Pope v. Science on Condoms

[garyd]

Ah poor boy doesn't like being referenced as what he is. You'd actually have a chance if it wasn't already fairly well know that AIDs, which began in Africa perhaps as early as the 1970's is the product of a virus which managed to make the jump from monkeys to humans, from the practice of eating monkey brains which is fairly common in West Africa. AID's appears in several species other than humans.

 

[Diuretic]

exactly what is wrong with the pope's statement? abstinence absolutely will work, that is a true statement. condoms allow people to believe that putting on a plastic cover over your dick is the safe way to go. and if you don't think that doesn't encourage more sex as the pope said, then you are blind. of course condoms will create more sex....imagine a world without condoms, imagine a world with responsibilities regarding sex. yeah, no condoms....no doubt there would be less sex.

He doesn't have to imagine much. He lives in a world without sex.

one of the lamest responses i have seen from you....

you don't address anything of substance and instead make fun of the pope....

bravo down under.....bravo

It's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I thought it was brilliant

Ah, got to wipe the tears from my eyes. Now where was I.

No, I didn't make fun out of him. I pointed out that he lives a celibate life as do (allegedly) those priests and other members of the cloth who occupy senior posts who haven't been given a dispensation because they entered as already married clergy.

The problem with the abstinence argument is that it doesn't work. People will bonk if given the opportunity. And since sometimes the opportunity can arise rather unexpectedly (oh happy days!) it's wise to carry a condom to offer at least a modicum of protection against sexuallly transmitted diseases.

And so what if condoms actually encourage people to have more sex. When was it declared illegal?

Now the Pope no doubt has a very cogent theological argument against contraception, which is what is really at the heart of his utterances. In seeking to uphold this theology he has condemned the use of condoms. The use of condoms has been proven to limit not just unwanted pregnancies but also the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. So the Pople has put theology before harm minimisation and adopts the facile argument of abstinence when challenged.

No, it doesn't cut it. Humans are crazy fuck bunnies, they will fuck when the opportunity presents itself. Best to minimise unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission by the use of condoms. For those who wish to practise abstinence fine, but remember the one you knock back is the one you never catch up on.

In a sense though the Pope and me are in a similar position. We're both arguing from theoretical positions - his on sex and mine on theology.

Cathollcs can choose to obey or not. Non-Catholics can ignore the Pope without a second thought. And those with a practical outlook on the world will see the value of harm minimisation.

 

[garyd]

So you are admitting you got your statement backwards since as he has no sex life he'd have to have a very good imagination tro comment on such or be very well read.

 

[Father Time]

And here is further evidence that the Vatican has no problem making shit up. Kind of sad.

 

[Diuretic]

So you are admitting you got your statement backwards since as he has no sex life he'd have to have a very good imagination tro comment on such or be very well read.

Backwards? Backwards?

exactly what is wrong with the pope's statement? abstinence absolutely will work, that is a true statement. condoms allow people to believe that putting on a plastic cover over your dick is the safe way to go. and if you don't think that doesn't encourage more sex as the pope said, then you are blind. of course condoms will create more sex....imagine a world without condoms, imagine a world with responsibilities regarding sex. yeah, no condoms....no doubt there would be less sex.


He doesn't have to imagine much. He lives in a world without sex.

See the connection? Yurt posted imagine a world without condoms, imagine a world with responsibilities regarding sex...

There is no sex in the Pope's world, he doesn't have to imagine anything. I wasn't referring to him having to imagine having a sex life, he is celibate, he doesn't need to imagine, he only has to repeat the dogma. No imagination needed.

Anyway, plays on words aside. The Pope is supporting a theology that says no condoms. Science is saying the use of a condom during sex will limit the chances of pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Theology v science.

But wait, there's more. I don't know how it goes in the Catholic church nowadays but I would assume that using a condom is some sort of sin for Catholics. So the temporal world is held to ransom by the spiritual world. Use a condom and you might sin. Don't use a condom and you might get a woman knocked up or transmit or get a sexually transmitted disease. Oh wait, you can't have sex outside of marriage...is that right? So you can't have sex as a single person? Is that right? No-one is allowed to have sex until they marry?

