Quiddity vs. 9-10ths_Penguin - Contraceptives and AIDS

[Quiddity]

We can start with contraceptives.

We don't have to restrict this to Africa and AIDS if you so choose not to.

I've read enough of your material to get a feel for where your concerns are with regard to Catholic teaching on contraceptives and how damaging it is to people. However, as is norm, can you please state your case as to why this is so and I will follow with a response and we can get the ball rolling...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can start with contraceptives.

We don't have to restrict this to Africa and AIDS if you so choose not to.

I've read enough of your material to get a feel for where your concerns are with regard to Catholic teaching on contraceptives and how damaging it is to people. However, as is norm, can you please state your case as to why this is so and I will follow with a response and we can get the ball rolling...

Well, right off the bat, I think it's important to recognize that there are a few different reasons for using the contraceptive measures that the Catholic Church objects to.

First, there's contraception for its own sake, i.e. to control one's reproduction. I think this is an absolutely crucial issue for women's rights, especially in the developing world.

Pregnancy can have the effect - intentionally or unintentionally - of controlling women and limiting their opportunities for advancement in society. A woman who cannot choose when she will have her children is a woman whose ability to do things like pursue education or a career can be taken away from her against her will. This is especially true in cultures where women are pressured to marry early.

In addition to the effect on women specifically, a lack of contraception can have a negative effect on society generally, because without it, couples are severely hampered in their ability to ensure that the number and timing of children is within their capabilities. No contraception means more children who are born to unprepared parents; this translates into an extra burden on society.

Second, there's the use of contraceptive methods for other reasons... e.g. disease prevention. In these cases, I think the harm is clear: AIDS and other STDs kill people, and curtailing condom use means that these diseases will spread more easily and infect more people. The Church's position on this issue costs lives.

Setting aside the question of whether it's good or moral for the Church to preach abstinence for unmarried people, I think it's clear that their approach is horribly ineffective. Even with the Church saying "don't have sex", people still have sex. Lots of it. Realistically, our choices aren't between getting people to be abstinent or engage in protected sex; they're between getting people to engage in protected sex or unprotected sex. IOW, the Church can choose between two outcomes:

- Church teaching gets violated and everyone generally stays healthy.

- Church teaching gets violated and lots of people die horribly.

IMO, to anyone who values human life, the right choice is clear. And it's not even about upholding Church doctrine, IMO, because that's a sunk cost: it's common to both options and therefore not a valid basis to choose between them.

But on both issues, I think there's something I think is rather insidious (and I don't think that's too strong a word) about the Catholic Church's approach: they attempt to impose their views on non-Catholics. It would be one thing (though still objectionable, IMO) if they were only trying to forbid contraception within its own membership, but the Church has done plenty to try to work against contraception generally, including for non-Catholics. In the past, they campaigned in many countries for birth control to be illegal. Today, they try to position themselves as an NGO in many parts of the world (and thereby divert funding from other NGOs who could do the same jobs) and ensure that contraception isn't offered as part of the services they deliver.

We even have cases like the African bishop who claimed that condoms were being deliberately infected with HIV by Europeans in order to wipe out Africans. Regardless of your feelings about condoms themselves, I hope you can realize that this sort of rhetoric would have a huge cost in human suffering, since anyone who took the bishop seriously would also be suspicious of other Western aid, such as food or medical care.

So... that's probably enough to get us started. And that's not even getting into my feelings about the theological and logical basis of the Church position on contraception, because if I started going on about the inconsistencies I see in it, I'd be here all day.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, right off the bat, I think it's important to recognize that there are a few different reasons for using the contraceptive measures that the Catholic Church objects to.

First, there's contraception for its own sake, i.e. to control one's reproduction. I think this is an absolutely crucial issue for women's rights, especially in the developing world.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with rights. You’d probably have a case if no other means to control reproduction existed outside of contraceptives.

