No one, unless God himself comes to earth and changes natural law, is going to stop the church from condemning contraceptives. As you pointed out no one is going to stop people from having sex, and the earliest time God would change natural law (which he probably wouldn’t) and make himself known would be no sooner than the apocalypse due to him telling us there won’t be another general revelations until the end of time. Unless you feel like waiting until the end of time, the earliest time it could, though probably wouldn’t happen, that option isn’t going to work either. Anywho, it was their choice to have sex with their body, regardless of if they use contraceptives or not. There is not any contraceptive, to the best of my knowledge, that is 100% effective other than not having the sex.Thejanitor said:
The cause of having a baby and/or getting a STD… that would be sex.
They don't just condemn them for religious reasons but they have also claimed that they don't protect against STD's effectively with absolutely no evidence. Vatican has claimed that condoms are laced with STD's, a scare tactic with no backing.
The president can't help but stick his views into things. Normal sex ed covers abstainment as well but he doesn't like it because it conflicts with his religion. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is going to abstain and for them condoms and other contraceptives are neccessary. If people believe these rediculous claims the Church is effectively ****ing a lot of peoples lives up(Unless they follow what the church says of course).
I started writing a response and then I realized something. Regardless of how our sex education programs work, or what or president thinks, or etc, how does that give someone an excuse the infringe on the rights of another human being? Every human being under the jurisdiction of the United States (and though I'm not sure, I believe the same goes for the United Kingdom) is guaranteed the right to life. There is no denying that a embryo is genetically identical to a human being, meaning it is a human being. How can any public program, person, or organization give you an excuse to terminate a human life?Thejanitor said:
I would like a response to my post please. It's before the baby can feel, think ect when they are allowed to abort it. I don't think it has rights.
No problem, here you are.Thejanitor said:
From what I read when looking up information about a response, all I read was secondhand information that said “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.†Get me a source from where a priest backs that or a link to an official Vatican document supporting this please. And if your talking about this interview ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm), then here you are:
Sadly enough, that is what happens when we pick a human as president. No matter who we pick, their religion, or lack of one, will influence the ways in which they make decisions and is one major reason why church and state can never be separated.
The use of condoms is intrinsically evil and I, nor the church, would ever support them regardless of the effect. I have pointed out many times that the ends never justifies the means in my opinion, and that stands firm here. Many other people along with me do not want our taxpaying money to support acts of evil, such as teaching public programs that support condoms. That is the reason that many people protest the evil things our money is going towards, an example being this war on terror. If people believe the church then they are not screwing themselves, on the contrary, they are making their lives far better by becoming closer to God by following his teachings.
And now to get back on topic, since when have people been able to discriminate rights based on physical characteristics or age, other than in cases of safety?
I took this off a website. Everyone knows that condoms aren't a 100% effective, everyone knows there is a risk. It seems like they have a very high standards they can be sorry it's not 100% like abstaining but it's more effective than nothing.
Don't use condoms because it lets the virus pass through? Yeah because obviously no using protection is much more effective than a condom.
Why the hell do they mention Kenya? Poorer countries have a lot of kids so they can work. They are going to have sex if we give them condoms or not, it's obvious that if a condom is used, it lowers the chance significantly. This quote wraps it up:
You're main quote: The church took information of the FDA website? Then it asks if the public knows this as if it was a massive cover-up. They're defintely making it public. All they did was tell us something we already know.
I don't give a shit about your teaching. So there is a chance someone will share my view, well it's a fact that Christianity doesn't dominate the word, perhaps you should start the crusades again and convert everyone.
It's a pity, I thought maybe we got to a point where a dumb president couldn't start changing the education because of views that should be seperated from the state.
When a baby is going to have to live a life with servere disability, what are they supposed to do? I wouldn't let a child live that way. I bet there has been someone killed for the sake of mercy in the bible.
“[the use of a] condom reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV by 85%. There is then a 15% risk that remains… There is no such thing then as a 100% protection from HIV/AIDS or other STD’s through condom use todayâ€
The Catholic Church has reported nothing more than safe sex does not exist. As you pointed out, condoms are not 100% effective so once again you are agreeing with the Catholic Church.
