[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

The virus is dissolved in sperm plasma and as long as the condom holds back the sperm plasma, it holds back virtually all of the virus.

What's a 3-letter synonym for "virtually"?

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Mar 30 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

it is very unfortunate that no legal steps can be taken against the pope about this.

I'd just like to go on the record and take the other side of this one. I think it's fortunate when legal steps aren't taken against people for expressing their views.

i believe that is the sort of subversive thinking we need to nip in the bud

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 30 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

The virus is dissolved in sperm plasma and as long as the condom holds back the sperm plasma, it holds back virtually all of the virus.

What's a 3-letter synonym for "virtually"?

"not"?

I would think (but I don't know for sure) that a few HIV particles are actually transmitted through the condom. But each particle's chance of causing an infection is very small, so it is critical how much virus one is exposed to.

[luke warm]

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 29 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

How quaint.  I used the quotes only to show that your claims about poor results with condoms are specific only to Africa.

Not my claims. The claims made in the article which I posted a portion of and a link to. The portion which I quoted included "have had little impact in Africa". But, that is just coincidental, I included the quote so that people could get an idea of what the linked article was about -- I dislike when people post links to articles with no explanation. That's also why I wrote "Seems teaching abstinence might be more effective that distributing condoms." Though I guess I would have been better off if I had also included "Africa" in that.

Anyway, I found the link to the article on a friend's facebook page. Someone had commented that "this information is good to have for school programs" which is what really grabbed my attention (in a head shaking, disbelieving sort of way).

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Agree.

Maybe those who advocate condoms think nobody would take them seriously if they also have to advocate abstinence, or that if promiscuity is disapproved by caregivers, people may be shy of asking for condoms because doing so would suggest promiscuity. Maybe those who advocate abstinence think that the condom campaigns undermine their message.

I am just speculating, I have no idea how those campaigns are actually implemented.

[TimG]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

I have no problem with encouraging abstinence. I do have a problem with abstinence only programs.

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice. And, I would not like it if sex education was taught with that slant. Abstinence good, intercourse evil, isn't what sex education should be about, in my opinion, regardless of whether condoms are being handed out.

[luke warm]

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then. I had brought up the point that because it is a bloodborn pathogen condom use may not have any bearing at all on risk. For example, let's say one control group used condoms but a second control group abstained from sex but both control groups received blood transfusions from HIV contaminated blood - condoms and abstinence don't really matter - the fuckers and the fuckless are both fucked.

To this you said:

Quote

so what?

You then went on to make a claim that the article's premise was that abstinence lowers the instances of hiv more than condoms - which was clearly not the intent of the passage - (but an idea that has been espoused strongly by the Christian Right) when abstinence alone was clearly not even the sole method utilized. You totally ignore the method of monogamous relationships that was mentioned. And you totally ignore the true premise stated that "condom use may increase Aids exposure".

Quote

the premise is that abstinence lowers the instances of hiv more than using condoms does... do you disagree with that?

So you take a scientific/health issue article and find a single phrase that can with a stretch be expanded to incorporate your beliefs (which happen to coincide with the beliefs of the Christian Right) then you make the claim that the entire basis for the article was the passage you point out - after which you wonder how anyone could possible cast a moral/religious-influence-doubt on your thoughts?

("delayed sexual activity for young people" - that's as close as you'll come in the original post to the concept of abstinence.)

Here is the original premise in the article quoted:

Quote

evidence confirms that the Pope is correct in his assessment that condom distribution exacerbates the problem of AIDS.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Let me refresh your memory, then. I had brought up the point that because it is a bloodborn pathogen condom use may not have any bearing at all on risk. For example, let's say one control group used condoms but a second control group abstained from sex but both control groups received blood transfusions from HIV contaminated blood - condoms and abstinence don't really matter - the fuckers and the fuckless are both fucked.

None of those people would affect the results of a study comparing condom use with abstinence, unless there's a correlation between getting tainted blood transfusions and one of those practices. Sure, they're both fucked, but they're fucked the same amount.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then.

the fact remains that i wasn't speaking of a moral issue regardless of how many times you say 'christian right' or 'neoconservative' or any other term you choose to use... that's all

[kenberg]

At the risk of a hail of bullets from both sides, I note that Jimmy says:


"i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice"

while Richard says

"From my perspective, the "big" piece that is missing is discussion regarding combining messaging and providing condoms."

Perhaps not total agreement but miraculous all the same. "Blessed are the peacemakers..."

One further thought about the Pope being right or wrong: Suppose I am playing a contract, I have to decide whether to finesse or play for the drop, and i receive advice from both the Pope and from Michael Rosenberg. If they disagree, I follow Rosenberg's adviec. If they agree, you could say that I follow the Pope's advice, but only because he agrees with Rosenberg. So it is here. If scientific studies show that in some identifiable instances promoting abstinence is a real winner (seems unlikely but anything is possible) then fine, put resources into promoting absitnence. If the Pope wants to claim credit, fine. Similarly, if the Pope religiously follows the rule of Eight Ever, Nine Never, he will be right some of the time. B ut I'll take my advice from Rosenberg.



To my mind, surely a combined approach is, a priori, the most appealing. One could start the education by:
Men: Picking up women in bars and having unprotected sex may be hazardous to your health
Women: If a guy does drugs, say no. Not maybe. No. Never mind about condoms. Just No.

Obviously we could hope for better. Got to start somewhere.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

i don't know why this has to be an either/or issue... i'm all for issuing condoms, freely if needed, but i don't see why at the same time abstinence can't be taught as a superior choice

Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice.

that's why i objected to winston's statement earlier re: health/science/morality... he assumed i was making a moral statement when i wasn't... it's simply common sense, to me, that both can and do prevent disease but that abstinence is superior

Let me refresh your memory, then.

the fact remains that i wasn't speaking of a moral issue regardless of how many times you say 'christian right' or 'neoconservative' or any other term you choose to use... that's all

O.K. I accept that and I believe you.

I know what it is like to not say exactly what you mean when typing in a forum like this - and I've been called out for the same type of slip where I had to later try to explain what I meant rather than how it came out in type.

No problem, Mate.