Pope says condoms increase the risk of AIDS

[betsy]

U.S. STD Rates On the Rise

Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infections rose again in the United States in 2006, the second year in a row that rates of these sexually transmitted bacterial infections increased.

The rate of chlamydia increased by 5.6 percent between 2005 and 2006, with more than 1 million reported chlamydia cases in 2006 -- the highest number of annual U.S. cases ever for any sexually transmitted disease. According to the CDC, the reported cases of chlamydia are likely less than half the actual occurrence.

The rate of gonorrhea rose 5.5 percent in 2006, with more than 350,000 cases reported, and the rate of syphilis rose 13.8 percent, with nearly 10,000 cases.

About 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year in the U.S., almost half among people ages 15 to 24. "This is a hidden epidemic," said Dr. Stuart Berman, who helps track STD's for the CDC.

http://www.livingtreecommunity.com/store2/...s_std_rates.asp

Edited April 4, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Another research finding had stressed the important role of values in changing sexual behaviours.

Condoms alone will not have a dent!

This topic is not really about an objective look or sincere desire to find solutions to a critical problem...it's nothing more than a pathetic means to vilify a figure.

Several contradictions and illogic, insensible responses had plainly outed the true motives of those who pretend outrage/indignation that the Pope had dared to "interfere" with fighting the spread of AIDS.

Enough! Let's not try to be anymore funnier after all this is not a laughing matter... Don't even think of bringing up the word "ethics".

An objective, non-partisan-sans-agenda-or-motive response to this should have acknowledged at least that although the POPE's solutions may not be acceptable to some people, it cannot be denied that they can be made part of - in fact, it is imperative that they be made a part of education, alongside the use of condoms - in fighting AIDS.

Changing sexual behaviours and lifestyle is crucial to fighting AIDS.

If people - and that importantly include the media and influence-wielding celebrities will endorse and promote monogamy and/or a change in sexual behaviours, much the same way that they'd endorsed saving the environment and going green....the positive result will come much faster.

If there is anyone who's been interfering with the efforts to combat the spread of AIDS and other STDs, it is these celebrities and the media. So those of you indignant about obstacles being thrown to undermine progress....better get your sights focused towards the right direction!

EMERGING ANSWERS 2007

by Douglas Kirby, PH.D

"More teens are delaying sex and those that

are sexually active are using contraception more

consistently and carefully. Both of these developments

have made important contributions to the

impressive decline in teen pregnancy and childbearing.

Recent years have also brought good news on

the research front. As Doug Kirby so carefully

points out in Emerging Answers 2007, the quality

and quantity of evaluation research in this

field has improved dramatically and there is now

more persuasive evidence than ever before that a

limited number of programs can delay sexual activity,

improve contraceptive use among sexually

active teens, and/or prevent teen pregnancy.

Having accurate, research-based information on

what works to prevent teen pregnancy is critically

important information for communities and

practitioners trying to make informed decisions

about preventing teen pregnancy. Even so—because

teen pregnancy has many causes, and

because even effective programs do not eliminate

the problem—it is unreasonable to expect

any single curriculum or community program

to make a serious dent in the problem of teen

pregnancy on its own. Making true and lasting

progress in preventing teen pregnancy requires

a combination of community programs and

broader efforts to influence values and popular

culture, to engage parents and schools, to change

the economic incentives that face teens, and

more.

Despite these encouraging results, getting young

people to delay having sex or to use protection

against pregnancy and STD remains a challenge.

There are many factors in young people’s lives

that affect their sexual behavior, for example,

their own sexual drive and desire for intimacy,

their family’s values, their friends’ values and behavior,

their own attitudes and skills, the media,the monitoring of young people by their community,

and opportunities for the future in their

community"

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf

Edited April 4, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

If there were such a thing as an objective, non-partisan-sans-agenda-or-motive response, by its nature it wouldn't exist.

[WIP]

The Pope gave two REAL solutions to reduce that odds.

No, once again it was just the usual pope blather....don't have sex....yeah that's advice people will listen to! And the editorial by Michael Coren makes me wonder if he actually uses the brain inside his bald head when he writes his formulaic screeds claiming his church and pope are being persecuted by us godless heathens!