I was only pointing out that my opinion that the church isn't "****ing a lot of peoples lives up" because it was what I believe is best for them. You stated your belief without me saying " I don't give a shit", why can't I state mine? Also, the crusades are against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Ok point taken. I was harsh. I thought that you're religious rant was a part of your counter argument.
It said something about testing condoms individually, that's the bit I wanted.
Very good, this argument is a lot better that the quotes I have seen so far. It's completely correct I must admit.
Ok ok, I noticed. Have the church questioned the safety checking of condoms? It's they way they want to solve it I don't agree with. It would please the church if everyone only had sex on the occasion they are 'supposed' to but that isn't a word wide solution. The best solution is to improve the safety of the condom, then give proper teaching about safe sex. The largest reason of failure is because the condom is simply not applied properly (?).
With religious morality aside, I completely agree with you. The most effective way to fight AIDS would be a combination of sex ed in condoms and abstinence. That would most likely be the most effective way to fight it, I do not disagree with you there.
The Catholic Church was stating its’ plan to help fight the worldwide battle of AIDS. Not everyone is, I guess lucky would be the word from your viewpoint, lucky enough to have as effective condoms as we do. The example given in the Vatican link above is where one of the leading brands in Brazil completely failed the ISO’s standard and helped spread the AIDS virus in Brazil. Some people around the world do also teach that sex with condoms is ‘safe sex’, and that condoms will always stop AIDS and pregnancy period.
He has tendencies that are Christian such as the ones I talked about, and he has unchristian tendencies that you pointed out. I just think a second term for Bush would help this country more than a first term for Kerry would, even if only slightly. Though you are probably right about the Christian thing, polling of Bush voters showed somewhere around 20% voted because of morality I believe, and take even half of that number and that’s still millions of votes.
Technically, the Supreme Court should be stopping overly religious things. Bush could say that he is just supporting secular institutions that just happened to agree with his religion and the ‘it’s church in state’ argument goes right out the window.
How does the mother have the right to do that? If the same thing happened after the baby was born it would be considered child abuse. The act you suggest would involve the discrimination of rights.
I believe I just said that:Forged said:
Preventing AIDS with condoms for those that have sex and abstinence for those who can is the most effective way.Tipsy said:
The sex lifestyle with condoms cannot stop AIDS alone, though it would most likely significantly reduce it.Tipsy said:
Talking about being blinded by that invisible deity thing.Tipsy said:
Wern't they recalled?
Condoms, like abstaining only limits the spread, what we need is a cure.
How does waiting untill you're married to have sex eradicate aids? The truth is, you'd have to eliminate every generation of people who have aids. Aids are passed from mother to daughter aswell.
There are a lot of rights you don't have as a kid, there are also rights that you wouldn't have as a fetus.
Yeah, that's what happens when you fail the ISO's standards. The point was, to quote my source from before, "in 1991, IDEC (Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor) published a study that reported that five out of the seven top condom brands in Brazil, including the nation’s number one brand, Jontex, manufactured by Johnson and Johnson, flunked international safety tests" and "several lots of condoms (some from leading brands) were recalled from the market in Brazil in 1999, 2000 and 2003, due to failure in different tests and to the discovery of counterfeit products." What I was pointing out is although there are safety precautions, there is nothing as strict or enforced as with the rest of the world. The case with the condom brand I talked about earlier resulted in "1,036,800 units" of condoms being recalled.Thejanitor said:
A cure would certainly be nice, but since we don't have one we have to go to the next closest thing. Condoms will spread AIDS on a more limited, but still existant, basis. Abstinence will 'probably' only spread it to your wife or husband, instead of multiple partners. The thing is, there is something that can be done to stop AIDS from being passed from parents to children. Today, though probably only possible in first world countries, when given antiviral medications in the third trimester, and/or at the time of birth, reduces the chance of the child getting being infected to only 5%. Even if they do get infected, the amounts of the virus will be lowered and their chance of survival will massively increase.
The right to life is something that cannot be taken away by any mother with very few exceptions, such as taking one off life support who will never get better. Also, if that argument is used, it would take away the excuse used by the United States' Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. The whole thing about, "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense alone."
