Posted on 05/03/2006 12:08:36 PM PDT by siunevada
I don't understand what you are saying.
>> (estimated between 0.005 and 0.009 for male-to-female transmission, and 0.003 and 0.001 for female-to-male transmission for a single instance of unprotected intercourse) cutting down the number of exposures makes a big difference. Which means that a condom, properly used, can prevent infection for a significant number of people. <<
No, it doesn't, because the condom-failure risks are unlinked while the contraction risks are linked. (I don't know if they are completely independent, but there is definitely some linkage.)
See, the reason the infection rate is so low among heterosexuals is because heterosexual sex normally doesn't provide the AIDS virus with a means of getting within the other person's body. There has to be some open wound for the transmission to occur: a laceration, an ulceration, a tear. These breaches in the epidermal integrity are frequently caused if sexually transmitted diseases are present, or if sodomy occurs. But sometimes they just happen for unknown or undetected reasons.
Now, although some people get one-time breaches, the fact is that most breaches are due to some persistent, chronic, or re-occuring condition. So, in most cases the condoms won't make a difference because the AIDS virus wouldn't get transmitted no matter what. In those cases where transmission is possible once, it is very likely that the transmission is possible often.
That position is based upon your religious zealotry and not on common sense. You have failed to convince me.
In those cases where transmission is possible once, it is very likely that the transmission is possible often.
I'm afraid I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can you explain?
Gee, I thought I was talking about the percentages.
The device has a failure rate regardless of religion. Ask the doctor.
We were. Now we are talking about your religious zealotry.
Gee, no one's ever called me a religious zealot before. Thanks.
Anyway, the AP story was about speculation on what the Vatican might or might not do. Frankly, I don't know why anyone who isn't a Catholic would care one way or the other what the Vatican has to say on the matter. Just look at the numbers on artificial birth control practices of people who call themselves Catholic in the U.S., they don't seem to care what the Church says.
From the public health perspective, I find the campaign for the use of condoms to reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa completely comprehensible and rational. Greatest good for the greatest number using the tools available. I doubt a significant number of those infected with AIDS are practicing Catholics, so what the Vatican has to say doesn't really come into consideration for them. It's a bit of a conundrum that this campaign has been going on for a while now and still seems to be struggling for success.
From the Vatican's moral/ethical perspective which is different than a strictly public health perspective, abstinence is a valid alternative in the equation. From their perspective, they have to consider every individual, not almost everyone. I think when they consider the, admittedly, extremely small number of individuals that are exposed because the device failed, and having been exposed are infected; that will be an insurmountable obstacle from their perspective. Because they consider there is a valid alternative. And because the weakest, most vulnerable, the "least brethren" are, from their perspective, the most important individuals in the world, I don't think they will make any major changes in what they have to say.
My only real opinion is that I don't think the Vatican will make any changes in what they have to say on the matter.
Well, of course not. But then what IS the solution to the spread of AIDS in marriage? Though most spouses have the choice to forego sexual relations with their infected partners, and IMO would avoid it like the plague that it is, Post 50 tells us that some women have no choice.
I would be interested in hearing the views of those who have studied some of the many cultures all over the world.
Obviously some live in a backward world. Whether they can be, or want to be, advanced beyond the only lifestyles they know, is an unanswered question, to me, anyway.
Rather than toy with the idea of okaying condoms to help solve the problem of spreading AIDS, more to the point, IMO, the concerned Church should deal with the destructiive behavior which causes the terrible problem in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.