Vatican is telling people not to use condoms
-
not having sex is the wrong way = Having sex is the right way?Originally posted by kaister: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.
har?
Aren't we talking about abstinence vs using condom? -
mdm,Originally posted by Honeybunz:not having sex is the wrong way = Having sex is the right way? har?
Aren't we talking about abstinence vs using condom?
actually Kaister is talking about using both Abstinence and Condoms
maybe Kaister can correct me if I got you wrong
Condom - short term use as a prevention of HIV from spreading.
Abstinence - long term goal for the stopping of HIV Transmission since this will take longer time for people to adopt this practice. -
typoOriginally posted by Honeybunz:not having sex is the wrong way = Having sex is the right way? har?
Aren't we talking about abstinence vs using condom?
Not having sex is the right way
-
Ok, now you talk about Child Prostitution. Don't you think that is the issue to tackle, rather than distribute condoms to the children and let them continue to sell their bodies at the brothels?Originally posted by kaister: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?
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?
Why are we not saving them out from where they are, instead of letting them use condoms so that they can live longer as child prostitutes?
If we talk about value of these children's life, Vatican or any humane activists would rather put them to orphanages instead of giving out rubbers to them. -
That was the result of lousy screening of candidates to the priesthood and poor teaching in the seminary, not clerical celibacy.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. -
I think you're mistaken. I'm not saying we should distribute condoms cos' that would be encouraging them. I'm saying we shouldn't discourage or ban the use of condoms.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Ok, now you talk about Child Prostitution. Don't you think that is the issue to tackle, rather than distribute condoms to the children and let them continue to sell their bodies at the brothels?
Why are we not saving them out from where they are, instead of letting them use condoms so that they can live longer as child prostitutes?
If we talk about value of these children's life, Vatican or any humane activists would rather put them to orphanages instead of giving out rubbers to them.
Yes, saving them would be the ideal situation but practically it's impossible given the corrupted government and the poverty. Agree?
So given 2 choice, which one would you choose?
1. Ban the use of condoms. Encourage abstinence. - innocent parties may suffer. Spread of AIDS worsen. People will probably learn the consequences after a whole generation dies out from AIDS.
2. Don't ban condom. Encourage abstinence. - Lessen the dmg of AIDS. People might learn slower but at least less people die. -
Ya, just saying that Ren Fei Sheng Xian Shu Nen Wu Guo? (translation: to err is human)Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:That was the result of lousy screening of candidates to the priesthood and poor teaching in the seminary, not clerical celibacy. -
Where in the article does it say that he tried to abstain?Originally posted by missqi:Well, he did try didn't he?
He used condoms and he was told not to use any.
Sex is meant for the expression of marital love. Deliberately exposing the spouse to even the slightest risk of catching a deadly and incurable disease is hardly in the spirit of love. -
If we can try to persuade smokers to quit smoking and provide them with filter, why nobody is doing it? The very fact that people use filter is because they believe it will filter out most of the harmful chemicals, just like the misconception of condoms being 100% safe.Originally posted by kaister: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?
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?
People with multiple sex partners can seek help and skrinks. When a person is addicted to sex, cannot live without sex etc is having some kind of mental disorder. Note: mental disorder doesn't mean insane. It's just a disorder, like eating disorder, or sleeping disorder, where proper medical treatments and counselling are conducted.
Psychatrists do treat this kind of patients (and other mental patients). However, many ppl do not see this as an illness or disorder. Some may be too embarassed to see a doctor for this problem. -
Would you agree that the correct information be given to everyone? Like the Church should tell people how condoms cannot stop 100% of all STDs but abstinence is the best solution?Originally posted by Honeybunz:If we can try to persuade smokers to quit smoking and provide them with filter, why nobody is doing it? The very fact that people use filter is because they believe it will filter out most of the harmful chemicals, just like the misconception of condoms being 100% safe.
People with multiple sex partners can seek help and skrinks. When a person is addicted to sex, cannot live without sex etc is having some kind of mental disorder. Note: mental disorder doesn't mean insane. It's just a disorder, like eating disorder, or sleeping disorder, where proper medical treatments and counselling are conducted.
Psychatrists do treat this kind of patients (and other mental patients). However, many ppl do not see this as an illness or disorder. Some may be too embarassed to see a doctor for this problem.
I think the question here is whether to ban condoms or not? -
condoms cannot stop 100% of all STDsOriginally posted by kaister:Would you agree that the correct information be given to everyone? Like the Church should tell people how condoms cannot stop 100% of all STDs but abstinence is the best solution?
I think the question here is whether to ban condoms or not?
Correct, already discussed in the earlier posts in this thread.
Abstinence is the best solution (unless you talk about blood transfusion which we cannot control if we are sway sway stranded in African hospitals) Correct since condoms is not 100%.
So, I will still say ban.
-
Sad to say, most of the human species either dun understand this, dunno, or pretend not to know (ignore).Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Where in the article does it say that he tried to abstain?
Sex is meant for the expression of marital love. Deliberately exposing the spouse to even the slightest risk of catching a deadly and incurable disease is hardly in the spirit of love. -
You're entitled to your opinion.Originally posted by Honeybunz:condoms cannot stop 100% of all STDs Correct, already discussed in the earlier posts in this thread.