But……

Let’s say in another dimension contraceptives didn’t exist. Would this incapacitate women from controlling their reproduction? Heck, it doesn’t even have to be another dimension; you can just go back 50+ years when people hardly used them. If the answer is……no……and other alternative options exist (and 100% effective if done right. No need to get into these methods at this point.) to control reproduction, then, what point is there in mentioning rights if they aren’t being deprived of anything?

Pregnancy can have the effect - intentionally or unintentionally - of controlling women and limiting their opportunities for advancement in society.

So can purchasing a vehicle or an exotic animal. Just about anything can control…in this sense. Same goes with the opportunities, a number of things can limit you. The fact that pregnancy can control and limit doesn’t mean it will. And in this context, it leads to preposterous conclusions. For example:

Chinchillas can have the effect - intentionally or unintentionally - of controlling women and limiting their opportunities for advancement in society.

It doesn’t matter that children aren’t exactly the same as chinchillas (if pushed I could probably come up with something closer) because the example doesn’t become invalid due to magnitude. Not to mention that something being more difficult inclines itself to being subjective.

A woman who cannot choose when she will have her children is a woman whose ability to do things like pursue education or a career can be taken away from her against her will. This is especially true in cultures where women are pressured to marry early.

The assumption here is that without contraceptives one could not choose. As noted above, this is simply not true. Now, arguing that the other methods of controlling your reproduction don’t work or are impractical is another matter entirely, but there are other methods nonetheless and this point can’t even be raised until you can prove that the other methods somehow incapacitate women from choosing.

In addition to the effect on women specifically, a lack of contraception can have a negative effect on society generally, because without it, couples are severely hampered in their ability to ensure that the number and timing of children is within their capabilities.

It does no such thing. Such caricatures are propped and regurgitated endlessly without ever even bothering to see if alternative methods always produces a brady-bunch plus family.

No contraception means more children who are born to unprepared parents; this translates into an extra burden on society.

Lack of contraception doesn’t have to mean more children. The prepared bit is irrelevant to this discussion as it is a point of agreement between us. However, besides the financial elements, who is ever truly prepared? Each one of my kids has been different and many things that truly burdened us were beyond our control.

I'll address your second point hopefully later today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm... I notice something strange: I was the one who got invited in for a debate on the Catholic stance on these issues, but somehow the burden got shifted and you're trying to put me on the defensive.

I kinda expected this to go differently: I laid out what I think, so I expected you to lay out what you think and then we'd get into the nitty-gritty of why each of us believes as we do. Things seem to be turning out less... balanced, I think.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with rights. You’d probably have a case if no other means to control reproduction existed outside of contraceptives.

But……

Let’s say in another dimension contraceptives didn’t exist. Would this incapacitate women from controlling their reproduction? Heck, it doesn’t even have to be another dimension; you can just go back 50+ years when people hardly used them. If the answer is……no……and other alternative options exist (and 100% effective if done right. No need to get into these methods at this point.) to control reproduction, then, what point is there in mentioning rights if they aren’t being deprived of anything?

You can also go back 50 years to when the law in many places didn't consider rape to be rape if it was committed by a husband against his wife. I didn't think it was exactly news that it's often difficult or impossible for women to control when or whether they're going to have sex. Hormonal birth control can be important to allow women to get out of these negative (or even downright abusive) situations, because any children that result from these sorts of marriages can represent something that can be used by the abuser to keep the victim from leaving.

So can purchasing a vehicle or an exotic animal. Just about anything can control…in this sense. Same goes with the opportunities, a number of things can limit you. The fact that pregnancy can control and limit doesn’t mean it will. And in this context, it leads to preposterous conclusions. For example:

Chinchillas can have the effect - intentionally or unintentionally - of controlling women and limiting their opportunities for advancement in society.

It doesn’t matter that children aren’t exactly the same as chinchillas (if pushed I could probably come up with something closer) because the example doesn’t become invalid due to magnitude. Not to mention that something being more difficult inclines itself to being subjective.

