Vatican is telling people not to use condoms
-
How do you know that the nun didn't? Perhaps this detail was omitted on purpose by the reporter.Originally posted by kaister:Yes he would. But shouldn't the nun advise him to abstain from sex rather than to not use condoms?? -
I like the analogy! So dirty...Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:If a HIV-infected person has sexual intercourse with a non-infected person, isn't it assault with a deadly weapon?
But the focus is wrong. If people from third-world country has not yet know how to abstain from sex, how can one advocate the ban of condoms? How would someone with little education understand their intentions? -
Indeed the possibility is there.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:How do you know that the nun didn't? Perhaps this detail was omitted on purpose by the reporter.
Then again, the question comes again to their cultural and educational background. They have got no entertainment at night. They are poor and lowly educated. All these are factors that attribute to high-reproductive rates.
If you can't stop people from having sex first, how can you jump one step ahead and stop their condom use? Remember there are numerous STDs that can be prevented from condom use, not just AIDS. -
In case people get the wrong idea, I'm sure the Catholic Church have their good intentions.
But seriously, simple logic can easily tell us that their actions will first cause more deaths before they can save more lives. -
How is it easier to educate them in using condoms than educating them in abstinence? Teaching them to use condoms is taking the easy way out.Originally posted by kaister:I like the analogy! So dirty...
But the focus is wrong. If people from third-world country has not yet know how to abstain from sex, how can one advocate the ban of condoms? How would someone with little education understand their intentions? -
No one mentioned about teaching them to use condoms. Leave that to the WHO. The least Vatican can do is NOT to tell them NOT to use the condom. They can do their part in educating abstinence.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:How is it easier to educate them in using condoms than educating them in abstinence? Teaching them to use condoms is taking the easy way out.
First do no harm. Am I right? -
Well, he did try didn't he?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:If the husband was truly concerned for his wife, he would abstain from sexual relations.
He used condoms and he was told not to use any. -
Just a stupid remark...
Maybe the best way to implement abstinence is through masturbation (any side effects to tat ? No ? Good). The parties invoved can relieve themselves of their sexual pressure. Sadly Catholic is banning tat as well -
the message perhaps should be then, like what kaister said, to abstain from sex instead of not using condoms.
in any case, it's quite worrying because there are places like mexico, where everyone takes the word of the vatican to be the defining rules in their life.
I bet the mexican guys are celebrating.
oh btw, pardon my ignorance and memory. But if i'm not wrong, this stand came from a biblical story where some guy refused to impregnate his brother's wife or something, and chose to have sex without impregnation.
I remember reading about this in sec4, can someone confirm/deny it?
also, shouldn't this topic be in the catholic forum instead of eternal hope? -
He refused sex altogether and was killed by God.Originally posted by nomood:oh btw, pardon my ignorance and memory. But if i'm not wrong, this stand came from a biblical story where some guy refused to impregnate his brother's wife or something, and chose to have sex without impregnation.
I remember reading about this in sec4, can someone confirm/deny it?
The woman had sex with her father-in-law instead but the latter was ignorant about it. -
How did the husband get STD in the first place?Originally posted by kaister:Yes he would. But shouldn't the nun advise him to abstain from sex rather than to not use condoms??
Got from outside? "Home flower dun wan, go for wild flowers".
Now sick already. Still have the cheek to come home to have sex with the wife. Does the wife want or not? After all, the husband is so dirty.
And the husband pretend to be so thoughtful and say want to use condom. Pls lah, if he doesn't go touch dirty women out there, he don't have to use condom now.
So by fighting over Using Condom to prevent STD, we are just condoning infidelity and promiscuity. -
No sex, must have masturbation. Who on earth so desperate, other than serial rapists?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Just a stupid remark...
Maybe the best way to implement abstinence is through masturbation (any side effects to tat ? No ? Good). The parties invoved can relieve themselves of their sexual pressure. Sadly Catholic is banning tat as well -
Nah... just imagine a normal guy who can't get himself a wife (safely say tat since the number of guy and girl not the same) can't have any sexual experience, can't masturbate throughout his 70 years life span. Is it desperate or is he treated too harshly ?
-
errr... mdm, casual sex is not the only means of transmission, that poor guy in those poor countries with poorly equiped hospital could have got this desease when some dumb nurse reuse the syringes (tainted with HIV inflected blood) or do a blood transfusion using tainted blood (happened before) on him.Originally posted by Honeybunz:How did the husband get STD in the first place?
Got from outside? "Home flower dun wan, go for wild flowers".
Now sick already. Still have the cheek to come home to have sex with the wife. Does the wife want or not? After all, the husband is so dirty.
And the husband pretend to be so thoughtful and say want to use condom. Pls lah, if he doesn't go touch dirty women out there, he don't have to use condom now.
So by fighting over Using Condom to prevent STD, we are just condoning infidelity and promiscuity.
-
The secular society should stand up to religious nonsense like discouraging use of condoms and going to war based on the phrase (good versus evil). For more information search Richard Dawkins, a documetary by him called "Root of all Evil?"
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:He refused sex altogether and was killed by God.
