Re: [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Mario Goveia wrote: > > Is there any doubt that abstinence or a monogamous > relationship with an un-infected person is 100% safe in an > absolute sense? This is really what the Pope would > like to see. The condom issue is a distraction from > this Papal message. - Abstinence or a monogamous relationship can also be detrimental to one's health. Has enough research been done in this area? :-)) best, selma
Re: [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:13:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar The claim made by the Pope that condom use "even aggravates the problems", as far as AIDS is concerned, is demonstrably false. Mario observes: I believe the Pope's comments must be taken in context. As a moral leader he does not want to be perceived as encouraging unsafe sex outside the bounds of marriage. In an absolute sense I agree the comment sounds absurd. We know from WHO research that latex condoms when consistently AND correctly used provide a high level of security, though less than 100%. The word "safe" suggests 100%, so the use of condoms is "safer", but not "safe". However, we also know from the WHO research that when condoms are not used consistently AND correctly it is virtually like not using condoms at all. Thus, the real life likelyhood that condoms are not being used consistently AND correctly, especially by the young, the ignorant, the careless and the sexually desperate, simply providing condoms may provide them with a false sense of security, which may then lead to fatal outcomes. Unless the incidence of new HIV/AIDS cases starts to fall worldwide, one must take a hard look at the preventive measures being used, to find which measures are being successful and which are not. Is there any doubt that abstinence or a monogamous relationship with an un-infected person is 100% safe in an absolute sense? This is really what the Pope would like to see. The condom issue is a distraction from this Papal message.
Re: [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:06:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Carvalho What we should have is a contraceptive that contains unneccesary spillage from the mouth. Mario observes: >From your relative silence recently may we gather that you are working on >developing one for yourself:-))
Re: [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
Averthanus L. D'Souza wrote: > >OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS. >Averthanus L. D'Souza. > Here are statements in the above article that are totally absurd, illogical and/or false: > >Either there IS a God or there is no God. Richard Dawkins should make up >his >mind which. Saying that there is "probably" no God only exposes his >own >ignorance and dim wit. > What kind of logic and rationality allows one to conclude that someone is a dimwit just because he does not possess absolute certainty about the truth or falsity of a faith-based belief? > >They claimed that the use of condoms reduced the chances of the spread of >>AIDS - in complete contradiction of all the studies which show that AIDS >is >spreading even faster, in spite of (and maybe because of ) the >widespread use >of condoms. > The claims that AIDS is spreading even faster is utterly bogus. The implication that condom use is not at all effective in preventing AIDS is equally false. The truth is that global AIDS incidence is declining. The prevalence is declining or leveling off in most countries, including those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Condom use, while certainly not 100% effective, is in part responsible for these declines. > >After many years of battling this dreaded disease, the medical >establishment >came to the realization that it should place far >more emphasis on the "prevention" of the disease, rather than on curing >it. >The purely "medical" approach to malaria has been conclusively proven >to be >inadequate. > This is one of the most ridiculous of false dichotomies I have ever read on Goanet. Prevention is a medical approach. Without specific medical knowledge about the cause of a disease, how would one know what to do to prevent it? How would we adopt measures to get rid of mosquitoes in the case of Malaria? What is even more absurd is the author is oblivious of the fact that condom use is a preventive measure against AIDS, even in cases of monogamous relationships wherein one of the partners has already been infected with HIV? > >Read in its proper context, Pope Benedict's observation makes eminent >sense >and deserves the appreciation of everyone, including self-professed >atheists >and men of medicine, who often refuse to see beyond the point of >their noses. > The claim made by the Pope that condom use "even aggravates the problems", as far as AIDS is concerned, is demonstrably false. > >School children who are just beginning to mature are encouraged to >>"experiment" with sex. . Now even unnatural "same-sex" activities are >>been promoted. > The above claims are hyperbolic and false. Nobody is actively promoting sex among school children or same-sex activities. > >It is not at all surprising that the distortion of sex has resulted in >many >medical and sociological (and psychological) diseases. > A rhetorical statement that is not supported by any factual evidence. > >There are many who will vociferously defend homosexuality as being >"natural" >but unless they can demonstrate that heterosexuality is >abnormal, they will >fail to be convincing. > An illogical statement! Whether homosexuality is natural, unnatural or supernatural has no bearing on the fact that heterosexuality is natural and normal. That homosexuality is a normal natural variation of sexuality has been demonstrated by countless studies. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
What we should have is a contraceptive that contains unneccesary spillage from the mouth. Best, Selma --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Mario Goveia wrote: > > Excerpt: > > "The fact is that the correct and consistent use of condoms > is far better than not using condoms, and incorrect or > inconsistent use is almost like not using condoms at all." > > "It is an abuse of the language to call condoms "safe" > without any qualification." > > >
[Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:31:23 -0400 From: "Averthan" [Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS Excerpt: "The modern world needs to be reminded, as Pope Benedict XVI has sought to do, that tragedies like HIV/AIDS cannot be cured merely by investing more money or providing more condoms. The root lies in the minds and the attitudes of people, who have acquired a condomized culture." Mario responds: The efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS, including the results of a report by WHO, and its proper interpretation, were discussed in detail in: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-March/175915.html Excerpt: "The fact is that the correct and consistent use of condoms is far better than not using condoms, and incorrect or inconsistent use is almost like not using condoms at all." "It is an abuse of the language to call condoms "safe" without any qualification."