The assumption here is that without contraceptives one could not choose. As noted above, this is simply not true.

For many women, it IS true.

Maybe I should've explained myself better in my first post, but I'm mainly thinking of the developing world. I think there are many places where the best way to improve the standard of living is to empower women, and I think the two best ways to go about this are to educate girls and to give women the ability to choose not to have (or to delay) kids, even if their husbands have other ideas.

Now, arguing that the other methods of controlling your reproduction don’t work or are impractical is another matter entirely, but there are other methods nonetheless and this point can’t even be raised until you can prove that the other methods somehow incapacitate women from choosing.

AFAIK, with only one exception, all "Catholic-approved" methods of birth control or family planning rely on the cooperation of both the husband and wife.

The only exception to this that I can think of is abstinence. However, it seems to me that this option is actually somewhat discouraged by the Catholic church for married couples, and as I touched on earlier, it's just not a practical option for women in many parts of the world.

Lack of contraception doesn’t have to mean more children.

At a societal level, yes, it does. Every tool we add to our toolbox means that we're able to handle a somewhat larger spectrum of circumstances, and the easier we make it for people to do something, the more likely they are to do it. All else being equal, a society with all the "Catholic Church approved" family planning methods plus a range of other options like condoms and hormonal birth control will be better at controlling the number of children it has than a society that only has the "Catholic Church approved" methods.

The prepared bit is irrelevant to this discussion as it is a point of agreement between us. However, besides the financial elements, who is ever truly prepared? Each one of my kids has been different and many things that truly burdened us were beyond our control.

I disagree. I think it's entirely relevant when we look at the harm that results from the Catholic Church's stance on this issue.

And I'm not just talking about the normal level of anxiety that every parent has; I'm talking about people who realize that they're truly unready for children or simply not cut out to be parents at all. When these people have contraception, they will have fewer children.

Also, I think it's just common sense that we're better prepared for things we plan for than unexpected things. An even when we consider people who make good parents, I think that on the whole, they'll do a better job when their child is planned rather than unplanned.

Where I think this is especially important is in the effect that these children have on society. For example (though I realize it's about abortion, not contraception, but I think it's still relevant in the context of reproductive control and having unwanted children): The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to shift the focus of things here a bit and get to where I think the real burden of proof lies in this debate:

IMO, any imposition on a person's freedom needs to be justified. So what's the justification to not let people be free to use condoms or other birth control if they so choose?

I think the Catholic Church's stance causes harm in all sorts of ways, but when it comes right down to it, even if no harm resulted at all, I think it would still be wrong for the Church to try to get in the way of people's freedom for no good reason.

Also (and this is probably going to get into the issue of the inconsistencies I alluded to in my first post), IMO, any justification that is logically inconsistent or contradictory is by definition not valid, and is therefore not a reasonable basis to deny someone else's freedom.

So... why oppose contraception?

And I don't just mean for yourself - if you don't want to use birth control, that's your business. What skin is it off your nose (or the Church's nose) if I or someone in Africa decides to use a condom?

 

[Quiddity]

I'll be back and give your points the time they deserve.

As to your initial point......"I notice something strange"......about shifting the burden of proof. What do you think a debate is if not the burden shifting back and forth? It wouldn't be much of debate if I didn't ask you to back up a claim.

If this is what you were expecting then I would have invited you to the DIR. In there, the onus is definately on me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll be back and give your points the time they deserve.

As to your initial point......"I notice something strange"......about shifting the burden of proof. What do you think a debate is if not the burden shifting back and forth? It wouldn't be much of debate if I didn't ask you to back up a claim.

I'm fine with that; I was just expecting some claims from your side, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just something else I was thinking about: I think the line is blurring a bit here. We're talking about Catholic teaching... IOW, what the Church itself does.