What a mess. Out of touch isn't a strong enough phrase to describe the mess.

 

[Silver Diva]

Most people who argue for condom use add the caveat 'when properly used'. When done properly you won't kill yourself playing Russian roulette either and the chance of a bad outcome is nearly identical.

That is not correct. If played correctly, Russian roulette is a game of pure chance. Depending on how you calculate the probability, it is somewhere between 15 and 50 percent. On the other hand, if you put on a condom correctly, there is less than a 1 percent chance of killing yourself.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Most people who argue for condom use add the caveat 'when properly used'. When done properly you won't kill yourself playing Russian roulette either and the chance of a bad outcome is nearly identical.

That is not correct. If played correctly, Russian roulette is a game of pure chance. Depending on how you calculate the probability, it is somewhere between 15 and 50 percent. On the other hand, if you put on a condom correctly, there is less than a 1 percent chance of killing yourself.

The failure rate of condoms is 3-14% as the study by Stanford University posted earlier in this thread,says.

Not everyone who experiences condom failure dies from it. And none of those, right away. The most common result of condom failure is an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Missourian]

Di:

My main issue with the condom campaign is the billing as "safe sex" which it most certainly is not. In the battle to contain STDs and untimely pregnancy, abstinence is the only sure avenue.

Condoms should be marketed as "significantly better than nothing" protection to eliminate the false sense of invulnerability the term "safe sex" provides.

 

[Missourian]

Silver:

99% odds are great for risks taken only a few times in a lifetime but that 1% catches up to you quickly when you take that risk repeatedly over a short time span as does the risk of making a mistake...ie improper use of a condom.

For example a driver has a better than 99% chance of arriving at their destination without being involved in a traffic collision...yet there are exceedingly few motorists who have never had an accident and a majority of drivers have had more that one.

 

[Father Time]

Silver:

99% odds are great for risks taken only a few times in a lifetime but that 1% catches up to you quickly when you take that risk repeatedly over a short time span as does the risk of making a mistake...ie improper use of a condom.

For example a driver has a better than 99% chance of arriving at their destination without being involved in a traffic collision...yet there are exceedingly few motorists who have never had an accident and a majority of drivers have had more that one.

That's why you should take a bus, when you get into an accident you have someone else to blame it on.

...So I guess that means Africans have to resort to group sex now.

 

[Yurt]

He doesn't have to imagine much. He lives in a world without sex.

one of the lamest responses i have seen from you....

you don't address anything of substance and instead make fun of the pope....

bravo down under.....bravo

It's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I thought it was brilliant

Ah, got to wipe the tears from my eyes. Now where was I.

No, I didn't make fun out of him. I pointed out that he lives a celibate life as do (allegedly) those priests and other members of the cloth who occupy senior posts who haven't been given a dispensation because they entered as already married clergy.

The problem with the abstinence argument is that it doesn't work. People will bonk if given the opportunity. And since sometimes the opportunity can arise rather unexpectedly (oh happy days!) it's wise to carry a condom to offer at least a modicum of protection against sexuallly transmitted diseases.

And so what if condoms actually encourage people to have more sex. When was it declared illegal?

Now the Pope no doubt has a very cogent theological argument against contraception, which is what is really at the heart of his utterances. In seeking to uphold this theology he has condemned the use of condoms. The use of condoms has been proven to limit not just unwanted pregnancies but also the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. So the Pople has put theology before harm minimisation and adopts the facile argument of abstinence when challenged.

No, it doesn't cut it. Humans are crazy fuck bunnies, they will fuck when the opportunity presents itself. Best to minimise unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission by the use of condoms. For those who wish to practise abstinence fine, but remember the one you knock back is the one you never catch up on.

In a sense though the Pope and me are in a similar position. We're both arguing from theoretical positions - his on sex and mine on theology.

Cathollcs can choose to obey or not. Non-Catholics can ignore the Pope without a second thought. And those with a practical outlook on the world will see the value of harm minimisation.

IOW, the pope said nothing that was untrue and nothing wrong....it is just you don't agree.