Coren's argument doesn't address the complete failure of abstinence programs (George Bush's for example), and his charge that condom use in Africa is ineffective, is similarly false and deliberately deceptive, since he fails to mention that the Pope's underlings in Africa, such as the Archbishop of Mozambique have directly told their Catholic followers not to use condoms. Other churches and Muslim leaders have pretty much obliterated the efforts by family planning groups sponsored by the U.N. and other relief agencies to help women gain access to birth control and safe sex information. Neither baldy or the guy in the funny hat, have addressed the issue of spermicidal foams, which could also reduce the risk of AIDS and other STD's if available in Africa. Then the icing on cake is Coren's usual tactic of blame-shifting -- claiming that the groups working for condom availability and other methods to reduce STD risks are patronizing black people in Africa. This is the ultimate insult coming from people who are so indifferent to real suffering that they want nothing other than lectures on abstinence to the people of Africa -- that is a real example of treating people like children.....unwanted children in this example!

Perhaps you should direct your attacks on celebrities and Hollywood....who glorified and promoted promiscuity. And the media that helped promote it.

If there's anyone who wields more power and influence, it's them.

Penicillin and the birth control pill made promiscuity an option for many young women starting in the 1960's. Don't listen to the crap that it was the Beatles that turned kids into pot smoking hedonists. The time had come for change that new technology and social conditions made possible, so the Beatles and other celebrities were poster boys for the trend, not the creators of it.

Let's not open up a can of worms that would detract from this topic. You might want to start another topic on that instead. I commented on guns simply to correct your logic.

See what I mean? This is not really about fighting AIDS. This is just all about the Pope and what he represents. Too bad. The sufferings and the death tolls are real.

I'm not trying to talk about the merits or problems with gun control; I followed up your example because I've been trying to get through the point that the latest bad advice from the Pope is not about this particular issue of condom use, but should also focus on the basic principles of applying ethical rules. Should rules be based on a predetermined, unulterable code that claims to be perfect....and rigidly applied even if the end results are worse? Or should rules be cross-referenced with results, so bad results means somethings wrong with the set of rules, and they need to be altered or replaced with a different strategy?

I'm for the modern teleological approach of using effective rules and scrapping ones that make problems worse (prohibition laws for example)

[betsy]

No, once again it was just the usual pope blather....don't have sex....yeah that's advice people will listen to! And the editorial by Michael Coren makes me wonder if he actually uses the brain inside his bald head when he writes his formulaic screeds claiming his church and pope are being persecuted by us godless heathens!

Etc...,

So it's just the usual blather about "don't have sex" or "fidelity"......it happens that this blather has a valid point! Like it or not, it is!

It's the logical solution, alongside education in the change of lifestyle/sexual behaviour....(and to those who couldn't and wouldn't follow nor believe his beleifs), the use of condoms.

So who cares who Michael Coren is. His article just happens to hit it bulls-eye about the anti-Catholic hypocrisy just really gunning for Benedict. AIDS just happens to be a convenient vehicle.

Read your own posts on this topic and you'll probably see what I mean.

There's no point discussing the topic since it's really not about this topic. Not at all.

Edited April 4, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Some people like playing the victim card because they can't debate very well.

They're usually the ones with the rolly eyes.

[Sabre Rider]

My people were set free when ole Henry told the Pope of the day to go piss up a rope. And having seen first hand the misery and degradation suffered by the majority of people in the RC dominated nations of Central and South America along with the Philippine, I think the rest of the world should tell the current batch of Papal Princes to go off and roger themselves.

[WIP]

So it's just the usual blather about "don't have sex" or "fidelity"......it happens that this blather has a valid point! Like it or not, it is!

You haven't been paying attention to my objections to the Pope apparently. If the pope had a valid point, his advice would lead to a reduction in AIDS-related deaths, and what burns me most is that he is openly interfering with other efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and cut the number of deaths.

So who cares who Michael Coren is. His article just happens to hit it bulls-eye about the anti-Catholic hypocrisy just really gunning for Benedict. AIDS just happens to be a convenient vehicle.

Coren is a hack and claiming persecution is just a cheap attempt to change the subject. I don't read his columns otherwise, but I imagine he had the same excuse when the Pope was welcoming fascist priests back into the fold, or excommunicating the Brazilian woman who took her pregnant 9 year old daughter to a hospital to have an abortion performed. Any criticism of the Pope or the latest Catholic Church scandal is an opportunity for Coren to claim that his church is being persecuted. Maybe some people fall for this diversion, but I don't!

Read your own posts on this topic and you'll probably see what I mean.

There's no point discussing the topic since it's really not about this topic. Not at all.