I think we need to make a distinction between some hypothetical scenario where everyone abides by the Catholic Church's rules and the actual effects of the Church saying, basically, "hey, everyone! Abide by our rules!"

IMO, the Catholic Church's public stances on these sorts of issues has been generally awful at getting people to stop having "unapproved" sex. OTOH, it's been fairly successful at doing things to limit contraceptive availability in many places.

In many cases, when a person who doesn't care about Church teaching can't get condoms because of the Church's interference, the result isn't abstinence, it's unprotected sex... with all the risks that this entails, including pregnancy and STDs.

 

[Quiddity]

Just something else I was thinking about: I think the line is blurring a bit here. We're talking about Catholic teaching... IOW, what the Church itself does.

I think we need to make a distinction between some hypothetical scenario where everyone abides by the Catholic Church's rules and the actual effects of the Church saying, basically, "hey, everyone! Abide by our rules!"

IMO, the Catholic Church's public stances on these sorts of issues has been generally awful at getting people to stop having "unapproved" sex. OTOH, it's been fairly successful at doing things to limit contraceptive availability in many places.

In many cases, when a person who doesn't care about Church teaching can't get condoms because of the Church's interference, the result isn't abstinence, it's unprotected sex... with all the risks that this entails, including pregnancy and STDs.

I'm not trying to blurr the line here, I was taking you at your every claim and was going to take them to their logical conclusion in an effort to show the erroneous logic behind it all. If it's on shaky ground, then you can't make the claims you are making unless they are no more then a "in my opinion..." with unqualified commentaries to back it up.

To be clear, this isn't an attempt to somehow make you see how wonderful and right the catholic church's view on sexuality is; I know that is simply going to remain a matter of disagreement.

In an effort to make the line clearer, this is an effort to try to show you how the Church's teaching does no such harm that you claim. However, I'm unclear on what you mean by "what the Church itself does."...Do you speak of actions taken by the RCC with regard to removing contraceptives and things of that nature? Because if that's the case, then I'll tell you right off the bat that actions are going to do little to move this conversation (and pretty much any conversations with RC's) forward because no actions are protected by divine intervention.

IOW, I can actually agree with you that Bishops are not doing a great job of dealing with the Africa situation in a more practical way, but would fight tooth and nail that the teaching itself is what's doing the harm [As an example].

Let address your post above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In an effort to make the line clearer, this is an effort to try to show you how the Church's teaching does no such harm that you claim. However, I'm unclear on what you mean by "what the Church itself does."...Do you speak of actions taken by the RCC with regard to removing contraceptives and things of that nature? Because if that's the case, then I'll tell you right off the bat that actions are going to do little to move this conversation (and pretty much any conversations with RC's) forward because no actions are protected by divine
intervention.

What I was trying to get at with that distinction is that the Catholic Church doesn't cause abstinence directly; it teaches about abstinence (among other things), and these teachings have a spectrum of effects. Some of these effects are aligned with Catholic teaching (e.g. encouraging actual abstinence, when it happens) and some aren't (e.g. discouraging condom use, even in people who aren't going to be abstinent), but if we're going to look at the harm of the Church's positions, we have to consider that full spectrum of effects... even the effects that the Church doesn't approve of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IOW, I can actually agree with you that Bishops are not doing a great job of dealing with the Africa situation in a more practical way, but would fight tooth and nail that the teaching itself is what's doing the harm [As an example].

Sorry - I shouldn't have jumped over this, because I think this raises an important point as well.

When I'm looking at the effects of the Catholic Church, I can only judge it by what it actually says and does, not by some standard of an archetypal Catholic Church that always abides by its own rules, because that archetypal Catholic Church doesn't exist.

This means that when that crazy bishop spouts off conspiratorial nonsense, I don't really care that much whether what he's saying is "God-approved" or not. I'm much more concerned with more pedestrian, "temporal" matters: things like how the rest of the Church responds when he says these things and what they do to rein him in.

