Fighting “climate change”…with free condoms
Population control has always been behind the green agenda:
The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: “Women with access to reproductive health services … have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions.”
“As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth’s capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic,” the report said.
The world’s population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. “The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect,” the report said.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Electric Cars in China May Be Worse for the Environment Than Gas-Powered Cars
February 13, 2012 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Super Bowl Ad: ET’s Visit Earth to Make Sure Their Tax Dollars Didn’t Fund the Volt
February 2, 2012 11:00 PM by Doug Powers
72 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
Global Warmists Seek to Flush Out ‘Denier’ Meteorologists
January 30, 2012 04:09 PM by Doug Powers
104 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits,global warming
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Because condoms STILL pose a risk. Because you don’t tell someone you love them then risk exposing them to a disease that will end their life earlier than it otherwise might.
That’s not love. That’s selfish – you’re risking the health and well-being of someone you claim to love for a few minutes’ pleasure. In other words, you’re using that person, contrary to their human dignity, as a vessel for YOUR pleasure. And if you give them AIDS, well, you tried…you used a condom. Sex is supposed to be the ultimate expression of love, which means it’s not borne of selfishness, but of giving. When that giving threatens the life and well-being of your loved one, the loving thing to do is abstain, not engage in risky behavior.
It makes no sense. AIDS is a disease that we could have pretty much eradicated from this earth in a generation if we didn’t think the right to sex trumps the need to act responsibly in the face of a epidemic virus like AIDS. Unlike cancer, or Alzheimer’s, we know – by and large – how AIDS is contracted in a majority of cases. Through sexual contact. Something people can control and abstain from for the sake of destroying AIDS.
I don’t understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp.
EQ:
…and if you don’t know you have HIV? What if you are married and you both want to have sex? What if one suspects the other wasn’t always 100% faithful?
What about people that are going to have sex with or without condoms?
It’s not difficult to grasp, it’s just completely unworkable. You might as well ask people to not drive so as to avoid traffic accidents (coming back to my analogy).
You position (and the Pope’s) is nonsense. It’s exactly like seriously thinking that seatbelts are bad and will lead to reckless driving. Maybe some pople will drive recklessly, but to honestly believe that the net effect will be negative is absurd. It’s obviously grounded in the Catholic idea that birth control is a sin.
No they don’t. They migigate the risk. The risk is sex and people will do that with or without seatbelts.
See, I guess unlike you, I believe people are not animals and are capable of self-control to the point of abstinence.
You may think it’s “unworkable” to abstain; I think it’s “unworkable” to take a risk. You also assume people are going to USE condoms when they have sex.
Yeah, that’s totally it. The deal here is not infecting someone with a fatal STD, it’s about birth control. It has nothing to do with the fact people are dying in droves after contracting a disease we could have stopped by encouraging abstinence.
Your position is nonsense. As is your analogy. We’re not talking about driving here, we’re talking about an STD.
The Pope doesn’t teach abstinence and promote the use of condoms for several reasons of Catholic theology. If people had any understanding of the point the Pope is making then they wouldn’t ask such moronic questions.
It is in some small way like expecting Smokey Bear to urge people not to start forest files while handing out “The Beginner’s Guide to Arson.”
Some people reject what they never even take time to understand…
EQ:
Hyperbole. You must also believe that everyone is a safe driver.
It is unworkable. Furthermore, condoms don’t hurt anymore than seatbelts do.
Some will, some won’t that’s obvious. So what?
Oh for god’s sake, then preach BOTH. What is the problem there?
Explain what is wrong with my analogy.
It’s really more like telling them to prevent forest fires while handing out extinquishers.
No! It isn’t and that is precisely the point. You don’t understand what the Pope and other Christians are saying on the subject and why they are taking that position and you reject something you don’t begin to understand.
WE82:
Then explain it. Condoms clearly help reduce the spread of HIV. They certainly do not hurt. Are you seriously suggesting that the pope is correct and they actually do the opposite?
It is clear that you cannot begin to fathom the Catholic or Evangelical views on these topics. Try thinking outside your evidently incredibly narrow world view.
