The Pope is making it up as he goes and is telling an untruth to people that must abide by his words. Condom use will not INCREASE HIV infection rates in a population and, to appeal to ridicule....it is patently LUDICROUS to think that condom use will increase HIV infection rates in a population.
But it might save other lives.
...but it might not. Bet Obama's got some jobs "saved or created in the future" to show you. Way I see it is that your way will save X-lives in 100. I'd rather try to save the same X-lives and then try to save the rest too, through other means. Very simply because I know that your way is an untenable ideal in a population.
There are plausible indications that societal dysfunctions resulting finally in premature death may arise from the acceptance of Artificial Birth Control.
Wow....because people use condoms, society gains a possible dysfunction making people die earlier? REALLY?
I don't quite get the selective contempt for morality.
I have contempt for ANY morality-set that is supposedly compassionate and "cares" about life so vehemently, but only that life that abides by their specific idealistic rules. The rest, F-'em...they made their choices.
The value of saving lives by whatever means at whatever future cost in premature death is a moral value.
Manufacturing future premature deaths as fact? If you want to call saving lives through multiple means a "moral value"....so be it, it's a moral value. Got cancer? We'll only try to get rid of it this one way and if that doesn't work....we tried, so screw!! I see that as nothing more than the "evolution is a religion" tactic to change the discussion. Go bicker in the corner about morals while us public health types save lives you won't bother with. You wanna call that a "moral issue" to twist into on-line comments of superiority/inferiority discussions...call it a hippopotamus for all I care. Meanshile, more people die every day because the ideal you set while trying to control behaviors WILL NEVER BE MET.
Go ahead, call me a liberal, a progressive....such a GREAT tactic...haven't seen that one before.
I would like to point out that I didn't call you a liberal. I don't have any notion of your politics and there are plenty of anti-Catholics who aren't liberal.
However the suggestion or invitation suggest to me that attempts at reasonable discussion are not likely to be fruitful.
I think you really don't know what you are talking about, when it comes to the Pope. Such opinions are rarely voiced without research. Have you looked into what led to the Pope's expressing this view?
Wow....because people use condoms, society gains a possible dysfunction making people die earlier? REALLY?
Wow.... because people research and look into questions that others have not even thought to ask their conjectures and conclusions should be subjected to ridicule without examination? REALLY?
Come back when you've looked into this a little. Ignorance and thoughtlessness hiding behind a hedge of abusiveness holds no interest for me.
From Miles Jesu:
A recent example of attempted limitations of freedom in the name of freedom occurred this past April, when the House of Representatives of Belgium ordered the Ambassador of Belgium to the Holy See to deliver an official condemnation of the Pope’s remarks on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africa.ANDThe Holy See responded by saying it “deplores the fact that a Parliamentary Assembly should have thought it appropriate to criticize the Holy Father on the basis of an isolated extract from an interview, separated from its context, and used by some groups with a clear intent to intimidate, as if to dissuade the Pope from expressing himself on certain themes of obvious moral relevance and from teaching the Church’s doctrine.”
Dr. Edward Green, a Senior Harvard Researcher for AIDS Prevention, told Catholic News Agency that science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green said that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.
From What Does The Prayer Really Say?
Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.So who's making stuff up as he goes along?According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.
“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”
Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.
After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”
Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”
The accepted wisdom in the scientific community, explained Green, is that condoms lower the HIV infection rate, but after numerous studies, researchers have found the opposite to be true. “We just cannot find an association between more condom use and lower HIV reduction rates” in Africa.
Dr. Green found that part of the elusive reason is a phenomenon known as risk compensation or behavioral disinhibition.
[this is actually a pretty interesting article.]
Many Self-described scientists not only lack a basic understanding of morality, so that they cannot, for example, plausibly differentiate between an ethic of indifference and an ethic of virtue, but they also lack the kind of breadth of vision without which one cannot see that what one thinks is a cosmopolitan and comprehensive point of view is really pretty parochial, even clique-ish.
The famous line attributed to Pauline Kael after the 1927 election applies. She supposedly said of Nixon's win, "I just don't understand it. Everyone I know voted for McGovern." And yet New Yorkers consider themselves uniquely broad in their views and knowledge.
Here, the Pope articulates a view which a public health professional has not heard and so he simply MUST be making it up. There couldn't possibly be any research behind the Pope's statement or supporting his point of view, because, the illusion is, if there were, the public health profession would know about it already. And, after all, the Pope is just a funny man in a white dress who studies things nobody but a few (okay, a billion) cultists care about.