The woman had sex with her father-in-law instead but the latter was ignorant about it.Gensis 38:8-10
no he did not refuse sex, he practice withdrawal method.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
***personally, I don't think its what he did physically that was wicked in the Lord's slight, but rather he did in his mind (his intention) of not having to produce offspring for his brother (effectively removing the family line of the brother). -
So Condom use = promote sex, therefore ban condom use and we're sex free? This is the line of arguement that the Catholic Church is embarking on.
Unfortunately, the world don't work this way. Unless you can be very sure people abstain from having sex, they WILL have sex and transmit diseases.
Vatican should just focus on abstinence and leave the rest to WHO. By making such a stand on condom use is like condemning people to death (not to mention innocent parties who are not aware that their partners are infected).
We're in the middle of an AIDS epidemic. The least we can do is to prevent its spread. -
oh ya my mistake .. which normal guy will refuse sex right?Originally posted by vince69:no he did not refuse sex, he practice withdrawal method.
***personally, I don't think its what he did physically that was wicked in the Lord's slight, but rather he did in his mind (his intention) of not having to produce offspring for his brother (effectively removing the family line of the brother).
furthermore the wife quite pretty .. or else how to be a harlot.
-
hmm.. . in that case, there is no need to discuss on using condoms to stop the spread. But then, dunno whether Kaister will agree or not.Originally posted by vince69:errr... mdm, casual sex is not the only means of transmission, that poor guy in those poor countries with poorly equiped hospital could have got this desease when some dumb nurse reuse the syringes (tainted with HIV inflected blood) or do a blood transfusion using tainted blood (happened before) on him. -
But sexual transmission is still the predominant mode of infection.Originally posted by Honeybunz:hmm.. . in that case, there is no need to discuss on using condoms to stop the spread. But then, dunno whether Kaister will agree or not.
Isn't not discussing the problem avoiding it? -
u tokking from your own experience?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Nah... just imagine a normal guy who can't get himself a wife (safely say tat since the number of guy and girl not the same) can't have any sexual experience, can't masturbate throughout his 70 years life span. Is it desperate or is he treated too harshly ?
Why is sex becoming a basic need in life? You know Maslow law. It seems that sex has become as important as air, water and food already.
Cannot have a wife, MUST masturbate. If not, will die.
In that case, a lot of young kids, monks and priests also die, dun exist anymore. -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:u tokking from your own experience?
Why is sex becoming a basic need in life? You know Maslow law. It seems that sex has become as important as air, water and food already.
Cannot have a wife, MUST masturbate. If not, will die.
In that case, a lot of young kids, monks and priests also die, dun exist anymore. I agree! There're tons of people who can live without sex. It's not a necessity of life.
On the other hand, there're also tons of people who can't live without. Just take a look at the Catholic priests who were involved in child sex abuse case.
-
What if the condoms are really banned and the only way to prevent it is for everyone to stay faithful? Is this going to kill anyone?Originally posted by kaister:But sexual transmission is still the predominant mode of infection.
Isn't not discussing the problem avoiding it?
Now with the condoms so widely used and abused, people continue with their promiscuous way, thinking that they will never be punished (by STDs). If these people want to live this kind of lifestyle, it's their choice and it's only right for them to pay the price (getting sick and risking their family).
This reminds me of many smokers believe in using filter when they smoke will give them less harm. But if they are so afraid of sickness, they should quit smoking. Likewise, if people are so afraid of spreading or getting AIDS, then they should do something about their lifestyle (ie. learn to be chaste).
Using condom to prevent HIV is like smokers using filter to prevent lung cancer. -
Well, child sex abuse is even more common in Asia, sad to say.Originally posted by kaister: I agree! There're tons of people who can live without sex. It's not a necessity of life.
On the other hand, there're also tons of people who can't live without. Just take a look at the Catholic priests who were involved in child sex abuse case. -
Yes, this is going to cause a lot of deaths before people realise that not having sex is the wrong way. At the rate Africa is going, most will die before Vatican can preach to them that abstinence is the only way to go.Originally posted by Honeybunz:What if the condoms are really banned and the only way to prevent it is for everyone to stay faithful? Is this going to kill anyone?
They are already paying the price for having HIV. Why make other people pay the price as well? There are a lot of people forced into the streets as prositutes. They don't do it out of their free will. Sometimes even kids. Are you going to ban condoms and cause these kids' deaths?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Now with the condoms so widely used and abused, people continue with their promiscuous way, thinking that they will never be punished (by STDs). If these people want to live this kind of lifestyle, it's their choice and it's only right for them to pay the price (getting sick and risking their family).
They're already suffering because of their society, why ban condoms and make them pay the price?
Does the Vatican believe in value of death over value of life?
We should attack the multi-factorial problem of AIDS in africa using multiple solutions. Why can't we try to persuade smokers to quit smoking AND provide them with filter? Quiting smoking doesn't take place over nite you know?Originally posted by Honeybunz:This reminds me of many smokers believe in using filter when they smoke will give them less harm. But if they are so afraid of sickness, they should quit smoking. Likewise, if people are so afraid of spreading or getting AIDS, then they should do something about their lifestyle (ie. learn to be chaste).
Using condom to prevent HIV is like smokers using filter to prevent lung cancer.
Same thing with AIDS. Getting people to stop having multiple sex partners is not going to be an easy task. Why can't we first use condoms to stop the spread and prevent more deaths while Vatican persuades them?