At least I understand your argument before I reject it. Why don’t you try that for a change…
WE82:
…waiting…
Wait on! Try to exhibit a little intellectual curiosity and see if you can posit one or more reasons why the Pope might take the stand he takes? Try to understand why Jerry Falwell might have taken a slightly different stand from the official Catholic theology on the use of condoms and abstinence.
It is called thinking. See if you are up to it. Waiting back atchya…
WE82:
Ummm… because it conflicts with their dogma concerning birth control and they don’t want to admit they are wrong thereby proving the Church isn’t infallible? Does it occur to you that there are countless very religuous Protestants (and otherwise) who agree with me that the Pope is dead wrong on this issue?
Goodnight WE82.
You utterly fail to exhibit even the most juvenile understanding of the various points from Catholic and Evangelical Protestant views of the issues presented here.
I am a theologically conservative Protestant and at least I understand the points the Pope is making. And I do not accept the Catholic prohibition on birth control. But you can’t even bring yourself to consider the various issues. Again, your reject something you not only do not understand. You reject something you have obviously never even considered!
EPIC.FAIL.
This exemplifies precisely the attitude of the condom tossers: That flippant attitude of “So what?”
So what if a bunch of brown-skinned people in Africa contract AIDS? Right? At least WE feel morally superior to the Pope by tossing rubbers at them and telling them to be safe. While at the same time pretending to believe sex inside the context of marriage is suddenly so sacrosanct that we can rest assured knowing we tried to protect them, while leaving these same brown-skinned people to die agonizing deaths at the hands of AIDS. So what? At least our intentions were good. So what? At least we attempted to foist our libertine attitudes toward sex on them. So what if they die? Right?
As I said above, condoms to not stop the spread of AIDS totally. If we were talking about chlamydia – something that’s treatable – you’d have a workable argument. Condoms encourage people to have more sex, believing it’s safe to do so, when in reality they’re still exposing people to the AIDS virus.
And – as you said – people may not know they have the disease, use condoms, and therefore pass along the disease to another unknowing person it’s a vicious circle.
Harvard AIDS expert Edward C. Green also agrees with the Pope, and he’s hardly a Papist (emphasis mine):
I can’t see how the Pope is wrong on this. Especially since “risk compensation” is what I was talking about.
englishqueen,
(Just an odd coincidence with your screen name and the topic here, I suppose.)
ZA will not begin to think about why the Pope takes the stand he does. He obviously has never considered Christian theology on the many issues involving abstinence and birth control.
He rejects out of hand what he has not considered. That is the ultimate arrogance of the atheist. I have no problem with an agnostic who says he does not know the truth.
On the other hand I have virtually no tolerance for someone who claims to know all truth while clearly not even examining the evidence that hits them in the face daily.
I find that level of arrogance, while claiming intellectual superiority, remarkable.
Actually, my screen name is a reference to my major, so it is just a coincidence.
As I said before I do not believe that the belief sex is a fundamental right trumps the obligation people have to prevent the spread of a fatal, incurable STD.
I do not understand how exposing people to even a minimal risk – but still a risk – of contracting HIV/AIDS is in any way morally superior to promoting abstinence. I do not understand how it either affirms or expresses love to risk your loved one’s health for a few minutes of sexual pleasure.
I also do not understand how we can put sexual liberation before eradicating a fatal disease from the planet – something we could do if we encouraged abstinence.
There are people who believe that humans are simply animals and cannot, should not and must not control certain passions regardless of how dangerous those passions may be.
We can be commanded to abstain from smoking tobacco or eating trans fats or driving faster than 65 mph. But we cannot be told that we can abstain from sex. Amazing.
We don’t teach our children abstinence but show them how to put a condom on a banana. They will never use a condom outside of marriage and therefore, they won’t need to know how to do it until they are married if they choose to use birth control.
It is the same logic that prevails at “fire prevention week” at the local elementary school. The firemen don’t come into the school and teach kids how to use a fire extinguisher followed by a lesson on how to commit arson. Some how these people get it during “fire prevention week” but reject the same logic in this one case.
