aldo wrote: Actually, it only takes one person to believe; a person in power.

The Vatican is spiritual leader for an entire sect of Christianity, a vast amount of people. It is suppossed to be led by Gods representative on earth; so any Roman Catholic should be able to trust it, and follow the guidance of it.

Blaming people for believing a lie, when that lie comes from people their faith tells them to trust, is stupidity. Blaming the thousands of children born with AIDS through no fault of their own, is insulting.

The Vatican has a responsibility borne of its influence; you can't excuse them for lying, by calling their followers stupid.

The stupid followers are those who take whatever the Vatican says as law and have no ability to think for themselves. There is nothing wrong with Christians accepting the moral and spiritual guidance of the Vatican, but It should become appearant to them that when the Vatican makes a claim that is said to be scientific, that the followers look to science for their answers. It's really a no-brainer. The scientists release reports all the time, it's their carrer and they are specialized and knowledgable. The Vatican is a moral and spiritual leader. Even their followers should recognize when their leaders are stepping a bit out of line.

The babies, although innocent, have contracted these 'gullible genes' from their parents. Their elimination, although tragic, does have some benefits.

KappaWing wrote:

aldo wrote: Actually, it only takes one person to believe; a person in power.

The Vatican is spiritual leader for an entire sect of Christianity, a vast amount of people. It is suppossed to be led by Gods representative on earth; so any Roman Catholic should be able to trust it, and follow the guidance of it.

Blaming people for believing a lie, when that lie comes from people their faith tells them to trust, is stupidity. Blaming the thousands of children born with AIDS through no fault of their own, is insulting.

The Vatican has a responsibility borne of its influence; you can't excuse them for lying, by calling their followers stupid.

The stupid followers are those who take whatever the Vatican says as law and have no ability to think for themselves. There is nothing wrong with Christians accepting the moral and spiritual guidance of the Vatican, but It should become appearant to them that when the Vatican makes a claim that is said to be scientific, that the followers look to science for their answers. It's really a no-brainer. The scientists release reports all the time, it's their carrer and they are specialized and knowledgable. The Vatican is a moral and spiritual leader. Even their followers should recognize when their leaders are stepping a bit out of line.

The babies, although innocent, have contracted these 'gullible genes' from their parents. Their elimination, although tragic, does have some benefits.

Firstly; justifying lies by eugenics - real tasteful. Presumably crippling poverty is also a genetic disorder, because it's the desperation of this that leaves many open to the church (who may indeed be the only source of charity in the area).

I find that attitude repugnant, in all honesty. It's the lowest form of casual, avoiding-the-issue dismissal - blame the victim.

Secondly; you'd think if a Catholic could trust anyone, it'd be 'Gods voice on Earth', which is what the Vatican purports to be. AFAIK, God isn't reknowned for lying to His followers.

Thirdly; how much library / internet / scientific access there is in the densely populated, poverty stricken parts of the world? For many of these people, they probably can't get a newspaper; the only source they have is their local priest.

These people struggle all their lives to survive, how can they take the time to research?

KappaWing your almost suggesting an indirect genocide.
Why not hold international tests, anyone below IQ 'x' gets eliminated.
The difference would be small, but would accomplish the same effect, accept perhaps it would catch out the people in non-poverty stricken areas also.

Being mis-informed does not justify a death. Even in the power nations of today, it can be quite surprising how misinformed the general populace can be. I recall a survey conducted in America that showed a large amount of people believed that Iraq had direct links with 9/11.

I would say that a large amount of people do not deserve a license to have children. If contraceptives and education was pressed more, than many lives could be saved. The ones that are living and the ones to be born, which would otherwise end up in the same situation.

Gullible genes eh? Just look at how many people went nuts when HLP april fools was played? Do you think they should be led to the slaughter house as well?

First of all, let me say this: I've read the statements that aldo and others above refer to, and I'm not going to deny that they were stated. I will say, however, that none of these statements were ever made by the Pope; in fact, the Vatican has never released a specific document regarding the use of condoms as a defense against AIDS. The statements in question were made by individual bishops and other Church officials, not the Pope. So blaming him for these words really doesn't accomplish anything, since they weren't his to begin with. Bottom line: the Pope did not lie.

