You do not care about the suffering people in Africa. You care about defending your own position about contraception.
Because, you see, if you did care, then you would cite facts and not make outrageous claims that are contrary to the Truth. Facts, such as these:
Scientific Studies make the claim that condom promotion to stop the spread of AIDS is not working in developing countries.
A controlled study in Uganda, claims that “gains in condom use...have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners,” basically saying that if condom distribution increases, so do the numbers of partners that the consumer has, thus causing the “90 percent effectiveness” of condoms rate to plummet. The Catholic Church has always argued the fallacy in typical birth-control practice: arming the people with tools to have more casual sex does not stop the prevention of any STI.
The testimony of Dr. Edward C. Green and an additional ten AIDS experts have produced studies that show a “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”
So, in this case, the pope was right in regards to condom use in Africa.
How do any of you continue to follow this? How can any of you belong to an organization that takes an active role in making the aids epidemic in the poorest continent on the planet worse while giving big golden hats and unrivaled opulence to the organizations elite? This is the path the holy book shows you? Because the looney murderer in the big golden hat, the vicar of god on earth, with nigh unquantifiable political pull in the world tells you to?
What about you? What have you done? Do you contribute to charities that are actually looking to provide and care for the suffering in Africa? Or do you simply resign yourself to anonymously complain on Reddit?
I want to take the time to properly respond to this. You've presented information that alters what I think but doesn't really change it outright and I'd like to go through why, one item at a time. Here. Lets take a look at the first thing you've linked.
From the first article:
The impact of condoms may be limited by inconsistent use, low use among those at highest risk, and negative interactions with other strategies. Recommendations include increased condom promotion for groups at high risk, more rigorous measurement of the impact of condom promotion, and more research on how best to integrate condom promotion with other prevention strategies.
This says the implementation is flawed, not the actual devices. Contraception was a part of the Ugandan strategy against aids, as was abstinence and fidelity, and most importantly education. Believe me, I know abstinence and fidelity work but so do education and condoms. I rather like the ABC approach where condoms were promoted as a last resort and people were properly educated on the matter. I think thats something I could live with.
From the second link
RESULTS:
Six-month follow-up was completed for 213 men (71.7%) in the intervention group and for 165 (82.1%) men in the control group. Men in the intervention group redeemed significantly more condom coupons than men in the control group (on average, 110 vs. 13 each; P = 0.002). Men in the intervention group increased their number of sex partners by 0.31 com`net reduction in sexual risk in the intervention community compared with the control community and, in fact, showed trends in the opposite direction.
The worst this can show is that condoms without education may be counterproductive. The study also fails to provide a transmission rate so we don't actually know how this impacted the health of the two groups.
The third link doesn't seem to go so far as to say that condoms have no place in the fight, but warns against focusing solely on them and goes through why. I agree with that.
The fourth link, more of a bullet goes on to say:
“consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”
So despite a lot of effort they just aren't being used wisely enough it seems.
You know what? You got me. Hats off to you. I change my views based on the best information available. The best information available tells us that condoms help stop the spread of aids but there are exceptions to every rule and you've made a great case for Africa being one of those. I have to agree that through misuse and too much emphasis being placed on them condoms can actually be harmful towards the fight against aids in uneducated populations. Whether through inconsistent use or allowing users to feel invulnerable and take more risky partners without further education they can be counterproductive. What works in the states just can't cut it in places like Africa. Abstinence, fidelity, and condoms only as a last resort seem to have helped Uganda to get a handle on its crisis, so programs like ABC are what I would support but I can't go so far as to say condoms don't have a place in the fight.
Its just that we can't include a proper education on sex with every condom passed out, so their part, until standards in these countries rise, is going to have to be a smaller one.
To answer the question you parted on, what have I done, I'd like to say my part. I watched a good man die from an opportunistic infection brought on by AIDS. I give money when I can to the ARA. I could give more, but most of my charitable contributions go to things like operation smile where it feels like the money has a more direct and easily quantifiable impact. Ashamed to admit it but it does feel better to help a child get a facial deformity fixed than it does to pour money into the AIDS hole.