There is no such thing as “safe sex” outside a monogamous, life-long union between one man and one woman.
Condoms, if used “properly,” may lower the risks associated with some types of behavior but it doesn’t mean condoms lower the all the risks of all types of behavior by the same amount.
Condoms give a false sense of “safety” while exposing people to the risk of incurable diseases (ask some of my friends with genital herpes) or fatal diseases (ask my friends who are HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS).
I know several women who became mothers after their partner used a condom.
I agree. But I also believe in the dignity of the human person that elevates us to a level higher and more responsible than animals. And that we have done far too much to undermine the sacrament of marriage and are reaping what we’ve sown.
So does the Pope. This doesn’t mean he’s going to encourage further disintegration of the union, or the dignity of the human person, to placate the libidos of the sexually liberated.
Sigh… I see the ever revolving condoms are just as good a “fool” proof method (emphasis on fool) as abstinence argument continues. Way to go guys.
Why should the Church be “wrong?” The Catholic Church exists in a different universe than you or I. Why is it even up to you to tell them what to do? I find this a bit perplexing. I don’t think the Church is fallible because they want people to remain “true” to the faith which means exhibiting a little bit of “self-control” before marriage. I think it a reasonable expectation given how completely a$$-backwards humanity has become regarding things like sex but I still think it a lofty goal.
What do the beliefs of very “religious” Protestants have to do with the dogma of the Catholic Church? They’re completely different faiths. Just because they think the Pope is wrong has no material bearing on his positions or choices. As a fallen Presbyterian myself, I find it kinda funny that you, an atheist, are using Protestants, to prove that you’re “right.”
Don’t you understand that the Catholic Church is beyond your ken and considerations? They do not exist to please you. They will pray for you but only those within the Church and not those without, have any real bearing on church doctrine.
ZA wants the Pope and Jerry Falwell to consult him on all matters of procreation. It is okay if Jerry takes a bit longer to contact ZA than the Pope…
Then we seem to agree. I have been married to the same women for nearly 20 years. It is amazing that she hasn’t killed me but I know we will never divorce!
WE82:
I reject it because it makes no sense, obviously. I certainly have considered it many times as I was a practicing Christian for years. Anyhow, you seem to agree as you reject it too.
EQ:
We have gotten along in the past, I don’t see why you need to elevate it to the level of basically calling me a racist. Anyhow, that is slanderous. I never said that, don’t be an a$$. It’s hyperbole and strawman. I am not saying that the Pope should preach libertine attitudes toward sex. I am saying the Pope should give his exact same message AND encourage condom use for those that must or will have sex (prostitutes for example). Can you manage to make a post without hyperbole and strawman?
So, you are seriously suggesting that condoms make the problem worse? You honestly believe that Africans will have so much more sex that they will outstrip the very effective protections offered by condoms? That’s absurd and is exactly like my seatbelt analogy.
As for Green, show me his data. I can quote other sources saying the opposite.
WE82:
Ummm… that is exactly what religious people do.
EQ:
For god’s sake. STRAWMAN!
S-T-R-A-W-M-A-N. As I said before, I am not recommending the Pope preach libertine attitudes toward sex.
WE82:
Ummm… well you certainly won’t get sex laws passed in the US much less Africa.
They also don’t pretend to think that people aren’t going to use the stove or have a campfire once in awhile.
Unfortunately for some people, you can never be certain if your life-long partner is always being monogamous. Furthermore, you aren’t going to stop people from having sex outside marriage. Well, maybe unless you plan on instituting a Theocracy. Good luck.
How do you feel about seatbelts?
Emjem24:
False dichotomy.
For the same reason that I can say Muslims are wrong.
I am saying that even other people who are religious and against sex outside of marriage are sane enough to recognize that condoms can only help.
EQ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green#Controversy:_Pope_Benedict_and_the_distribution_of_condoms
So there you go, the study was flawed and Green himself thinks condoms should be made available.
It would be ever so much more helpful if ZA actually read posts before replying. It would be even more helpful if he possessed the capacity to comprehend the posts he responded to. But it appears neither is likely to happen in this life.