Abstinence is the best solution (unless you talk about blood transfusion which we cannot control if we are sway sway stranded in African hospitals) Correct since condoms is not 100%.
So, I will still say ban.
Sigh... but I cannot help but have a chill sent down my spine. We cannot ban AIDS, so we ban the next "culprit" - condoms...
-
Condoms dont help on prevention of std.
Think about it. More condoms means more sex and more std since there is 10% 'flaw'
no condom means lesser sex but same number of std since there is no protection. -
? WTH...Originally posted by davidche:Condoms dont help on unplanned pregnancy or prevention of std.
Think about it. More condoms means more sex and more std.
Less condoms means lesser sex but same number of std.
Condoms prevent unplanned pregnancy. It's a contraception for goodness' sake!
If you say that it does not help on prevention of STDs, I'm afraid you're very ignorant on this matter... -
David, you can't just change your post cos' you put in something wrong you never thought about...Originally posted by davidche:Condoms dont help on prevention of std.
Think about it. More condoms means more sex and more std since there is 10% 'flaw'
no condom means lesser sex but same number of std since there is no protection.
No condom doesn't mean less sex. People will still have sex and it's inevitable. -
ya lor .. in fact I can argue many teenagers never even use condom when they fark around. Which is why unwanted pregnancy is on the rise.Originally posted by kaister:David, you can't just change your post cos' you put in something wrong you never thought about...
No condom doesn't mean less sex. People will still have sex and it's inevitable. -
Yes, although the Church tries very hard to teach abstinence, it is not working very well...Originally posted by Icemoon:ya lor .. in fact I can argue many teenagers never even use condom when they fark around. Which is why unwanted pregnancy is on the rise.
Just take a look around. How many people are practicing no-sex-policy?
Since, you can't even teach abstinence well among the general population, how can you take away the safety web provided by condoms? Won't it cause more deaths?
Sometimes I really wonder if Just-death is more valuable than life in Vatican's view? -
I think honeybunz need to have a reality check to see tat abstinence is not working, and in future, not going to work as well. People r getting more liberal and think of sex as nothing great and the trend is likely to continue. And the assumption u made is tat tis trend is fueled by the use of condom or contraceptives.
U need to realise tis important fact. A lot of people having casual sex do not wear protection
They do not like the feeling etc etc etc and tat is why there is a lot of people trying to promote people to use condom and have safe sex. If everyone wear condom when they r having casual sex etc, why will anyone wanna encourage the use of condom ? Worse still the church is not helping either even though they r at the same side of the fence by trying to reduce sickness etc. Instead of comparing abstinence with condom, why don't u compare safe sex and non-safe sex ? Which will u prefer the masses to do ?
Not having sex doesn't kill u. Neither do starvation for a few days or not having a proper shelter from the weather or thirsty for a long period of time. U got to admit tat it is one of men basic instinct and people do experience a urge for such matters. -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3890689.stm
Dozens of pornographic cable TV channels on sale here, and yet sales of condoms have been falling for several years.
http://www.populationaction.org/resources/factsheets/factsheet_22.htm
The ABCs are three parts of an HIV/AIDS behavior change initiative that encourages:
Abstinence (and delay of first intercourse);
Being faithful (monogamy and reduction in the number of sexual partners); and
Condom use during sexual intercourse.
Studies show that this kind of comprehensive approach to HIV prevention and sexuality education is far more successful in reducing risky behaviors than abstinence-only programs, particularly among young people. Despite the demonstrated success of this approach, however, the majority of at-risk individuals lack access to the information or services that could save their lives.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/23/health/webmd/main1931567.shtml
Teens have as much unsafe sex with their main sex partners as they do with their casual sex contacts, Brown University researchers report.
Sexually active teens say they use condoms more often with casual sex partners than they do with their main sex partners — that is, someone they consider a spouse, a lover, a boyfriend, or a girlfriend.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9556172&dopt=Abstract
Furthermore, 40% of the 15 respondents who reported consistent condom use with casual sex partners at the initial interview later admitted at reinterview that they sometimes have unprotected sex.
http://www.condomdepot.com/learn/2006/08/teens-neglect-condom-use-in-serious.cfm
As reported in the September issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, the study included more than 1,300 sexually active young people, ages 15 to 21, in Miami, Atlanta, and Providence. The participants were divided into two groups: 65 percent who said they'd had sex with their main partner only in the previous 90 days and 35 percent who said they'd had sex with at least one casual partner during that time.
Among those in the casual-partner group, 21.5 percent said they had had unprotected sex within the previous 90 days, compared to 19.2 percent of those in the main-partner-only group. -
Abstinence will not work because the little head rules over the big head.
Condoms should be widely distributed and used because a 90% reduction in risk is better than not having any protection at all. -
Tell them to use their head to think n nt using their the other head.
-
Believing abstinence without the use of condom can solve all STD, aids problem is the same as believing abstinence (of peforming crime) can solve all the world crime problem without the use of police. They r assuming men r ideal.
-
Ya. Ban Prostitution in Geylang and we'll see what happens.Originally posted by Honeybunz:So, I will still say ban. -
"You realize God gave you a penis and a brain, and only enough blood to run one at a time." - Robin WilliamsOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Abstinence will not work because the little head rules over the big head.
Condoms should be widely distributed and used because a 90% reduction in risk is better than not having any protection at all.