Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS in Africa. (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

Lol at the latent racism of all this. Poor little tin-pot Africans! It's not fair to tell them stuff because they cant CriTicaLly AnalYze it, like us.
Their brains are half the size of ours
Science

 

[moll.]

I expect many more Africans than just the "Catholic population of Africa" look to the Church for moral guidance.

PS: It took you a while to find the figures? Maybe you should have started with Wikipedia.

Yeah, but there are no figures for that.
By "a while" I meant ten minutes. There's no "Catholics in Africa" page, nor were there stats on the Christianity in Africa page.

 

[moll.]

Lol at the latent racism of all this. Poor little tin-pot Africans! It's not fair to tell them stuff because they cant CriTicaLly AnalYze it, like us.
Their brains are half the size of ours
Science

Nay, Darwinism my good man.

 

[squiresshane990]

ok guys, who cares tbh hey

 

[Tully B.]

Lol at the latent racism of all this. Poor little tin-pot Africans! It's not fair to tell them stuff because they cant CriTicaLly AnalYze it, like us.
Their brains are half the size of ours
Science

Hahahano.
I'm seventeen and discussing these issues with other adolescents and young adults will suffice. If there was an African BoS, then perhaps I would post on it and inform them about the wonders of contraception. Then you, I imagine, would tell them the evils of it.

Yeah, but there are no figures for that.
By "a while" I meant ten minutes. There's no "Catholics in Africa" page, nor were there stats on the Christianity in Africa page.

Point taken.

ok guys, who cares tbh hey

Well, obviously we do. Plus all the Africans.

 

[5233andy]

There comes a point where the conscience must prevail. By 'conscience', I do not imply one that is dictated by society and culture, but one's own 'gut feeling'. This applies to all individual actions. Keep in mind that not everything that comes out of the Vatican can be exhibited as candor, but mere barbarity.


(Hence the Pope's continuing condemnation of non-Catholics and everything that he considers wrong with it.)

 

[Iron]

 

[xeuyrawp]

I think people starving to death is a bigger issue than people who have contracted aids through decisions of their own.

That's a ridiculous statement as much transmission of HIV is not through any decision.

You're erroneously implying that: a) People make some sort of decision to contract the disease. This is untrue in most cases. b) People know they are receiving the disease if they make said decision. This is also untrue in most cases again.

People in places like Swaziland simply have no idea about what's happening, nor do the women actually have the ability to stop men from having sex with them if they did knew what was happening.

 

[SnowFox]

I think people starving to death is a bigger issue than people who have contracted aids through decisions of their own.

Didnt realise Rape is a decision of their own, or is it Surprise Sex in your mind?


BTW Bigboyjames, the pic you posted started a shitstorm in my IPT class lol.

 

[Lentern]

Even if preventing the distribution of condoms is for the good (not being sarcastic), it still as a negative impact of the magnitude of Aids in Africa. We're not talking about the motive behind influencing the epidemic in such a way, or the positive repercusions doing it, we're talking about whether or not the Catholic Church has done things which negatively influence the magnitude of AIDs in Africa, which they do. You can justify them doing it all you want, and I'll accept some of your justifications as legitimate, but that doesn't change the fact that they did do it.

No I don't accept that a failure to contribute positively equates to a negative contribution. I don't think it was a negative to lobby the American government in the way they did because the American government is supposedly the peoples representative, when they distribute or don't distribute condoms they do on behalf of the people which the catholic groups are a part of.

With that being said there is no absence of positive contribution from the church. The Church has promoted most emphatically an almost fool proof strategy to avoid contracting AIDS. Anyone who heeds the church's recomendations will not contract AIDS.

 

[Lentern]

That's a ridiculous statement as much transmission of HIV is not through any decision.

You're erroneously implying that: a) People make some sort of decision to contract the disease. This is untrue in most cases. b) People know they are receiving the disease if they make said decision. This is also untrue in most cases again.

People in places like Swaziland simply have no idea about what's happening, nor do the women actually have the ability to stop men from having sex with them if they did knew what was happening.

Now see here you are taking comments out of context and It is the question of whether or not catholic influences contribute to the spread of the disease i was addressing. If the catholic teaching is followed the person will not contract aids. If the person decides they are going to place their own interpretations on catholic techings rather than accepting those of Rome then I applaud them for being free thinking individuals but they have freely decided and the church will not accept responsibility for that.

Didnt realise Rape is a decision of their own, or is it Surprise Sex in your mind?

Rapists wouldn't be acting on the teachings of Rome and acess to condoms is going to do buckley's to the power of less in a rape situation. CLOWN!

 

[es1079]

I've lived in sub-sarhara Africa for 2 1/2 years and I can tell you that the catholic church isn't fully to blame for the enormous problem of HIV/AIDS. They have contributed to the problem but in the country I lived in (Botswana) the Catholic Church had very limited influence. However, Botswana is one of the worst hit countries.

Personally I believe that contraceptives should be used and there are times when they are necessary. eg. If one of the couple has HIV/AIDS. however, contraceptives aren't the answer to the problem.

 

[Tully B.]

No I don't accept that a failure to contribute positively equates to a negative contribution. I don't think it was a negative to lobby the American government in the way they did because the American government is supposedly the peoples representative, when they distribute or don't distribute condoms they do on behalf of the people which the catholic groups are a part of.

With that being said there is no absence of positive contribution from the church. The Church has promoted most emphatically an almost fool proof strategy to avoid contracting AIDS. Anyone who heeds the church's recomendations will not contract AIDS.

I'm not talking about a "failure to contribute", I'm talking directly about negative contribution. You're saying that because the American government is "the peoples representative" you can't give partial blame to the people and their influence when it comes to governmental decisions? That's ridiculous. The Catholic Church as well as the American Catholic citizens were the basis of the Government's decision to stop providing contraception to Africa, and thus they can be blamed for their influence.