There are so many idiotic statements in his last two posts that it I now conclude he is an inmate at a mental institution or will be very shortly.
EQ:
Let’s just stress that again. I want to bask in this vindication for a bit.
The guy you quoted contradicted himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html
That whole interview is full of waffling and pretending the Pope said something different than what he actually said. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to acknowledge this point. That takes courage. Your move.
WE82:
No points, just ad hominem. Par for the course.
Yes, I agree completely. You make no points, and you make no sense. Par for the course indeed…
Oh, BTW, I am mocking you again.
WE82:
Mock away. I’ll respond when you do something other than ad hominem.
You are very bossy, aren’t you. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Did the hospital not serve your favorite dessert last night?
I’ll mock at my leisure. So many of your rants are certainly “mock-worthy.” But at least you seem to have comprehended at least one line of my last post. That is a splendid improvement for you…
No you won’t. You’ll needle the hell out of, and parse every word, from anyone with a Christian perspective. It is your enemy, in your world view.
So, continue to mock away at the masses who do not think as you do.
jangar:
Notice, I am still here, and I did not respond to WE82′s ad hominem as I said I would not.
Are you going to defend the Pope’s harmful insanity or did you just pop in to take a shot at me? If a “Christian perspective” is that condoms make AIDS worse in Africa then absolutely I will “needle” that asinine idea. Even the person that EQ quoted can’t keep his story straight, that is because the idea is ludicrous.
Yes, you see his failure to respond is a response in his mind so he is responding by not responding…
In his world the Pope urging people to avoid extremely risky sexual behavior that may kill them is “asinine.” In his world it is the people who urge self-restraint that have the problem.
Somehow, that makes sense to ZA. A truly stunning display of “logic” there…
Not so…
The omnipresent one speaks.
Diseases caused from risky behavior kills the body.
License to do one’s own thing kills the soul.
What an ego.
Y’all have a good day.
jangar out-
That is based on the presumption Green’s waffling is because of the Pope’s error.
Could it be – and consider this for a moment – that Green knows people like you are going to crucify him for agreeing with the Pope? So perhaps he’s hesitant not because the Pope is wrong but because he doesn’t want to lose his job.
The condom tossers are, as you clearly prove, extremely intolerant of dissenting points of view.
All I’ll say is this: my husband and I follow the Church’s teachings. For me and those who abstain from sex until marriage and are then monogamous in that marriage, the odds of contracting AIDS is, therefore, absolutely zero. Which means the Pope is right.
God’s plan for marriage and family always works.
Man’s ideas for marriage and family leads us to discussions such as this.
WE82:
Strawman. For the millionth time: the Pope should keep his message identical while recognizing that condoms HELP.
EQ:
Oh I see, so he believes his job is more important that people dying in Africa? This is despite sticking his neck out in the first place. Why did he even bring it up to begin with then? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. Green agrees with me that condoms help and he said as much. He was just twisting what the Pope said.
Riiight… you were the one that called me a racist and can barely get through a post without flinging hyperbole and strawman like a chimp tosses feces. I deserve an apology for that (for god’s sake I’m in an interracial marriage with a “mixed” child!)
However, that’s not what the Pope said. He said that condom distribution makes the problem worse. Even the person you quoted can’t stick to his guns on that idea.
Jangar:
Do you agree with the Pope? Do condoms make the AIDS crisis in Africa worse? Should they not be sent to Africa based on that?
Except, of course, when those pesky Africans just won’t listen, but oh no, no seatbelts! Drive safe or else!
Except you miss the Pope’s point again. You still cannot fathom the Pope’s message in defense of Catholic teachings on abstinence, sex and pro-creation. Literally, you cannot bring yourself to understand what the man is saying…
It is remarkable that you so obviously fail to understand the Pope’s message while excoriating him for disagreeing with your own “exalted” point of view.
Arrogance and ego, thy name is ZeroIntellect!
In the interest of full disclosure, for those of you marveling at ZI’s inability to think and comprehend the Pope’s view, please note I am a theologically conservative Evangelical and not a Catholic.