 

[Quiddity]

What I was trying to get at with that distinction is that the Catholic Church doesn't cause abstinence directly; it teaches about abstinence (among other things), and these teachings have a spectrum of effects. Some of these effects are aligned with Catholic teaching (e.g. encouraging actual abstinence, when it happens) and some aren't (e.g. discouraging condom use, even in people who aren't going to be abstinent), but if we're going to look at the harm of the Church's positions, we have to consider that full spectrum of effects... even the effects that the Church doesn't approve of.

Even if the effects clearly go against what the Church actually teaches?

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry - I shouldn't have jumped over this, because I think this raises an important point as well.

When I'm looking at the effects of the Catholic Church, I can only judge it by what it actually says and does, not by some standard of an archetypal Catholic Church that always abides by its own rules, because that archetypal Catholic Church doesn't exist.

This means that when that crazy bishop spouts off conspiratorial nonsense, I don't really care that much whether what he's saying is "God-approved" or not. I'm much more concerned with more pedestrian, "temporal" matters: things like how the rest of the Church responds when he says these things and what they do to rein him in.

You do realize that catholics argue with catholics endlessly on this very stuff?

The problem here also that it's always deemed as something that RC teaches or is "God approved" (specifically by the media). It's rarely put as "this Bishop said.....". That makes a world of difference and people simply don't go beyond that to educate themselves about the difference. Nonetheless, I'm talking to you and not the media or the masses.

So tell me, would you pin things like the Pope believes in aliens (and it's effects) on the Catholic Church? Or if a certain Bishop said bigfoot was real?

Want to make sure I'm understanding you here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if the effects clearly go against what the Church actually teaches?

If those effects are foreseeable, then yes.

Here's an analogy: I think I've mentioned that I'm a transportation engineer, right? If I'm designing a highway, I don't design it based on the assumption that everyone will drive under the speed limit, even if that's what I really want everyone to do. Instead, I design the highway based on the speed that they'll actually go.

If I know that the 85th percentile speed that people will take a curve at is 60 mph, I would be professionally reckless if I designed the curve for a 50 mph design speed, even if I made sure that there was a clearly signed speed limit of 45 mph.

In a similar way, if a priest, bishop or Pope knows that when he teaches "don't have extra-marital sex and don't use condoms", a portion of his audience will accept the "don't use condoms" part but not the "don't have extra-marital sex" part, he's being similarly reckless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You do realize that catholics argue with catholics endlessly on this very stuff?

The problem here also that it's always deemed as something that RC teaches or is "God approved" (specifically by the media). It's rarely put as "this Bishop said.....". That makes a world of difference and people simply don't go beyond that to educate themselves about the difference. Nonetheless, I'm talking to you and not the media or the masses.

So tell me, would you pin things like the Pope believes in aliens (and it's effects) on the Catholic Church? Or if a certain Bishop said bigfoot was real?

Want to make sure I'm understanding you here.

They'd be part of the mix. Another part of the mix would be how the rest of the Church responds to it.

As another analogy, if I heard a politician say something racist and he was condemned by his party, I would probably think that the party as a whole isn't racist, even if that one politician is. OTOH, if the party lets the remark go or actually endorses it, then this would make me look at the party differently.

But again, if we're looking at harm, then we have to look at actual effects. If all that arguing between Catholics doesn't make a difference in the Church's effects, it isn't really relevant, is it?

 

[Quiddity]

If those effects are foreseeable, then yes.

Here's an analogy: I think I've mentioned that I'm a transportation engineer, right? If I'm designing a highway, I don't design it based on the assumption that everyone will drive under the speed limit, even if that's what I really want everyone to do. Instead, I design the highway based on the speed that they'll actually go.

If I know that the 85th percentile speed that people will take a curve at is 60 mph, I would be professionally reckless if I designed the curve for a 50 mph design speed, even if I made sure that there was a clearly signed speed limit of 45 mph.