Topics change, but the principles used to determine ethical rules should be consistent whether the subject is abortion, gun control, illegal drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, the death penalty etc.

[betsy]

Topics change, but the principles used to determine ethical rules should be consistent whether the subject is abortion, gun control, illegal drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, the death penalty etc.

What principles and ethical rules? That's what I mean when I said don't even think about "ethics"....those are gone! Nada! Kaput!

They're nothing when there's no objectivity!

You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the contributing role of abstinence and/or monogamy (alongside education in the change of sexual behaviours and the use of condom).

Principles and ethics are nothing...they don't exist in the face of ruthless, senseless determination to bash!

Hence there's no point in discussion. It's futile. You're blinded by anger and bitterness! At least, that's the impression you give...and that's how you sound to me.

But hey, feel free to continue your rant and let off steam.

Hope that will make you feel much better.

I'm done.

Edited April 6, 2009 by betsy

[GostHacked]

What! Are they waiting for the Pope to offer them a miracle?

Offering up some common sense would be a great place to start.

[GostHacked]

Besty

Because the efficiency of condom is hugely debatable! It will only work if it is being used EACH AND EVERY TIME a person have sex!

And it is sending the wrong message. It is encouraging promiscuity among the very young.

Lulling people to false security, because a lot of times...we know those condoms are not being used!

Condoms do work, as long as you use them, which is part of having some common sense. If you are not using the condom, then you run the risk of getting an STD including AIDS. And the real message here is PROTECT YOURSELF !!!!.

Don't be silly wrap the willy.

[WIP]

What principles and ethical rules? That's what I mean when I said don't even think about "ethics"....those are gone! Nada! Kaput!

They're nothing when there's no objectivity!

This could get really complicated really fast, because ground rules have to be established before we can discuss the same subject. This is why philosophers insist on clear definitions of terminology used in a discussion of philosophical principles like how to derive systems of ethics.

When I first started delving into this subject a few years ago, I quickly discovered that people coming at this subject from a religious perspective had a different definition for objective than I did. In a nutshell, philosophers define SUBJECTIVE to refer to any category of experience that is personal, by nature, and may or may not exist outside of that person's own experience.

On the other hand, OBJECTIVE refers to something that is agreed to exist independent of our own perceptions. And it could refer to reality, or the external world that two or more people share, or it could refer to principles such as truth and reliability.

The monkey-wrench gets thrown into this discussion when Christians and others from a religious perspective, insist that objective principles come from outside of human experience (usually handed down by God), so that moral facts are already out there in the world even before any humans existed. Things are good or bad independent of us, and then we come along and discover morality. This would be more accurately described as transcendent principles, rather than objective, and a naturalist considers transcendent to be the same thing as nonexistent, or something created by someone's personal beliefs.

The general humanist or naturalist perspective is that moral facts are not out there in the world until we put them there; that the facts about morality are determined by facts about us. So, morality is not something that we discover as much as something that we invent. And I think this explanation makes more sense when we take a look around the world, and through history, and find that there are some basic universal principles, like "don't kill members of your own tribe," whereas other principles governing issues like slavery and polygamy vary depending on local needs and desires. Now, the question is what principles guide a modern society facing technological changes and the realization that decisions locally regarding pollution, nuclear weapons etc., can affect the rest of the world.

And that's why I insist that the consequences of laws and rules tell us most of what we need to know! In this specific example, the leader of the Catholic Church is bound to make rules that make the situation worse, because he has to follow a code that is independent and indifferent to human experience. This is also how they recently got stuck in the ludicrous situation of excommunicating a Brazilian woman for violating Church doctrine to save her daughter, and yet not excommunicating her daughter's rapist step-father because of a system that regards his crime as the lesser evil.

You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the contributing role of abstinence and/or monogamy (alongside education in the change of sexual behaviours and the use of condom).

I am not seeing evidence that they are helpful programs, and some psychologists are even starting to wonder if the fanaticism over abstinence is having a harmful effect on relationships of young evangelicals after they are married -- since divorce rates among younger Christian fundamentalists are increasing faster than any other demographic group. One researcher speculated that the high stress on abstinence is creating fanatical expectations about sex that can't be met after the couple is married and feel a let down.

Hence there's no point in discussion. It's futile. You're blinded by anger and bitterness! At least, that's the impression you give...and that's how you sound to me.

But hey, feel free to continue your rant and let off steam.

Hope that will make you feel much better.

I'm done.