WE82:
Oh for god’s sake. I am not taking issue with his stance on abstinence, sex and pro-creation! I am taking issue with his claim that condom distribution makes the problem worse!
Ssss…
Tttt…
Rrrr…
Aaaa…
Wwww…
Mmmm…
Aaaa…
Nnnn…
You do realize that any attempt to prove to Christians or more specifically, Catholics, that their faith is a bunch of made up mumbo-jumbo is a fruitless effort?
Among that which we are certain of is that you are wrong and God is right.
NJ-Aviator:
Way to miss the point, just like jangar. Do you agree with the Pope? Do condoms make the problem worse?
Is the Pope speaking for god? Does god think condoms make the problem worse?
Your claiming something you cannot understand is a “strawman” does not make it so.
Clearly, you have not, and evidently cannot, comprehend a position you violently disagree with. That isn’t a “strawman.” That is the same “blinkered philistine pig-ignorance” that is so characteristic of your posts that aren’t simply incomprehensible.
I have a problem when eco-tyrants look at the global warming “problem” and decide the solution is to reduce populations. Seeing as most Western nations and first-world countries (like Japan) have low, zero, or negative birth rates, the logical conclusion is that they’re focusing their efforts on reducing populations that are, by and large, not whites of European decent and not Asian.
I find that insulting. And, yes, racist.
I apologize that you believe I was calling you a racist; I was parodying the attitudes of condom tossers who believe Africans are incapable of controlling their libidos for the sake of stopping a deadly disease.
I do. And Green did talk about the idea of “risk compensation” – which was my point several posts ago. Telling people they’re “safe” if they used condoms increases the likelihood they’ll have more sex, which – in turn – increases the likelihood they’ll be exposed to and contract AIDS.
Yet, as I said and you fail to acknowledge, the notion that Green is backpedaling has less to do with the Pope’s “error” and Green’s fear of being called a papist shill.
For the last time:
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHY YOUR WORLDVIEW MAKES IT PREFERABLE TO EXPOSE PEOPLE TO A FATAL STD FOR THE SAKE OF THEM HAVING A FEW MINUTES’ SEXUAL PLEASURE.
AIDS has decimated Africa. Unlike cancer or Alzheimer’s or ALS we know how AIDS is spread. You don’t catch AIDS from someone’s sneeze or a hug; you get it through sexual activity. A behavior people can control.
AIDS could have been eradicated in a generation. Encouraging condom use – with or without abstinence – only perpetuates a cycle of infection and death. And I won’t pretend that’s the morally superior or sensible course.
WE82:
. It’s not that I don’t understand the Pope’s position on abstinence, sex, and procreation. It’s that I am not even talking about that part! Jesus effin Christ!
Disagree with what? I haven’t even addressed his postion on abstinence! I am speaking solely of his claim that condoms make the problem worse!
EQ:
Should I just stop reading here? Go back and read all my posts and note where I agreed that this pairing of birth control and enviro-lunacy is just too much.
…and this is exactly like the idea that seatbelt will cause people to drive more recklessly. How is it different?
STRAWMAN. I am not saying that at all! Jesus Christ! All I am saying is that condoms HELP not HURT.
Not everyone will! For those people, having condoms available HELPS!
WHAT?! So comdom use WITH abstinence will kill people? What are condoms doing? Leaping out of their boxes and attacking people?
Empirically speaking, the vast majority of people who use condoms will use condoms improperly and thus expose themselves to risks they need not take. Nobody ever died from not having sex but in the last 20 years a lot of people have died as a direct result of engaging in so-called “safe sex.”
Not every person having “safe sex” with a condom will become infected with an STD. But many of them will because they were given wrong information, or not given sufficient information or not given any information at all. Does “informed consent” ring a bell?
If I lie to you and say something is “safe” when I know it is not safe I bear at least some of the responsibility. It appears the Pope knows that but evidently ZeroIntellect does not.