I have already said that I accept that the Church has also had a positive influence on the epidemic as well, but I'm not talking about that right now. I'm saying that, independant (although not really independant) of their positive influence, they have had a negative influence as well.

It's like they promoted the seatbelt and condemned the use of airbags; it's just fantastic that they're promoting seatbelts, but why oh why do they have to condemn the use of condoms? I mean, airbags.

 

[katie tully]

With that being said there is no absence of positive contribution from the church. The Church has promoted most emphatically an almost fool proof strategy to avoid contracting AIDS. Anyone who heeds the church's recomendations will not contract AIDS.

Telling people to resist their biological urges, especially to uneducated Africans, is not fool proof. It's naive and irresponsible, and anybody who condones it is obviously a mong. There is no fool proof way not to contract a disease in a country where it is rampant. That's like saying 'well the Africans can stop dying from malaria if they stop going near mosquitoes' ffs.

The most fool proof way, if you're spasticated enough to say it like that, is to educate these people with the methods of transmisson and the methods of prevention. Obviously abstinence is a fucking retarded, unrealistic option, so why don't we show them and supply them with the contraception required.

It'd be killing two birds with one stone. It'd hopefully stem the tide of HIV infection and it'd hopefully reduce the birth rate in an already overpopulated area.

 

[SylviaB]

With that being said there is no absence of positive contribution from the church. The Church has promoted most emphatically an almost fool proof strategy to avoid contracting AIDS. Anyone who heeds the church's recomendations will not contract AIDS.

Fool proof means in practice, it rarely fails.

guess what: Teaching abstinance doesn't work.

 

[ablle]

What happens if, in a marriage, one person has HIV and the other doesn't? According to the Church's teachings, it would be fine for them to have sex, but not fine for them to use a condom to hopefully prevent transmission. By preventing access to/education about condoms, wouldn't the Church be helping the spread in this way? I'm not sure how much this actually happens, though. It could be quite inconsequential.

 

[Lentern]

I'm not talking about a "failure to contribute", I'm talking directly about negative contribution. You're saying that because the American government is "the peoples representative" you can't give partial blame to the people and their influence when it comes to governmental decisions? That's ridiculous. The Catholic Church as well as the American Catholic citizens were the basis of the Government's decision to stop providing contraception to Africa, and thus they can be blamed for their influence.

I have already said that I accept that the Church has also had a positive influence on the epidemic as well, but I'm not talking about that right now. I'm saying that, independant (although not really independant) of their positive influence, they have had a negative influence as well.

It's like they promoted the seatbelt and condemned the use of airbags; it's just fantastic that they're promoting seatbelts, but why oh why do they have to condemn the use of condoms? I mean, airbags.

Providing contraception to Africa was a positive contribution, stopping it was not a negative, trying to take the damn things back would have been a negative contribution. But to decide that they themselves don't think they should have ti supply the buck is not a negative contribution it is an absence of a positive.

Fool proof means in practice, it rarely fails.

guess what: Teaching abstinance doesn't work.

Nobody who practices absitnance will contract HIV. Nobody who is influenced by Rome will be having ex-marital sex. Anyone who is has made a decision to put themselves outside of the church and now has one person only to blame.

Telling people to resist their biological urges, especially to uneducated Africans, is not fool proof. It's naive and irresponsible, and anybody who condones it is obviously a mong. There is no fool proof way not to contract a disease in a country where it is rampant. That's like saying 'well the Africans can stop dying from malaria if they stop going near mosquitoes' ffs.

The most fool proof way, if you're spasticated enough to say it like that, is to educate these people with the methods of transmisson and the methods of prevention. Obviously abstinence is a fucking retarded, unrealistic option, so why don't we show them and supply them with the contraception required.

It'd be killing two birds with one stone. It'd hopefully stem the tide of HIV infection and it'd hopefully reduce the birth rate in an already overpopulated area.

Nobody is saying don't have sex, they're saying don't have it outside of marriage. If hundreds of millions of christians have no problems doing so why do we suddenly say "oh but they're poor stupid Africans the rules must be changed for them".

 

[Lentern]

What happens if, in a marriage, one person has HIV and the other doesn't? According to the Church's teachings, it would be fine for them to have sex, but not fine for them to use a condom to hopefully prevent transmission. By preventing access to/education about condoms, wouldn't the Church be helping the spread in this way? I'm not sure how much this actually happens, though. It could be quite inconsequential.

Such circumstances whilst deeply regrettable are not what is causing the massive spread of AIDS in Africa.

 

[ablle]

Such circumstances whilst deeply regrettable are not what is causing the massive spread of AIDS in Africa.

Yes but would you recommend using a condom in such a situation? Or should they not have sex at all? This is purely hypothetical btw.

 

[katie tully]

Nobody is saying don't have sex, they're saying don't have it outside of marriage. If hundreds of millions of christians have no problems doing so why do we suddenly say "oh but they're poor stupid Africans the rules must be changed for them".

Fuck you're so fucking deluded. You have 22 million people in that area living with HIV/AIDS. Some are born with it, others contract it from their married partners. Do you really believe that the spread of HIV in Africa is due to promiscuity? LOL of course you do, because you're spasticated.

12% of the worlds population has 60% of the total HIV/AIDS infected population, and you think telling them to wait until marriage is going to reduce the problem.

If hundreds of millions of christians have no problems doing so why do we suddenly say "oh but they're poor stupid Africans the rules must be changed for them".

I can't even address that because it's quite simply one of the most ridiculous things your half witted, poor starving pathetic excuse for a brain has ever concocted.