So be it! But who exactly is ranting here? I have given you the reasons why I object to the Pope and the unwarranted influence he has in the media and even in international policy-making. You keep accusing me of having some personal defect of my own, without backing it up with evidence, or providing anything to support your claim that the Pope is unfairly maligned. If anything, he gets the kid-glove treatment because of his power, and should be condemned every time he says something stupid that could have a detrimental effect on millions of people around the world!

[betsy]

Offering up some common sense would be a great place to start.

And he started with the most basic common sense: abstinence.

Realistic in this age, as of right now? Of course not.

But read it as DELAYED sex. The research finding I've posted above had found that slowly, teens are getting into this. This, alongside monogamy and education on the importance of changing sexual behaviours and the use of condom....all these combined, will be a powerful deterrant to stop the rapid spread of AIDS.

I don't think we'll ever be able to totally stop AIDS. Just like other old STDs are still around.

Hopefully, we can discover the drug that will successfully combat it.

[betsy]

Besty

Condoms do work, as long as you use them, which is part of having some common sense. If you are not using the condom, then you run the risk of getting an STD including AIDS. And the real message here is PROTECT YOURSELF !!!!.

Don't be silly wrap the willy.

Yes it's just common sense. But is it realistic to just pin all hope on condom? Nope.

If we're to stop the rapid spread of disease, we need to focus on the young. Delaying sex until well-informed and mature enough, education on the change of sexual behaviour, monogamy and the crucial importance of using condoms should all go hand-in-hand in battling AIDS.

If all influence-wielding individuals whom young people idolize and copy-cat will get in on the band-wagon and strongly endorse the new lifestyle, we'll achieve what we want to achieve.

This hoopla on the Pope became a farce when critics started blaming his comment for derailing the battle against AIDS.

If we're to apply arm-twisting pressure on anybody...it should be heaped on role-model figures of the youth....the stars, the fashion models, the sports players, the rock singers, and other celebrities, the media....being emulated by the youth!

[GostHacked]

But read it as DELAYED sex. The research finding I've posted above had found that slowly, teens are getting into this. This, alongside monogamy and education on the importance of changing sexual behaviours and the use of condom....all these combined, will be a powerful deterrant to stop the rapid spread of AIDS.

Indeed a combination of them. But any one of them alone will not help, all togther has a greater chance of getting rid of AIDS. This is what the Pope should be pushing.

[GostHacked]

bestsy

If we're to stop the rapid spread of disease, we need to focus on the young. Delaying sex until well-informed and mature enough, education on the change of sexual behaviour, monogamy and the crucial importance of using condoms should all go hand-in-hand in battling AIDS.

If we had to wait till everyone was mature enough to have sex .... you might as well just kill off the whole human race right now

[betsy]

Indeed a combination of them. But any one of them alone will not help, all togther has a greater chance of getting rid of AIDS. This is what the Pope should be pushing.

Actually sometime last week Michael Coren Show had several guests on his panel (a priest representing the Catholic Church, a Muslim, another guy from another denomination, and one I'm not sure but seems to be representing the atheists).

In that discussion it was said that the article about the Pope which was circulated in the papers was not complete.

Apparently in that interview, the Pope had also included education and change of lifestyle. I did not bring it up on the discussion since I cannot find a transcript of that Coren Show.

All of the people in that panel except for the one who seems to represent the atheists agreed with the Pope.

I agree with you that not any one of them, on its own, will work. Not in this current climate that we have.

Edited April 7, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

bestsy

If we had to wait till everyone was mature enough to have sex .... you might as well just kill off the whole human race right now

Every little bit will help. Some teens had responded to that delayed sex (according to the research finding)...and some won't (and perhaps they will benefit from the education on condoms and monogamy). The more options there are, the better. And if all options are used, awesome!

It's undeniably a win-win situation with all combined together!

Tyra Banks is pushing for delayed sex in her show and use of condom (it was about teen pregnancy) with several pregnant teens (some as young as 14), giving testimony about their folly and regret. If only all celebrities will unitedly give their determined support...with the same enthusiasm they'd given the green movement...the positive results will come much sooner.

Right now, they and the media hold so much power to sway and change.

Edited April 7, 2009 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Constant recreational sex without love or long term commitment turns our populace into dogs - and that is just the way the authorities want us...copulating mutts with no personal support system - or extended family that creates power and autonomy..the pope is off the mark - because his agenda is questionable. There are jerks in the world who believe as long as people between the ages of 31 and 63 are constantly copulating..that the population will be easily ruled - kind of a sexual herion...that dulls the mass...This is not about condoms - this is about the use of human sexuality to control humans...It's a nasty and lowly buisness.