 

[Diuretic]

Di:

My main issue with the condom campaign is the billing as "safe sex" which it most certainly is not. In the battle to contain STDs and untimely pregnancy, abstinence is the only sure avenue.

Condoms should be marketed as "significantly better than nothing" protection to eliminate the false sense of invulnerability the term "safe sex" provides.

All valid points. I suppose that public info campaigns have to reach everyone and go for the lowest common denominator (a bit like how journalists on newspapers are told to write for 8th grade or whatever it is reading comprehension level). I suppose strictly speaking it should be "safer sex".

That reminds me - sorry for the drift - over here quite some years ago federal and state governments had to change the fire safety warnings on clothes (you know, kids nightgowns and the like) and on the back of fuel tankers (trucks) because so many people were interpreting "this garment is inflammable" as meaning "this garment will not burst into flames if placed near an open flame or source of heat". So now you see "this garment is flammable" or "flammable gas". Embarrrassing.

 

[Diuretic]

one of the lamest responses i have seen from you....

you don't address anything of substance and instead make fun of the pope....

bravo down under.....bravo

It's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I thought it was brilliant

Ah, got to wipe the tears from my eyes. Now where was I.

No, I didn't make fun out of him. I pointed out that he lives a celibate life as do (allegedly) those priests and other members of the cloth who occupy senior posts who haven't been given a dispensation because they entered as already married clergy.

The problem with the abstinence argument is that it doesn't work. People will bonk if given the opportunity. And since sometimes the opportunity can arise rather unexpectedly (oh happy days!) it's wise to carry a condom to offer at least a modicum of protection against sexuallly transmitted diseases.

And so what if condoms actually encourage people to have more sex. When was it declared illegal?

Now the Pope no doubt has a very cogent theological argument against contraception, which is what is really at the heart of his utterances. In seeking to uphold this theology he has condemned the use of condoms. The use of condoms has been proven to limit not just unwanted pregnancies but also the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. So the Pople has put theology before harm minimisation and adopts the facile argument of abstinence when challenged.

No, it doesn't cut it. Humans are crazy fuck bunnies, they will fuck when the opportunity presents itself. Best to minimise unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission by the use of condoms. For those who wish to practise abstinence fine, but remember the one you knock back is the one you never catch up on.

In a sense though the Pope and me are in a similar position. We're both arguing from theoretical positions - his on sex and mine on theology.

Cathollcs can choose to obey or not. Non-Catholics can ignore the Pope without a second thought. And those with a practical outlook on the world will see the value of harm minimisation.

IOW, the pope said nothing that was untrue and nothing wrong....it is just you don't agree.

I don't agree, that's true. But it's not a churlish disagreement. I made the point that I don't think theology should trump secular thinking in temporal issues. I don't have a problem with the Pope pronouncing on theological matters, I forget exactly how far the doctrine of infallibility goes but this Pope - like most of them I suppose - is no idiot and is an expert theologian. Where I get cranky is where a point of theology if followed will cause real harm. As I said, Catholics can decide whether or not they comply but when the message gets out in the manner it has then it can cause a great deal of harm and that has to be pointed out. This Pope, more than others in my memory, seems to be a little out of touch with secular life, he's made a few blunders which have had to be cleaned up by his pr flacks later.

 

[Yurt]

It's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I thought it was brilliant

Ah, got to wipe the tears from my eyes. Now where was I.

No, I didn't make fun out of him. I pointed out that he lives a celibate life as do (allegedly) those priests and other members of the cloth who occupy senior posts who haven't been given a dispensation because they entered as already married clergy.

The problem with the abstinence argument is that it doesn't work. People will bonk if given the opportunity. And since sometimes the opportunity can arise rather unexpectedly (oh happy days!) it's wise to carry a condom to offer at least a modicum of protection against sexuallly transmitted diseases.

And so what if condoms actually encourage people to have more sex. When was it declared illegal?

Now the Pope no doubt has a very cogent theological argument against contraception, which is what is really at the heart of his utterances. In seeking to uphold this theology he has condemned the use of condoms. The use of condoms has been proven to limit not just unwanted pregnancies but also the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. So the Pople has put theology before harm minimisation and adopts the facile argument of abstinence when challenged.

