced had a sexual activity rate of 58%. Then the barriers to condom use were lowered. Perhaps co-incidentally, the rates of sexual activity among sexually experienced teenagers rose to 120% or 125% of the pre-intervention levels.
The only group that benefited from the lowered barriers were married women and men, who used condoms more, but that may have been because the proportion of married men with MULTIPLE PARTNERS increased among some age groups, and also increased condom use to an unmeasured degree at home.
The pope was not only telling the truth, he was right.
Preferred sources of condoms among young men in Kampala, Uganda.
Kamya M, Kapiriri L, Kamya S, Biryabarema C, Kajubi P, Hearst N, McFarland W; International Conference on AIDS.
Int Conf AIDS. 2000 Jul 9-14; 13: abstract no. ThPeC5340.
M. Kamya, Department of Medicine Mulago Hospital, Kampala 256 41, Uganda, Tel.: +256 41 541 188, Fax: +256 41 533 531, E-mail: malaria@infocom.co.ug
Background: Barriers to condom use persist despite widespread knowledge that condoms can prevent HIV . Two barriers identified among young men in Kampala include limited knowledge of where to get condoms and embarrassment around obtaining them. We conducted a community outreach pilot study to identify convenient, non-embarrassing condom distribution points. Methods: Ten condom distributors were enlisted in Kawempe, Kampala. Condom skills workshops were conducted among resident men age 18 to 30 years. Participants were given coupons for redeeming free condoms. Preferences for distributors was measured by the number of coupons redeemed. Results: Preferred sources of condoms among young men, Kampala, Uganda are presented in the table. Rank Distributor Type Condom packs redeemed % 1 Male youth representative Local leader 139 31 2 Shop A Retail/Social/Drinking 79 17 3 Shop B Retail/Social 69 15 4 Bar A Drinking 29 6 5 Bar B Drinking 28 6 6 Shop C Drug store 28 6 7 Bar C Drinking 24 5 8 Clinic A Clinic 24 5 9 Women's representative Local leader 17 4 10 Shop D Drug store 15 3 The male representative was the most popular source of condoms due to being a peer, availability, even late at night, and past experience. In contrast, the female representative was less accessible, logistically and socially, to men. Two retail shops were popular: one catering to minority non-Lugandan speakers, the other a venue for social and sports activities. Clinics and drugs stores were least favored despite the fact that the majority of men identified these places as sources of condoms prior to the study. Conclusions: The types of persons acting as condom distributors, their availability, and the location of peripheral distribution points were strong determinants of where men actually obtain condoms. Preferred condom outlets were not those existing prior to the study.