[Oleg Bach]

Constant recreational sex without love or long term commitment turns our populace into dogs - and that is just the way the authorities want us...copulating mutts with no personal support system - or extended family that creates power and autonomy..the pope is off the mark - because his agenda is questionable. There are jerks in the world who believe as long as people between the ages of 31 and 63 are constantly copulating..that the population will be easily ruled - kind of a sexual herion...that dulls the mass...This is not about condoms - this is about the use of human sexuality to control humans...It's a nasty and lowly buisness.

Correction - between the ages of 13 and 63....as long as the dogs are f***ing - they don't have a clue to what is going on..sex is dope.

[myata]

Not to be missed! CBC report on Exorcism is on right now (The House), CBC Radio 1, 9am EST. Pope wants every catholic diocese to perform exorcism rituals, which is, to remind, expelling demonic spirits from infected individual(s).

Wow!!!! What century do these folks live in?? OMG. I'll pray for them.

[betsy]

Not to be missed! CBC report on Exorcism is on right now (The House), CBC Radio 1, 9am EST. Pope wants every catholic diocese to perform exorcism rituals, which is, to remind, expelling demonic spirits from infected individual(s).

Wow!!!! What century do these folks live in?? OMG. I'll pray for them.

It was Jesus who performed exorcism. If I'm not mistaken, 6 times.

Although He gave them the power to heal, I don't think He ever did designate any of his disciples to perform any exorcisms.

[myata]

Forget about savages of Mumbo Jumbo, who practice woodoo rituals and so are in an urgent desperate need of being civilized from outside. These folks are right here, around us. They gonna start running regular exorcism sessions as soon as (Pope inspired) training would complete. God be with us!

[WIP]

It was Jesus who performed exorcism. If I'm not mistaken, 6 times.

Although He gave them the power to heal, I don't think He ever did designate any of his disciples to perform any exorcisms.

That's right, he did! But that's because Jesus had no knowledge that brain malfunctions cause mental disorders like schizophrenia, epilepsy and bi-polar depression. Just like he didn't know about the germ theory of disease and advocate frequent handwashing to reduce the risk of spreading germs that cause infections. If the pope wants to bring back exorcisms to treat mental illnesses, maybe he should bring back blood-letting and other medieval solutions that they advocated back in the dark ages!

[betsy]

That's right, he did! But that's because Jesus had no knowledge that brain malfunctions cause mental disorders like schizophrenia, epilepsy and bi-polar depression.

Yeah....and He didn't know what else psycho-babbles modern genius men can conjure up in order to (again)....suit their want. Who would've thought "post-partum blues" would be deemed an excuse to commit murder? But that's another topic.

You try to rationalize those exorcisms that He had performed to be such mental disorders....even though He said they were possessions.

Jesus did heal those. Instantly.

Perhaps therapists, psychiatrists and psycho-babblers should learn His technique.

It will save patients money and time spent lying on the couch.

Just like he didn't know about the germ theory of disease and advocate frequent handwashing to reduce the risk of spreading germs that cause infections.

You seemed to have read the Bible....

Atheists, non-believers, geniuses who scoff at the Bible, disgruntled ex-christians will find fault...chipping away....to justify their stance.

Pick and choose. Take it out of context. Anything to smear Him. Anything to reduce Him. Anything to deny Him.

You point out His lack of knowledge with hygiene, yet you conveniently leave out that specific verse....the reason why He spoke of such thing.

Anyway, His words are for the spirit.

He didn't come to give workshops on proper hand-washing techniques.

Ironic that those days didn't see the likes of "super-bugs"....when you think that this modern world knows so much about hygiene and the spread of diseases.

Maybe had the Egyptians been aware of hand-washing hygiene, they would've been spared the calamity of their super bug: the locusts! ha-ha-ha

You ridicule Him for something taken out of context. If you truly feel that strongly about diseases, then you should applaud him for preaching about fidelity....then AIDS and other stds wouldn't be such major problems these days!

Btw, He was rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocrisy!

If the pope wants to bring back exorcisms to treat mental illnesses, maybe he should bring back blood-letting and other medieval solutions that they advocated back in the dark ages!

We are in the dark ages. Don't you read the news?

Edited April 12, 2009 by betsy