> That's a great point and almost convincing, but I guess I just can't > get over the point that by taking a stance you know there's a > percentage of people that will die because of it. > > If we take the philosophy out of it and look at it actuarially, I bet > we could say this: > > 1.) All things being equal, x million of people will die of AIDS next > year. > > 2.) If the church supported condoms x-y million people would die. > > Now that's speculation but it's based on the fact that there is a > moral black and white while people are grey. They want to feel good > by going to church and associating with those that do, but many of > them simply can't resist sex.
They can resist sex, they just don't or won't. Church feels the moral way is by abstinence. In this case, actually, that would also be the best way scientifically! Your little equation is kind of interesting. What if the Y number of people who you presume may follow a church teaching of condoms, instead followed the church's teaching of abstinence? Now you are practically GUARANTEED to reduce the deaths by Y, where a condom is much less fail proof. We both know the common deal breaker in this...the weakness of the human animal. The sad part is, the church has their solution (abstinence), science has their alternative (condoms), and yet the people are pretty much ignoring BOTH of them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Stay Ahead of Hackers - Download ZoneAlarm Pro http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=65 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154839 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