And this is just the medical perspective on the issue. It does not even address the myriad theological issues involved. It is easy to recognize that condoms lead to an inflated sense of security and lead people to engage in riskier behavior.
ZeroIntellect just cannot see it, even when the theological issues are removed from the equation.
I didn’t miss the point, I was commenting on the larger issue that you made reference to above.
Regarding condoms. Abstinence works better and is in line with the Catholic faith. Why would he have any other position on the subject?
Using condoms is like saying “pretending to shoot your self in the head with a gun loaded with blanks is the best way to avoid shooting yourself in the head.”
I think a better way to avoid it is to not put a gun to your head.
WE82:
No sh|t… you don’t say?
OK, got it, you subscribe to the same idea of “seatbelts cause more accidents” that the Pope does. No surprises there. I am glad you finally managed to make a post without strawman. Bravo!
Oh, please. Now who’s flinging hyperbole and strawmen?
Whether or not condoms are used in conjunction with a program that emphasizes abstinence first, or if they’re handed out on their own, it doesn’t matter. Condoms fail. That was my point. I thought you’d be quick enough to figure that out.
You yourself have admitted that not everyone will control their behavior. You therefore assume that while they can’t abstain, they’ll magically use a condom. Properly and every time. Right. Who’s living in a fantasy world now?
A condom still has a failure rate of at least 3%. Which means the AIDS virus is spread to another person, perhaps even a child.
Who will then be given condoms and told to “be safe” while having sex…and it goes on and on…
I don’t want people to die from AIDS; since we’re still years away from a vaccine or cure, the best way to do that right now is to make abstinence the primary focus. To discourage the notion that condoms magically make sex safe and to discourage the idea that people can’t keep it in their pants (an idea I find insulting and degrading).
But all of this – from population control to condoms and AIDS – boils down to the same fundamental thing:
An inherent lack of respect for the dignity of human life, the gift of sexuality, and the notion that of sex uber alles.
I will not aid and abet that attitude.
NJ-Aviator:
Fair enough.
…because condoms HELP not HURT, as the pope claims.
Except the problem is people regularly and without fail have sex. The same cannot be said for your example.
…so why can’t the Pope preach abstinence and admit that condoms are not making things worse?
One, because it’s not in line with Catholic theology and
Two, because they DO make things worse.
“Risk compensation.” Say that out loud. Repeat as necessary. Until it makes sense.
As for the seat belt analogy, I don’t ever recall anyone saying that seat belts give you a free pass to drive recklessly; only that they reduce the risk of injury in an accident. I’m willing to bet that if you asked people whether or not seat belts compensate for reckless driving they’ll say no.
But I’m also willing to bet that if you ask a lot of people if condoms make sex “safe”, they’ll agree wholeheartedly, and never once consider condoms are not a free pass to promiscuity.
EQ:
One good turn deserves another. Besides, it really wasn’t clear what you were saying.
So what? They often work and work well!
Bullsh|t. Strawman again. Some will, some won’t I already said this last night IIRC. Those that do, will be better off, not worse.
which also means that Africans will have to have more sex by a factor of 30 to overcome the failure rate. Even if you assume that the majority will not use the condom but will still increase sexual behavior it’s still a stretch.
Did you even read the interview I linked for you with Green? One word: backup.
EQ:
DING DING DING DING DING!!! YES! Jesus, I said that long ago.
Riiight… because Green says so, oh wait no he doesn’t…
Who are these people? Catholics? Get real. The reason why the Pope is being attacked is because most sane people realize that what he is saying is stupid. No one sane thinks condoms make it OK to sleep with whomever you want.
ZeroIntellect simply cannot get it. Amazing stupidity! Simply amazing!
If only his parents had followed his advice and used condoms we could have avoided all of his idiocy. I suspect his parents are having second thoughts right about now, too…
“Often”, not always.
Ergo, someone will STILL contract a fatal STD. That’s not good enough for me.
Oh, please. People have sex as casually as they shake hands these days. Here’s an article on having multiple partners (use condoms!) Watch television sometime, the rate of people hopping into the sack with multiple partners is astounding.