No, it doesn't cut it. Humans are crazy fuck bunnies, they will fuck when the opportunity presents itself. Best to minimise unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission by the use of condoms. For those who wish to practise abstinence fine, but remember the one you knock back is the one you never catch up on.

In a sense though the Pope and me are in a similar position. We're both arguing from theoretical positions - his on sex and mine on theology.

Cathollcs can choose to obey or not. Non-Catholics can ignore the Pope without a second thought. And those with a practical outlook on the world will see the value of harm minimisation.

IOW, the pope said nothing that was untrue and nothing wrong....it is just you don't agree.

I don't agree, that's true. But it's not a churlish disagreement. I made the point that I don't think theology should trump secular thinking in temporal issues. I don't have a problem with the Pope pronouncing on theological matters, I forget exactly how far the doctrine of infallibility goes but this Pope - like most of them I suppose - is no idiot and is an expert theologian. Where I get cranky is where a point of theology if followed will cause real harm. As I said, Catholics can decide whether or not they comply but when the message gets out in the manner it has then it can cause a great deal of harm and that has to be pointed out. This Pope, more than others in my memory, seems to be a little out of touch with secular life, he's made a few blunders which have had to be cleaned up by his pr flacks later.

why should the pope be in touch with secular life? perhaps we are all out of touch with religious life...

 

[Diuretic]

IOW, the pope said nothing that was untrue and nothing wrong....it is just you don't agree.

I don't agree, that's true. But it's not a churlish disagreement. I made the point that I don't think theology should trump secular thinking in temporal issues. I don't have a problem with the Pope pronouncing on theological matters, I forget exactly how far the doctrine of infallibility goes but this Pope - like most of them I suppose - is no idiot and is an expert theologian. Where I get cranky is where a point of theology if followed will cause real harm. As I said, Catholics can decide whether or not they comply but when the message gets out in the manner it has then it can cause a great deal of harm and that has to be pointed out. This Pope, more than others in my memory, seems to be a little out of touch with secular life, he's made a few blunders which have had to be cleaned up by his pr flacks later.

why should the pope be in touch with secular life? perhaps we are all out of touch with religious life...

A former colleague and friend of mine was a trainee priest. He was in a missionary order. But the missionary order he was in ministered domestically. As a trainee he had to work with people providing pastoral care in a domestic (as opposed to foreign) setting. He was firmly of the belief that the Church - especially at the local level - should be in touch with what was happening in the community. That didn't affect his theology but it definitely grounded it.

The Pope is the CEO of the Roman Catholic Church and like many CEOs he is out of touch with the factory floor. That situation is compounded by the nature of the industry which tends to be regulated by arcane theology. Where that theology spills over into the secular existence it should, in my opinion, consider its effect on its adherents.

 

[GHook93]

Well made condoms (American and European) when used prevent STDs and HIV! I know the right are going to preach abstinence as a good method. Think about when you were a teenager and college student. As a teenager I was preached abstinence to. Guess what it did nothing to me! The scare tactics of pregnancy and STDs did little to quell by adolescent
desire to sleep with an willing females.

I still remember getting caught having sex with my highschool girlfriend by my mother. She had my father take me out and tell me about the join of waiting, the killer of pregnancy and god forbid catching an STD. It was a few awkward 2 hours lecture. At the end my father made be promise not to do it again until I at least got to college. Yep I kept that promise for a good few days!

Then you are going to preach abstinence to college kids! Drunk hot college girls hanging at every corner! Pope who are you crapp'in. College is even worse than highschool!

In a perfect world you could preach abstinence to your children and they would practice. She I am praying my daughter heeds my calls, but in reality a good chunk do not make it out of highschool as virgin and most don't make college! Its impractical, so MINIMIZE the damages as best as possible!

Basic Facts About Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs - The Body

Latex condoms are highly effective when used consistently and correctly-- new studies provide additional evidence that condoms work

The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.