In a similar way, if a priest, bishop or Pope knows that when he teaches "don't have extra-marital sex and don't use condoms", a portion of his audience will accept the "don't use condoms" part but not the "don't have extra-marital sex" part, he's being similarly reckless.

It’s probably difficult from your vantage point to come up with an exact analogy. As we don’t believe moral mandates actually come from any of the clergy; but simply put, protectors of it. In that sense, they aren’t designing anything (even if you don’t believe that is the case). God wouldn’t design something with consideration of man’s sins in mind. What kind of God would that? That He should consider that people are going to steal, rape, lie, etc…………if they are going to do that anyways, why not design a world where nothing is unmovable and objective? Where the laws change to accommodate the lawlessness that happens to be in vogue? I consider you to be a man of moral conviction and feel confident enough to say that this analogy taken to its end would produce some unsettling and ridiculous conclusions that even you couldn’t stomach.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It’s probably difficult from your vantage point to come up with an exact analogy. As we don’t believe moral mandates actually come from any of the clergy; but simply put, protectors of it.

So they're not responsible for their actions?

In that sense, they aren’t designing anything (even if you don’t believe that is the case). God wouldn’t design something with consideration of man’s sins in mind.

You may be focusing on the wrong aspect of the analogy. I wasn't trying to focus on the idea of design per se, but on the larger idea that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions that they can foresee.

Here's the main point I was trying to get at with my analogy: if a person's act of telling others to behave in a certain way results in them behaving in a way that the person doesn't approve of, he's still responsible if he could foresee the outcome even if he doesn't like the outcome.

What kind of God would that? That He should consider that people are going to steal, rape, lie, etc…………if they are going to do that anyways, why not design a world where nothing is unmovable and objective? Where the laws change to accommodate the lawlessness that happens to be in vogue? I consider you to be a man of moral conviction and feel confident enough to say that this analogy taken to its end would produce some unsettling and ridiculous conclusions that even you couldn’t stomach.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Quiddity]

So they're not responsible for their actions?

C’mon, you know that’s not what I meant. The point was to note that the analogy wasn’t perfect as priests wouldn’t be the designers.

You may be focusing on the wrong aspect of the analogy. I wasn't trying to focus on the idea of design per se, but on the larger idea that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions that they can foresee.

Here's the main point I was trying to get at with my analogy: if a person's act of telling others to behave in a certain way results in them behaving in a way that the person doesn't approve of, he's still responsible if he could foresee the outcome even if he doesn't like the outcome.

I understood that. This ties in with the bit that you didn’t understand above. Let me ask you this:

Say you ask your son not to color the walls with a crayon and telling your son to behave in a certain way (not to color the walls) results in him behaving in a way that you don’t approve of, would you still be responsible if you could foresee the outcome even if you don’t like the outcome?

I mean, you could apply this in all sorts of ways and come up with a hundred different silly conclusions. You are essentially holding them responsible for not changing their beliefs to something more practical when it’s not unrealistic to expect them to abstain and live a life that doesn’t revolve around sex.

Keep in mind that we haven’t even considered if abstinence and fidelity educational programs have had any sort of positive effects on getting rid of AIDS. Uganda is probably one of the largest concentrations of areas that actually get plenty of Catholic influence and it’s also the most successful of getting rid of AIDS. Granted, condoms are still available in that area but you may be surprised to see how many people actually use them. People there know how passing out condoms like candy has failed miserably in other parts of Africa. Essentially most of Africa has adopted a quasi-catholic view in that now condoms comes with education and what is of more value is the education, without people actually resorting to condom use. Especially since people were already using condoms before.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

C’mon, you know that’s not what I meant. The point was to note that the analogy wasn’t perfect as priests wouldn’t be the designers.

I understood that. This ties in with the bit that you didn’t understand above. Let me ask you this:

Say you ask your son not to color the walls with a crayon and telling your son to behave in a certain way (not to color the walls) results in him behaving in a way that you don’t approve of, would you still be responsible if you could foresee the outcome even if you don’t like the outcome?