And what does this prove? That the Pope is doing his job as leader of the Catholic Church? The same Church that predicted with the rise of contraception the rates of infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, the objectification of women, abortion, and other social ills would also increase? Every last one of those things has happened, correlated and caused by the rise of the contraceptive/abortive mentality that pervades our culture.
Yeah. Criticize the Catholic Church for knowing that sin begets sin. Good gracious.
EQ:
People will contract fatal diseases more often WITHOUT condoms because they will have sex and have no protection!
From your article:
Implicit in that statement is that condoms aren’t 100%. JESUS! How can you be this willfully obtuse?
It proves that this isn’t about Africans and AIDS and is about dogma.
Are you out of your mind? Historically the Catholic Church has been the one oppressing women, not to mention covering up abuse of children. However, the debate about just how good or bad the Catholic Church is is a seperate debate. We are talking about one issue right now, try not to get sidetracked.
EQ01,
You see, the fact that many, many people will make uninformed decisions and die as a direct consequence of using condoms does not matter to ZeroBrain. It is only of consequence that not all of them do.
Never mind that if all of them kept their trousers up and zipped they wouldn’t have encountered this little problem with the condom.
ZeroBrain knows best, or at least better than that stodgy old Pope who just wants to ruin everybody’s sex life.
Maybe we should insist ZeroBrain place some prophylactic device over his keyboard before posting again. It might serve us all if he put one over his head. He is obviously engaging in “unsafe posting.”
…also, the Church’s position on monogamy is seperate from the idea that condoms make things worse. Can’t you get this through your head?
WE82:
Are you even going to try and back up this claim? At least EQ tried with Green, despite that blowing up on her.
Riiight… good luck with that.
Yah, that’s what this is about. My stating outright that it is about the idea that condoms HELP not HURT is a lie.
Alas, he has not yet donned his protective device. Really, shouldn’t you do something about all those CO2 emissions. Think global, act local as it were…
And you still have no comprehension of Catholic teaching on sex, abstinence, procreation and probably not monogamy either. Of course, you think “monogamy” is a hardwood that grows in South America…
Try not to get sidetracked?
You flippantly toss around that comment to me – a Catholic woman who is by no means oppressed – and you expect me to ignore it?
Yeah, right. I am not oppressed by my faith. And those who say otherwise are the ones being condescending and, yes, oppressive. I can introduce you to many, many, many Catholic women who would also take umbrage with your assertion.
If you remember correctly, I was the one who defended you from right4life’s condemning you to hell. I stood up for you, despite the fact we have a great deal of difference in opinion.
I even apologized when you believed I was calling you a racist.
Then you turn around and tell me I’m out of my mind for being a Catholic. Slapping me in the face would have been less painful.
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
I’m done.
A truthful statement isn’t any less truthful regardless of the motive.
Because that wouldn’t have wiped the smug looks off of their face.
This might not be true no matter how counter-intuitive it might be.
Just like requiring child seats on airlines will result in the death of more children. Counter-intuitive, but true.
EQ:
You can’t even manage a single post without strawman. Historically, (not currently) the Catholic Chruch has oppressed women.
I am not saying you are out of your mind for being Catholic. I am saying the Pope is the one out of his mind. Hell, I spoke to a Catholic co-worker the other day about this issue, guess who he agreed with?
Good, because your idea is indefensible. Even if we accept that condoms lead to all these social ills you claim (infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, etc.) it still does not follow that it makes the AIDS problem in Africa worse. BTW, do you use contraception of any kind with your husband?
You can get all pouty about this but your position and the Popes is both stupid and will lead to dead people.
corkie:
A better analogy might be my seat belts and reckless driving analogy. Do you honestly agree with the Pope and others here?
corkie:
…not saying that you agree, you haven’t said you did. Just askin’
That’s not really any of your business, but no, we don’t.
Ah. I shouldn’t be pouty, but I’m stupid. Once again, I promote a behavior that will 100% not lead to the contraction of AIDS or unplanned pregnancies. Ergo, there is not blood on my hands because I’ve spoken the truth.