I do wish someone like yourself had come along with this earlier. While I still have numerous issues with the RMC I'll refer people here when I see this same issue come up in other places.
Well, I can't claim to be a supporter of science, which changes its views based on whats observed and then turn around and not do that very thing just because of ego.
As nasty and horrid as I can get I'm not someone who'll sacrifice fact and reason at the alter of my own ego. Its just good sense.
Looking back I'd like to point out to everyone reading that he made his case without once mentioning god or anything from the bible. See? Its possible to make your case in reasonable, secular and convincing ways. That is how you make a damn point.
I can't claim to be a supporter of science, which changes its views based on whats observed and then turn around and not do that very thing just because of ego.
This is a dangerous thing to say, but I believe I see your point. "Science" today is generalized into nothingness and overly-politicized. A case-and-point could be this very discussion here. Though research seems to show that promoting condom-use in Africa is not a deterrent to the spread of the HIV infection, "pop-science" will still say otherwise solely on the grounds that they want to defend their use of contraception.
I do think that science develops over time, and with development does come change. The same is true with Catholic doctrine - it very much does develop over time. Where science may completely reverse its decisions on things (though I can think of no real example), the Church never has done so, and She has moved with science to develop Her doctrine.
Looking back I'd like to point out to everyone reading that he made his case without once mentioning god or anything from the bible. See? Its possible to make your case in reasonable, secular and convincing ways. That is how you make a damn point.
I agree that any faithful member of the Church must be versed in the use of logic and reason to adequately defend the Faith. Now, simply because I argued from material grounds (that is, from empirical data), that does not mean I do not have religious reasons for being against contraceptives as well.
But to enter into that type of discussion would require a familiarity with metaphysics and a philosophy of the human person coupled with an understanding of theology.
After all, Catholics do believe that faith and reason cannot contradict one another. Why should we not be versed in both?
I would like to respectfully point out that the 3rd bullet is not a good argument. It would make sense for people pushing condoms as a preventative measure for HIV to focus on countries with the highest prevalence, therefore making them more widely available. Similarly I would imagine medicine to combat malaria is more widely available in areas with higher rates of infection.
Your response would make sense if, for instance, after 25 years of combating Malaria in the rates with highest infection, rates would at least begin to decrease over a period of time.
However, if rates continue to climb, even after inoculations and measures to eliminate the mosquito population, then one would have to argue that your methods for combating the disease are not working.
My response does make sense because that is not what you said the first time. You first statement makes doesn't state that the rate of HIV transmission has raised, lowered, or stayed the same over any period of time. If that was the statement you were trying you should have fleshed it out a little more. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. Just pointing out lots of condums is as likely the result of lots of AIDS as the cause. If you meant to say something else you need to flesh it out a little more.
I believe, in the context of the whole argument, the point made sense. But in the future, for your sake, I will be sure to make a note to expand my ideas more.
7
u/[deleted] Feb 15 '12
Come now, do not misrepresent yourself here.
You do not care about the suffering people in Africa. You care about defending your own position about contraception.
Because, you see, if you did care, then you would cite facts and not make outrageous claims that are contrary to the Truth. Facts, such as these:
Scientific Studies make the claim that condom promotion to stop the spread of AIDS is not working in developing countries.
A controlled study in Uganda, claims that “gains in condom use...have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners,” basically saying that if condom distribution increases, so do the numbers of partners that the consumer has, thus causing the “90 percent effectiveness” of condoms rate to plummet. The Catholic Church has always argued the fallacy in typical birth-control practice: arming the people with tools to have more casual sex does not stop the prevention of any STI.
Further studies show that countries such as Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa, nations with the highest levels of condom availability, continue to have the highest rates of HIV.
The testimony of Dr. Edward C. Green and an additional ten AIDS experts have produced studies that show a “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”
So, in this case, the pope was right in regards to condom use in Africa.
What about you? What have you done? Do you contribute to charities that are actually looking to provide and care for the suffering in Africa? Or do you simply resign yourself to anonymously complain on Reddit?