As these studies indicate, condoms must be used consistently and correctly to provide maximum protection. Consistent use means using a condom from start to finish with each act of intercourse. Correct condom use should include the following steps:

Use a new condom for each act of intercourse.
Put on the condom as soon as erection occurs and before any sexual contact (vaginal, anal, or oral).
Hold the tip of the condom and unroll it onto the erect penis, leaving space at the tip of the condom, yet ensuring that no air is trapped in the condom's tip.
Adequate lubrication is important, but use only water-based lubricants, such as glycerine or lubricating jellies (which can be purchased at any pharmacy). Oil-based lubricants, such as petroleum jelly, cold cream, hand lotion, or baby oil, can weaken the condom.
Withdraw from the partner immediately after ejaculation, holding the condom firmly to keep it from slipping off.

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain "holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms, including HIV, as well as sperm.

 

[Sarah G]

Benedict has never before spoken explicitly on condom use although he has stressed that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS. The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

FOXNews.com - Pope: Condoms 'Increase' AIDS Epidemic in Africa - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Naturally, the international and scientific community were not amused, as stated in this Lancet editorial:

Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands and the Vatican's attempts to tweak the Pope's words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward. When any influential person, be it a religious or political leader, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.

Redemption for the Pope? : The Lancet

I can see why the Pope would prefer that people abstain or be faithful instead of rely on condoms, even though merely encouraging that approach is not likely to yield results. But he thinks that condoms exacerbate the problem?!

He really needs to offer a clarification that condoms do help protect against HIV/AIDS, but won't protect you from other consequences of immoral behavior, whatever those might be.

It's no wonder people are leaving the Church in droves. He should be recalled.

I know, papal infallibility but they need to be a little bit more flexible these days.

 

[Missourian]

Do you think there are any Americans who don't know about condoms?

From The Washington Post

HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%

By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears
Sunday, March 15, 2009


At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office."Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."

"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said...

<More>
HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%

 

[Yurt]

I don't agree, that's true. But it's not a churlish disagreement. I made the point that I don't think theology should trump secular thinking in temporal issues. I don't have a problem with the Pope pronouncing on theological matters, I forget exactly how far the doctrine of infallibility goes but this Pope - like most of them I suppose - is no idiot and is an expert theologian. Where I get cranky is where a point of theology if followed will cause real harm. As I said, Catholics can decide whether or not they comply but when the message gets out in the manner it has then it can cause a great deal of harm and that has to be pointed out. This Pope, more than others in my memory, seems to be a little out of touch with secular life, he's made a few blunders which have had to be cleaned up by his pr flacks later.

why should the pope be in touch with secular life? perhaps we are all out of touch with religious life...

A former colleague and friend of mine was a trainee priest. He was in a missionary order. But the missionary order he was in ministered domestically. As a trainee he had to work with people providing pastoral care in a domestic (as opposed to foreign) setting. He was firmly of the belief that the Church - especially at the local level - should be in touch with what was happening in the community. That didn't affect his theology but it definitely grounded it.

The Pope is the CEO of the Roman Catholic Church and like many CEOs he is out of touch with the factory floor. That situation is compounded by the nature of the industry which tends to be regulated by arcane theology. Where that theology spills over into the secular existence it should, in my opinion, consider its effect on its adherents.

you completely missed my point....being in touch with the community has nothing to do with secularism. additionally, you again liken the pope to a secular like person....and secular like situations. not the case at all.

 

[Diuretic]

why should the pope be in touch with secular life? perhaps we are all out of touch with religious life...

A former colleague and friend of mine was a trainee priest. He was in a missionary order. But the missionary order he was in ministered domestically. As a trainee he had to work with people providing pastoral care in a domestic (as opposed to foreign) setting. He was firmly of the belief that the Church - especially at the local level - should be in touch with what was happening in the community. That didn't affect his theology but it definitely grounded it.

The Pope is the CEO of the Roman Catholic Church and like many CEOs he is out of touch with the factory floor. That situation is compounded by the nature of the industry which tends to be regulated by arcane theology. Where that theology spills over into the secular existence it should, in my opinion, consider its effect on its adherents.

you completely missed my point....being in touch with the community has nothing to do with secularism. additionally, you again liken the pope to a secular like person....and secular like situations. not the case at all.

He isn't a secular person but his comments affect those in the secular world, that was what I was trying to get at.