Regarding the whole condom issue, the latex of a condom may be made to prohibit the passage of the HIV virus. I did a small amount of research, and I did find studies suggesting that condom use did create a lesser instance of AIDS. I did see a few contradictory studies as well, but as I said, I didn't do a great deal of in-depth research to determine the validity of each individual position. Even if condoms are effective in preventing AIDS, however, I don't see anything wrong with the Pope's position against them.

Before you immediately get up in arms, consider this: do you really think that distributing millions of condoms to Africans will bring about any immediate change in their lifestyle? I, for one, do not; if people living in Africa are reassured that condoms will protect them against AIDS, they'll simply continue the same high-risk activities that have caused the AIDS virus to spread so rapidly. Pieces of latex aren't needed; a change in lifestyle is. Condoms have a rate of failure even when used perfectly, and that's assuming a lot; many people in the United States and Europe use condoms incorrectly. Are you telling me that we should encourage people at risk for AIDS to play what amounts to Russian Roulette? Karajorma, are you telling me you honestly believe that handing out a method of birth control with a 30% effectiveness will really help the people of Africa? That's just callousness. Would you entrust your life to an airline with a 30% effective rate? I didn't think so. I've heard an average statistic of condom effectiveness around 84%; would you be willing to trust your life to a small piece of rubber with that type of number flying around?

As I said above, it's lifestyle, not access to condoms, that needs to change. Want to know the only 100% way to ensure that you don't get AIDS? Don't have sex. I'm not expecting that every person in Africa will suddenly practice abstinenece; I'm saying that what really needs to be encouraged is an end to promiscuity. If you're having sex with someone you don't know for a fact to be AIDS-free, you're putting your life at risk, whether or not you use a condom. Greater access to medical testing and public education about the realities of AIDS spread are what are needed; tossing a bunch of "rubbers" at people and letting them continue their high-risk lifestyle just prolongs the inevitable.

Regardless of any of that, however, the Vatican cannot and should not promote condom use. Its use is a direct violation of Catholic doctrine about sexual morality. I have found sources stating that condom use can be morally permitted in extreme circumstances; for example, a wife whose HIV-infected husband pressured her to have sex could insist that he use a condom. However, the Church cannot promote widespread use of condoms. Several of you in this thread have referred to the Church's stance on condoms costing millions of lives; I ask you, why exactly is that? How does the Church discouraging condom use kill millions? As I said above, policies promoting abstinence and less promiscuity are the real efforts that can halt the AIDS epidemic; this is what the Church is proposing. Besides, the Catholics forbidden from using condoms shouldn't be having premarital sex by their own belief.

aldo, I don't want to start a debate over homosexuality, but in what way did the Pope discriminate against homosexuals? He preached nothing but forgiveness and understanding for homosexuals, and he denounced any forms of bigotry against homosexuals. I know you're referring to his stance on gay marriage, however. Any debates on the validity of this aside, considering the fact that the Church has always viewed marriage as between one man and one woman, and since, by Church teaching, one of the purposes of marriage is the procreation of children, the Pope's stance was completely in line with Catholic morality.

KappaWing, even suggesting that the death of so many from AIDS is "beneficial" in any way is just disgusting. Karajorma's right; that amounts to eugenics.

I used to be against distributing condoms to AIDS-ridden countries on the grounds that it gave tacit approval to sexual promiscuity. Though I've never agreed with those who lie about condom's effectiveness (whatever that effectiveness may be) to achieve that end.

However I've since come around to the position that the two treatments aren't mutually exclusive. One problem (AIDS) is a symptom; the other (promiscuity) is a cause; but to battle one while ignoring the other isn't right. Both are proper and appropriate ministrations of grace.

And I've felt for a long time that it's far too easy to abuse the papacy. It's like any other man-made organization... power corrupts, and the more power one has, the more easily one is corrupted.

Some thoughts from a non-Catholic Christian; take it or leave it.

Condoms are something like 97% effective when used properly.

@TopGun

1/The Pope is suppossed to be the spiritual head of the Catholic church; he has a supreme responsibility for that churches teachings.

Unless you;re suggesting that Bishops, Cardinals, etc are free to contradict the Pope? Especially when said lies (and they are) come from Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family.

2/You fail to understand the issues over the distribution of condoms - the Catholic church also opposes the sex education that teaches people how to use them.