[Goanet] OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS
OF CONDOMS AND CONUNDRUMS. Averthanus L. D'Souza. A little over a month ago there was an international furore in the media about the observation which was made by Pope Benedict XVI about the problem of HIV/AIDS, specially in Africa. He is reported to have told a correspondent while on his flight to Africa that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is a "tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms which even aggravates the problems." This comment drew some blistering attacks from people who should have known better, and who should have paused to study the observation before launching out on a verbal assault on Pope Benedict XVI. Richard Dawkins, the well known British atheist and an implacable foe of all religions said that "The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or just dim." He did not elaborate on his statement by proving that the Pope is ignorant or "just dim." His statement is comparable to a juvenile's irrational outburst against someone whom he hates. Of course, Richard Dawkins, being the professed atheist that he is, will be infuriated by any statement made by any religious leader on any subject on earth. His own intellectual confusion is evident in the campaign which he initiated of placing advertisements on British buses which said: "There is probably no God. . ." Either there IS a God or there is no God. Richard Dawkins should make up his mind which. Saying that there is "probably" no God only exposes his own ignorance and dim wit. Under the circumstances, he clearly does not qualify to sit in judgment on the Pope's observation. However, there were other criticisms of the Pope's statement, which appear to have been made without due consideration of the facts. Some doctors pilloried the Pope saying that his opposition to the distribution of condoms would be responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS. They claimed that the use of condoms reduced the chances of the spread of AIDS - in complete contradiction of all the studies which show that AIDS is spreading even faster, in spite of (and maybe because of ) the widespread use of condoms. [Space does not permit an elaboration of these research findings.] The problem of HIV/AIDS however, has roots which go far beyond the purely mechanical or even the medical. The problem has been approached with a too limited focus on the mechanical aspects of transmission. Like all other blinkered approaches such an attack on the deadly disease is bound to fail. Sexual contact with unknown persons, or with multiple partners and other such "high risk" behaviour has been demonstrated to spread the disease. Both epidemiological as well as sociological studies have indicated that the control of all sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) requires that sexual contact be limited to single partners and also that it be confined within the institution of marriage. "Scientific" studies confirm, (rather than disprove), the moral understanding that sexual activity should be limited to the confines of marriage. Even a dim witted atheist like Richard Dawkins should be able to understand this. (By the way, his atheism is not relevant to this argument.) That Pope Benedict XVI's observation is perfectly rational and reasonable is confirmed by reference to another disease which has plagued humankind for a long time - the persistence of malaria. After many years of battling this dreaded disease, the medical establishment came to the realization that it should place far more emphasis on the "prevention" of the disease, rather than on curing it. The purely "medical" approach to malaria has been conclusively proven to be inadequate. Governments all over the world are now changing their priorities to "preventive" measures, rather than to merely medical measures. For this, of course, the full and knowledgeable participation of the citizens is required. Without dissemination of information about the causes of malaria, its modes of transmission and its prevention, the disease cannot be either controlled or eliminated. It may seem to be clichéd, but the commonly held belief that "prevention is better than cure" seems to have been vindicated in many programmes. During the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade sponsored by the UNDP, this author had the opportunity to do a lot of research into many water-borne diseases. Invariably, what stared one in the face was the need to Inform, to Educate and to Communicate knowledge to the people. The IEC programme, which this author was privileged to be associated with, had a very positive impact here in India. The insight that one gets into the causes, transmission and spread of diseases, including that of sexually transmitted diseases, is that one simply cannot take a limited mechanical or medical view of the problem. The problem has much wider (and deeper) ramifications. Apart from the pure
