BreedingFollow

Read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...and instead of applying it just to Ireland, think more on a global scale.

Nope, sorry, no summarizing allowed. Go use Google and find it. All it'll take is reading a bit of it to know.

a modest proposal basically says that we should eat babies to solve overpopulation and world hunger at the same time.

condoms do have very small holes in them (on a molecular level) but those holes are even smaller than HIV so it is a non issue. very few things are completely solid on a molecular level. im pretty sure (as in i would be absolutely shocked to hear otherwise) that HIV is simply too large to pass through, carried in fluids or not.

in any case the use of condoms makes sex vastly safer than bare-backing and thus it is worth encouraging the use of them.

Edited, Mon Feb 28 18:51:49 2005 by Angry Hippo

I still say we should sterilize them by medicating the world's water supplies.

The outrageous thing is that this isn't a joke, as many a good catholic woman of a previous generation can attest to. I think now they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in that regard because the church certainly can't believe something in the water is what's keeping catholic women from having 6-12 children these days.
Shall we forward this to your parish priest so he can make sure you get your "gold bricks in heaven"?

Zadiel, you're a bad troll. Just stop.

I think alot of you are missing the point, and why the Catholic Church takes the positions it does on this issue.

To the Church, sex is only supposed to be engaged in between a married man and woman. Period. No exceptions. Any other act of sex is a sin.

Here's the problem. The *only* way for AIDs to be prevented by condom use is if someone is breaking that law. If two people only ever have sex with eachother over their entire lives, then neithe of them is likely to have AIDs, nor can they catch it from eachother.

From that perspective, condom use doesn't prevent AIDS. It only gives people an excuse to sin. Not sinning would prevent AIDS with nearly 100% effectiveness. If you don't have sex with anyone except your spouse, and you spouse never has sex with anyone but you, you wont catch AIDS. From the Church's perspective, the AIDs epidemic could be ended in a single generation if everyone would just stop sinning.


That's why they can't condone condom use. To them, that's what keeps the spread going. Even if it's 99% effective, some people will continue to get it, despite condom use. They aren't looking at condom use from a single person's perspective, but from a global perspective. If they were to condone it's use, they would essentially be condoning sinful acts (since the only reason to need to use a condom would be to sin, or as the result of sinning).

You're simply judging the issue with a different measurement. To the Church, the cost worldwide of condoning condom use is more expensive then the loss of lives if they don't. They're more concerned with the soulds of the people, and their own rules. Condoning condoms would be condoning sin. Until a Pope comes along who's willing to change that, they *can't* do it any other way. And that's unlikely to happen simply because at least in a biblical perspective, AIDs can be seen as a punishment for sin. Why on earth would they condone condom use, so that people can sin with a lower risk of getting punished? That makes no sense from a religious perspective...


Seems silly? I agree. But that's religion for you...

I think I went to high school in third-world Africa or something, because our health textbooks talked about AIDS seeping through the holes in condoms as well. Of course, we got the abstinence program there in conservative small-town Texas, where unless you wanted to drive out to the big city, there was nothing to do BUT have sex. I believe the 1% failure rate is due to a combination of breakage and improper fit, as well as transmitting some diseases by cuts and sores in the mouth and near the genital area, where they can't be covered by a condom.

The solution here is to have a non-religious organization go offer aid and education to less-developed countries. The whole no-birth-control thing works great if you're committed to following the morals of monogamy and you can afford a big family, but not everyone who takes the advice of the church on worldly matters is a member of the church. They just want to know about disease and hygiene, things the western world can offer them in the way of disease protection and a better quality of life. They still want to spread their seed as much as possible though, in accordance with their traditional way of life and with human instinct. Most animals, when they have a high infant mortality rate, instinctively reproduce more, in the hopes that a few of the babies survive. Unfortunately, when this is due to lack of food, it's counter-productive, though it eventually balances out. With outside aid coming in, it's not going to balance out at all until the birth rate decreases.

I always thought it was a matter of intent to conceive. Contraceptive = sin. Then again, I know nothing of the religion (apart from random Monty Python quotes).

you stupid little c[/i]unt

what about the preservation of life? for every 1 person that is saved from aids, millions of millions potential people are murdered.

look at it that way, don't talk like post 1960, catholicism is lying and murdering 1000s just because of pride. You shut the f[i]uck up about contraceptives if you're going to look at only one facet of a huge argument, contraceptive, by definition, is something that stops a birth, a condom is not the only form, and you can't tell 1000s of people all over the world that you're right and they're not.

12 years in a Catholic school and the most they told you about it is "it's generally wrong", ********* either put both sides of the argument, and decide which one is better, or just fu[/i]ck off to talk to other idiots who think shouting their opinions classes as an argument.

please, don't post again, save me the fu[i]cking time

I'd rather kill someone who doesn't exist than someone who does. There may be no moral relativism with God, but I'd at least like being able to sleep at night knowing I did the best I could. If I could save someone from dying of AIDS, and all their future children from dying of AIDS in their infancy (since barely anyone born with HIV survives long enough to have sex) but it was at the cost of their kids not existing in the first place, of course it's better for them to use condoms! Your imaginary friends are out of luck; they'll just have to stay in your head.