3/With regards to the effectiveness of condoms, there have been a myriad of studies; for example, this study - http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf - has the following risks of STD transmission

Condom Use Event / Semen Exposure (volume, averaged) / Relative Risk

Non use | 3.3ml | 1
Used & breaks | 1.3 * 2/100 ml | 0.06
Used & detectable hole | 10^-2 ml *1/4000 | 0.000008
Condom used (no break or leak but passes virus) | 6*10^-3ml * 0.23 | 0.00000004
Used | 0.0ml | 0

(see page 7-8 for full table) Worth noting that even in the event of breakage, the level of semen exposure is far lower and this will reduce the risk (although obviously the nature of the STD means semen exposure is not proportionate to risk level).

I've read several estimates of the 'failure rate' for condoms; these IIRC are about 2-5%, and about 15% due to user error. The 2-5% value, I believe, is based upon use over the year; offhand the risk each use is under 1%.

With correct sex education, then condoms are documentarily and scientifically shown to reduce the risk of HIV (and other STD) transmission...

In addition, the Vatican claims were simply complete boll##ks; they were comparing the viral size to pores in condoms, when the virus can only be transmitted in far larger cells. They also literally said some condoms could already been smeared with HIV/AIDS from the factory.

4/ Abstinance might sound good on paper, but you can't just click your fingers and change human nature. If you have an epidemic killing millions, you certainly don't throw all your eggs in one hopeful basket.

I'm not sure that you could honestly argue with simply educating people on all the facts - honestly - and letting them make their own decision. Denying them these facts in order to promote your own opinion would be and is plain wrong.

It seems to me that the fear is that by exposing multiple options, people might not choose your own preference. If the abstinance message actually worked, we'd have seen it by now; clearly it isn't working, and we have a global epidemic on our hands.

5/ Actually, on the same speech (2000) in which the Pope preached forgiveness, he also described homosexuality as being intrinsically evil. This was, incidentally, prior to a Gay rights march in Rome, the first time the issue had been politicised as a human rights issue; the Vatican tried to ban the march (which technically was in another country...).

A second quote relating to the issue of same sex union / marriage is "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.".

The term 'evil' in either use is emotive and likely to lead to descrimination.

I'm not sure about you guys, but when I went through school they taught sexual education. This included education on what happens, why young people should avoid it, and what preventions they take if they do decide to. (Contraceptives / condoms etc)

A similar program in the poverty stricken area's would have a greater impact on the people IMO. More so if their religeon backs them. Not so much so if the religeon is against the teachings.

Knowledge is generally shared widely, but not so much wisdom on how to treat the knowledge. Which I think is a substantial factor.

Goober5000 wrote:I used to be against distributing condoms to AIDS-ridden countries on the grounds that it gave tacit approval to sexual promiscuity. Though I've never agreed with those who lie about condom's effectiveness (whatever that effectiveness may be) to achieve that end.

However I've since come around to the position that the two treatments aren't mutually exclusive. One problem (AIDS) is a symptom; the other (promiscuity) is a cause; but to battle one while ignoring the other isn't right. Both are proper and appropriate ministrations of grace.

No one has ever said we should ignore promiscuity. I'm not for vilifying it but I'm all for warning of the dangers of it.

Sex ed shouldn't say "Go f**k as much as you want cause condoms will keep you safe" any more than it should say "Don't f**k at all" and write off anyone who does.

What it should do is present people with the facts. It should explain that even with condoms there is a risk (albeit MUCH smaller than the vatican claimed) and that having less partners does reduce that risk.

Let people make an informed choice. You shouldn't dictate to them.

Top Gun wrote: Bottom line: the Pope did not lie.

boll##ks. When it is the Vatican's official policy is to make these claims in support of their arguments and the pope lets it slide he becomes responsible for their effects. Or are you now going to claim that the pope didn't know that his own government had this official policy? Cause that's the only defense you have. If he knew and he didn't stop it then he's guilty. He might not personally have lied but that's just like a politician always getting his spokesman to lie for him.

Top Gun wrote: Before you immediately get up in arms, consider this: do you really think that distributing millions of condoms to Africans will bring about any immediate change in their lifestyle? I, for one, do not; if people living in Africa are reassured that condoms will protect them against AIDS, they'll simply continue the same high-risk activities that have caused the AIDS virus to spread so rapidly.

