Condom Conundrums

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 24, 2005

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[hombre_sincero]

They HATE the fact that the Church's method is 100% effective at preventing AIDS, pregnancy, STDs, and a huge variety of moral mental illness

[SC Swamp Fox]

"The experience of countries where HIV has declined suggests that partner reduction is of central epidemiological importance in achieving large-scale HIV incidence reduction, both in generalized and more concentrated epidemics."

Facts! Liberals don't need no stinkin' facts!

[Cicero]

I've seen similar statistical analyses in several recent articles. The statistics indicate that the Planned Parenthood/Sex ed/condom route invariably makes the incidence of teenage preganancies, STDs, and AIDS worse, not better.

A good example is the Philippines, which in the early days had an incidence of AIDS equal to the worst in Africa. But over the next couple of decades AIDS incidence got far worse in Africa, while in the Philippines it dropped to a low level.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Condom users run a measurable risk of getting pregnant, and the AIDS virus can get through much more easily. Condoms give a totally false sense of confidence. If the failure rate is around 15%, then repeated use of condoms with AIDS infected partners will raise the rate closer and closer to 100%. That's Statistics 101.

All this would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that scientific "experts" like this are responsible for the deaths of numerous people in the third world. One wonders if this is done out of ignorance, or is perhaps deliberate policy in line with the old eugenics movement from which the family planning movement directly descends.

[Rodney King]

Kristof expressed the hope that the recently elected Benedict XVI would not only change the Church's position on this issue, but would indeed "encourage the use of condoms," affirming it would be a "courageous choice."

Courageous is standing up for universal truth in the face of the liberal media and culture.

[ex-snook]

The Catholic Church advocates marriage for sex not buggery.

[NYer]

One wonders if this is done out of ignorance, or is perhaps deliberate policy in line with the old eugenics movement from which the family planning movement directly descends.

Bingo! And most folks around the world have bought into the notion of overpopulation.

[Reactionary]

"Critics continue to assail the Catholic Church's refusal to endorse condom use in treating the AIDS problem."

Strange, considering the same "critics" don't have a problem when homosexuals refuse to use condoms.

[Prime Choice]

Condoms fail.

Abstinence doesn't.

[SaltyJoe]

"He also described the Bush administration of following a "dogma-driven policy" on the issue."

Wow! That's one of the nicest complements a temporal power could be given! Or, did he mean it as an insult?

[Gondring]

They HATE the fact that the Church's method is 100% effective at preventing AIDS, pregnancy, STDs, and a huge variety of moral mental illness

Yep! I defy anyone to name ONE example of a Catholic getting any one of those (especially pregnancy...everyone knows that Catholics have zero kids!)

[Gondring]

A man who has sex 10 times using a condom effectively has unprotected sex 2 times.

Wow!

[hombre_sincero]

IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY thy name is .....

You can fill in your own name.

[Gondring]

Why is it that when we examine the effectiveness of condoms, we consider improper application of the method as part of the sample...yet failure to apply abstinence is disregarded? Apples to Oranges, you see.

The CDC needs to be more vocal in spreading the word about what they admit on their website--that condoms do NOT prevent transmission of HPV, which results in the deaths of THOUSANDS of American women every year. But we also can't make ridiculous counter-claims that ignore the failure of abstinence-only programs. It's improper risk-management technique.

Besides, does the Church really believe in abstinence between married partners? Or that herpes or AIDS should be spread between them? I recently asked a family practitioner I know about this...and she said she has many patients where one partner is infected, even though they are monogamous. Remember, pre-marital or sexual assault infections are very real things...and the Church should deal in reality, since its people's very real lives at stake.

All IMHO.

[Thorin]

Thanks for the post. If everyone followed Catholic teaching, of course, the sexual transmission of AIDS would cease.

[right-wingin_It]

'

...'Kristof expressed the hope that the recently elected Benedict XVI would not only change the Church's position on this issue, but would indeed "encourage the use of condoms...'...

Classic. I always hate it when liberals disingenuously "express their hope". Anyone with half a brain could see right through it. Hey idiot (Kristof), the Church will never do such a thing and Benedict would be the last person on earth to change it, but of course...you already know that.

[supercat]

Or that herpes or AIDS should be spread between them?

How reliably will condoms stop the spread of AIDS or herpes between lifetime partners? If a couple with one infected partner has sex even once a month, using condoms, I would tend to think that the likelihood of going even ten years without the other partner becoming infected would be pretty remote.

[Gondring]

a couple with one infected partner has sex even once a month, using condoms, I would tend to think that the likelihood of going even ten years without the other partner becoming infected would be pretty remote.

The doctors I've spoken with (clinicians with everyday experience in this) say that in some couples, the other partner never gets it, while it does spread in others. They say they don't know if it's just better resistance in some, differences in the outbreaks, or better compliance with the barrier method. All I have to go on is their word, as it seems difficult to find good information otherwise.