Yes, the Pope himself lies about condoms and AIDS, claiming, with all his knowledge of human viruses, that it will INCREASE the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa.....that, very plainly, is a falsehood.
SOMEHOW, using even YOUR presented numbers, a decrease from 80% to 1% is an "increase."
Fact is, the Pope is more concerned with pushing "morality as the Church sees it", than with saving lives.
It states facts, condom use does not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS
That, very plainly is a bogus claim tailor made for those that wanna say "abstinenece is the only way" and then walk away from the people dying from the disease/virus. Yes, complete abstinence is the only way to prevent HIV infection through sexual contact. It is also a completely unreasonable expectation of ANY animal species.
"Oh well, we TOLD them to abstain from sex...they chose not to" is not going to save those lives.
Nothing will "prevent" HIV/AIDS from spreading or occurring in a population. Actions will only minimize the probability of infection of the individual.
Teaching abstinence will not "prevent" HIV/AIDs from infecting people any more than teachign "don't use IV drugs" does. People will still use IV drugs, will still have unprotected sex, will still have multiple partners, will still be homosexuals, will still be heterosexuals having anal sex with the opposite sex, will still........behave like people.
Ignoring that from behind a veil of superior religious morality will not save lives. The way to save MORE PEOPLE, which is my only task, is to attack the problem with every weapon available, not to choose one weapon and then sit back on a high moral pedestal while people die.
How about if you reply to what I asked instead of ranting.
Where is the quote from the Vatican stating that married couples cannot use condoms for self defense if one partner is HIV infected?
You’re saying that telling people to remain within marriage for sex will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, is not correct?
What planet are you on? Must be the planet “Liberal” where people must rut like rams and no one has self control.
Oh, oh yeah, I get it. Your quote of
“will still........behave like people.”
shows it all. People are not animals. Some of us have the intelligence to realize that.
Could we have a source which shows conclusively that the Pope is (a) not telling the truth; and (b)doing so intentionally?
Fact is, the Pope is more concerned with pushing "morality as the Church sees it", than with saving lives.
That's not a fact, it's a conjecture. There are plausible indications that societal dysfunctions resulting finally in premature death may arise from the acceptance of Artificial Birth Control.
Further, I don't quite get the selective contempt for morality. The value of saving lives by whatever means at whatever future cost in premature death is a moral value. It's not a contest between morality and something else. It's not even a contest between preventing premature death at the expense of chastity and preventing unchastity at the cost of premature deaths. It's a contest between different ways of viewing the consequences of unchastity and the use of Artificial Birth Control
Did you read the Eberstadt article to which I linked?
That, very plainly is a bogus claim ...
If it's "very plainly" bogus could you show how it's bogus? It's not so plain to me.
"Oh well, we TOLD them to abstain from sex...they chose not to" is not going to save those lives.
But it might save other lives.
Ignoring that from behind a veil of superior religious morality will not save lives. The way to save MORE PEOPLE, which is my only task, is to attack the problem with every weapon available, not to choose one weapon and then sit back on a high moral pedestal while people die.
It would be amusing if it were not painful to see somebody proudly and boldly proclaim that his moral view is superior and at the same time mock people who think THEIR moral view is superior. OF COURSE you think your view is superior. You wouldn't advocate for it otherwise. And just as obviously, we think our view is superior.
This is EXACTLY how progressives argue: You are an EVIL person because you don't have my view. Well, maybe so, maybe not. But it certainly doesn't advance the argument to take a kind of time out for proclaiming the moral superiority that somehow arises from not claiming moral superiority.
Well it does advance it a little bit. When I encounter someone who thinks I am evil for thinking my view is better than his while at the same time he proclaims that his view is better than mine, I adopt the working hypothesis that he doesn't understand how to evaluate moral questions.