And the spread would be retarded by the use of condoms. Just like it was retarded in every single western country. Do you think people are engaging in less casual sex now than in the 80s in the UK and USA? I doubt it. The drop in AIDS cases from the start of the epidemic is due to the use of condoms not due to any huge shifts in behaviour.

Top Gun wrote: Are you telling me that we should encourage people at risk for AIDS to play what amounts to Russian Roulette? Karajorma, are you telling me you honestly believe that handing out a method of birth control with a 30% effectiveness will really help the people of Africa? That's just callousness. Would you entrust your life to an airline with a 30% effective rate?

If I've decided I'm going to fly inspite of the risks I'm definately going to fly the 30% airline in favour of the 0% chance of survival airline. You've basically put the 30% airline out of business and said that "If you want to fly you have to take the one that will kill you"

And remember that the 30% figure was just a figure pulled out of my arse in order to make a point. Condoms are much more effective than that.

There are many people who have married and had full sex lives with AIDS infected people.

Top Gun wrote:Regardless of any of that, however, the Vatican cannot and should not promote condom use. Its use is a direct violation of Catholic doctrine about sexual morality.

Stop making this point. It only displays the fact that you're either not reading my arguments, too forgetful to remember them or are completely unable to comprehend them. Feel free to take your pick as to which one it is as I have already stated several times that I'm not saying that the Vatican has to promote the use of condoms and yet you keep arguing that it has the right not to.

The catholic church can preach whatever it likes about the moral and spiritual effects of using condoms. But there is no passage in the bible that states their effectiveness against AIDS so that is NOT a religious matter.

If you want people to stop having sex you can preach to them that they will go to hell to it all you like. I may disagree with you on it and think that you're foolish for believeing that but I defend your right to do it.

What you can't do is lie about the consequences of sex in order to get what you want. You can't claim that having sex will stop the rains coming. You can't claim that it will mean that you use up all your male sperm and then can only have girls when you marry. And you can't publish false and heavily flawed, biased faux-scientific work claiming that condoms don't prevent AIDS.

The ends do not justify the means. If you can't pursuade people not to have sex for purely spiritual reasons then the flaw in in your spiritual beliefs or your teaching of them.

What makes this especially disgusting is to hear lies and untruths like this coming out of the mouths of supposedly holy men who claim to represent God's word on Earth.

Top Gun wrote:How does the Church discouraging condom use kill millions?

If I hand you a gun and tell you it's not loaded and you pick it up and shoot your kid dead am I not in part responsible for telling you it wasn't loaded? SUre you may bear the responsibility for not checking for yourself before whatever stupidity resulted in the shooting but I would also be responsible for telling you that it was safe in the first place.

Similarly if the church tells people not to use condoms because they don't work then they are responsible for those people who would otherwise have used one. Their promiscuity may also be responsible but the church is responsible because but for their actions those people would have used condoms and would have survived.


NB This is absolutely not the same thing as if the Church had simply said wear condoms and you go to hell. The difference here is a spiritual one. If you're stupid enough to believe that wearing a condom will send you to hell but that having sex which also carries the same penalty is okay then you really bear the responsibilty for your own stupidity. If you were going to risk going to hell wear a damn condom and avoid getting AIDS while you're having illicit sex.[/b]

I'm not suggesting that the AIDS children dying is a good thing, I was simply suggesting that It might not be as grim as origionally thought. Genocide? Quit putting words in my mouth!

It would be far easier to prevent the AIDS families from having children, but the fact of the matter is that they are, as you said, uneducated. Or even worse is when they're misinformed by religious leaders.

These people shouldent be having kids, as they are simply dragging a child into the world, who upon birth, is doomed to a miserable life. That is precisley why they should be elimated, unless they have a pretty damn good reason to have kids.

If the children are eliminated, then they cannot grow up and create more doomed children, and thus, the cycle will end.

So although it is a very sad thing when innocent children are dying, it's not all that bad.

There are plenty of people in Western civilization that shouldn't have children also. Are you suggesting that we murder drug abusers that have children as well?

Or people who have questionable parenting abilities?