That depends - what's the foreseeable outcome?

I mean, you could apply this in all sorts of ways and come up with a hundred different silly conclusions. You are essentially holding them responsible for not changing their beliefs to something more practical when it’s not unrealistic to expect them to abstain and live a life that doesn’t revolve around sex.

Let's set aside the analogies, because they seem to be confusing the issue. Instead, I'll lay things out directly: when you know - or ought to know - that you can't stop people from having sex, when you try to take their condoms away, you're implicitly trying to cause STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

Keep in mind that we haven’t even considered if abstinence and fidelity educational programs have had any sort of positive effects on getting rid of AIDS. Uganda is probably one of the largest concentrations of areas that actually get plenty of Catholic influence and it’s also the most successful of getting rid of AIDS. Granted, condoms are still available in that area but you may be surprised to see how many people actually use them. People there know how passing out condoms like candy has failed miserably in other parts of Africa. Essentially most of Africa has adopted a quasi-catholic view in that now condoms comes with education and what is of more value is the education, without people actually resorting to condom use. Especially since people were already using condoms before.

Funny - I think that Uganda is a good example for my side.

It tried abstinence-only programs and they were generally failures. It was only when they went to the "ABC" program that they started to have real success. Note the "C" in "ABC":

(BTW: it makes me kinda smile to see "condomise" as a verb )

I think the real lesson that we can draw from Africa is that merely passing out condoms isn't enough, but programs that incorporate both condoms and education can be very effective... unlike abstinence education alone, which is generally ineffective.

Edit: BTW - since when is "condoms and education" the Catholic - or even "quasi-Catholic" - view?

 

[Quiddity]

That depends - what's the foreseeable outcome?

The outcome seemed so radiantly obvious that I was reading sacarsm or that you were joking in some way.

The outcome would be crayon colored walls.

It would be nice if you could explain why you wouldn't be responsible in this scenerio.

Let's set aside the analogies, because they seem to be confusing the issue. Instead, I'll lay things out directly: when you know - or ought to know - that you can't stop people from having sex, when you try to take their condoms away, you're implicitly trying to cause STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

You and I are not going to see eye to eye on what human sexuality what its intended purpose is for, but the idea that you think humans are incapable of controling their sexual drives [this is indeed implied in what you are saying] is offensive when you happen to be directing it at an entire continent like Africa (without meaning to be).

Funny - I think that Uganda is a good example for my side.

It tried abstinence-only programs and they were generally failures. It was only when they went to the "ABC" program that they started to have real success. Note the "C" in "ABC":

(BTW: it makes me kinda smile to see "condomise" as a verb )

I think the real lesson that we can draw from Africa is that merely passing out condoms isn't enough, but programs that incorporate both condoms and education can be very effective... unlike abstinence education alone, which is generally ineffective.

Edit: BTW - since when is "condoms and education" the Catholic - or even "quasi-Catholic" - view?

When the west started their support of abstinence programs in Africa people were outraged. Contraceptive companies and left wing analysts in Europe and America were watching it like hawks. As soon as they could comment they did and they tried to railroad the programs into the ground. But as with all programs they take time to take effect. If you search through articles about abstinence programs in Africa, you'll see nothing but sharp, biased, leftist criticism up until about 2007. But it sharply falls off radar around 2008 onward and you don't hear much else about the matter in the way of criticism. Why do you think this is? Because it works. In countries that have employed the abstinence programs, they've been able to stop and in some cases reverse the spread of AIDS in their provinces. That's a feat that contraceptive programs can't compete with. I'll also add that condoms were still available to those populations during abstinence programs, but did not constitute the primary focus of the initiative.

Tell you what, it should be fairly easy for you to provide a peer review article from the CDC or equivalent showing how such programs are mere fairy tales and don't work. We can continue from there.