I'd have to say that if the world was as industrial as your almost suggesting it is, then to an extent it would be a good idea to slaughter the masses who do not deserve a right in the world. But just reading that sentence feels wrong.

You can't just say, ah well no place in the world for you. *bang* Problem solvered. Such a system, if ever even pondered would be outright genocide to the very core and inhumane.

I think though, that most sides of the opinions have been shared.

Although I think yours KappaWing is a slightly blind and disturbing opinion. But I guess its your right to have it.

KappaWing wrote:I'm not suggesting that the AIDS children dying is a good thing, I was simply suggesting that It might not be as grim as origionally thought. Genocide? Quit putting words in my mouth!

It would be far easier to prevent the AIDS families from having children, but the fact of the matter is that they are, as you said, uneducated. Or even worse is when they're misinformed by religious leaders.

These people shouldent be having kids, as they are simply dragging a child into the world, who upon birth, is doomed to a miserable life. That is precisley why they should be elimated, unless they have a pretty damn good reason to have kids.

If the children are eliminated, then they cannot grow up and create more doomed children, and thus, the cycle will end.

So although it is a very sad thing when innocent children are dying, it's not all that bad.

You don't have a f#####g clue, do you? Do you really think every person - especially in Africa - gets AIDS by their own fault? Ever heard of rape (spousal or otherwise)? Do you even think they'd know if they had it? How many well-funded health clinics do you think there are in, for example, Africa that do AIDS testing?

How about this - a woman is raped by her husband on a regular basis, who doesn't know that a) he is HIV-positive and b) how to use a condom (or why - all he knows is that according to the church he'll get AIDS if he uses it, because they say they're smeared with the stuff). Wife gets pregnant, the baby is thrown on the street by the father; wife also contracts HIV.

According to your logic, the wife and child woudl deserve to die. And this isn't even a particularly outlandish or even uncommon scenario.

Or what about the women forced to prostitute themselves - are they to blame for the crippling poverty & societal neglect that forces them to sell themselves to simply survive?

Or let's take a western example - a child infected by parents who were infected by a transfusion of improperly tested blood. Does that child and his parents deserve to die?

It's mindboggling - you're actually hailing AIDS and HIV as a handy way to thin out the 'ineducated'. By the same tact we should just ignore smallpox vaccination (punishment for those too poor to pacy for the vaccine - slovenly bastards, eh?), throat and lung cancer (who needs smokers?), heart disease (unhealthy eaters deserve to die!), liver disease (alcohol is evil) or cholera treatment (can't get clean water, it's because you shouldn't be too poor to pay for purification), because they all focus on the weak & poor of society.

I find that whole attitude morally repugnant - IMO you should be ashamed to even consider it. I can only assume you've not thought about it much... if so, then it's even worse because there is no logical reason to hold it.

Just to let you know I'm here, if this goes from a heated discussion, which it currently is, into a row, I'll lock it, but I'll let it sit for now

Sorry. I was....somewhat pissed off.

You have just completley missed my point.

If everyone in Africa dies this very instant, quite a few million lives are lost. I AKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS UNFORTUNATE, but it is for the greater good. However, If Africans continue to live and reproduce children with AIDS, they are creating misery for others, namely, their own children. Those children grow up and create more AIDS infected children who will live barely enough to reproduce and they will die miserable deaths. This horrible cycle will continue unless one of two things happen.

A) All Africans cease to have sex, which is unfeasable.

B) All of them are eliminated by artificial means.

Although this is very drastic action, this action must be taken to prevent suffering of future generations. I am essentially saying what I have said before in my previous posts. Read before you reply, jackass. Or is it that you cannot understand paragraphs? I'll bring it down to a simpler level.

If things are left the way they are: AIDS problem continues, infinite death and suffering for future generations

If my plan is enacted: Very many initial deaths, but problem is immediatley solved.

In time, the death toll if things are left the way they are will surpass Africa's current population. My plan is perfectly logical for this reason.

Another fortunate side effect of my plan would be the elimination of uneducated masses. Once they are eliminated, educated people can populate the area and live in hapiness. THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT WHY THEY SHOULD DIE IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON. The AIDS problem is why my plan should be enacted, I'm simply pointing out that this is a good side effect. I hope I've made things a bit clearer.