Don’t try to backpedal. The teachings of the Church on issues related to women has been the same since its inception.
I am not oppressed. Never was. Neither were the generations of women before me who lived with authentic Catholic teaching.
Thanks for showing the misogyny that lurks beneath that atheist veneer.
EQ:
You are still here?
Good for you! At least you are consistent. Now if you don’t mind, do you think its alright that we allow or encourage (for example) African prostitutes to use condoms if they simply refuse to find another job?
No, you could be a very smart person, actually, at times, you have said some very smart things. Right now, you are defending a stupid idea.
Like I said a million times, then promote that behavior AND make condoms available for those that refuse to change.
My original quote:
See that? HISTORICALLY. If you honestly think that the Catholic Church was at the forefront of women’s rights you are insane. For god’s sake, people used to be serious about the “honor and obey” part.
I thought you were done?
No true sctosman.
Riiight… a racist and I hate women too.
Yes, “people”, not the Church. People. Just like some Christians believe women can’t be teachers, or women can’t cut their hair, or women can’t wear pants.
The abuse of Catholic teaching by some does not negate that teaching.
Also, people act as if men had no obligation under the marriage vows. “Obey” was part of them, yes, but so was the notion husbands were to love their wives as themselves, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her (in the most humiliating and painful way at the time, I might add).
So to pretend the word “obey” is part and parcel “proof” of the oppression of Catholic teaching is disingenuous at best.
Okay, I’m not stupid, but I’m “insane.”
Got it.
I won’t be done because it gives you the satisfaction of thinking you’ve “won”; and I won’t be done until you apologize for now calling me stupid and insane.
I apologized for what YOU believed to be a racist comment (how, in nearly 85,000 posts I was supposed to know your wife is of a different race is a mystery to me).
And yes, your contempt for me, a woman, believing in Catholicism is hatred.
I think your position is irresponsible, deadly, and flawed. But I have not called you names.
You called me stupid, and now, insane. That qualifies as misogyny because people like you seem to hate the fact women embrace and believe in Catholicism.
What else could it be called?
EQ:
I’m sorry, does the Church not consist of people now?
Do you even know what “no true scotsman” means?
Do I really have to cite examples of how historically the Catholic Church (and certain religions in a more broad sense) is inherently patriarchal? What the hell…
If you think the Catholic Church led the way in women’s right you are.
LOL! OK, let’s play. Monster thread Mark 2.0 here we come!
Except I didn’t call you stupid, I said you were defending a stupid idea. I also didn’t say you were insane, unless you think as above… do you?
Of course you weren’t supposed to know it. In the same fashion, it was completely absurd to assume I was a racist.
Ummm, what? Where the heck does that come from?
That describes you position perfectly. Tell me again, how would you deal with the African prostitute that refuses to stop turning tricks?
Except I didn’t.
Ummm no. Non sequitur.
So you are calling me insane.
Because I don’t think “women’s rights” has anything to do with promiscuity, contraception or access to abortion or being able to be a priest or in any way acting like a man.
I think “women’s rights” has to do with treating women with the dignity they deserve as created daughters of God. This also means recognizing that women are biologically and mentally/emotionally, different from men.
Not better, not worse, but different. With inherent strengths and weaknesses, and a tendency for abilities and preferences that differ from those of men.
Rodney Stark wrote a book about the history of women in early Christianity. In summation (emphasis mine):
But I guess things were so much better in the pagan cultures; how dare we early Christians liberated women, right?
EQ:
Like I said, if you think the Catholic Church led the way in women’s rights, then yes, and I won’t apologize for it. You are denying very plain history. You might as well be saying the Roman Empire didn’t exist.
Umm… no.
…that’s just one thing. Of course there are historically many more, which you will no doubt try and deny or spin.
Perhaps, last I heard there was research suggesting either way. We don’t know for certain if it’s nature or nurture. I lean toward nature as well, that doesn’t mean the Church has not historically been patriarchal by far.
…right, like for example, women don’t have the skill set to be placed in positions of authority or leadership, like say, leading a church. Makes perfect sense.
As for your quote, strawman again. I am not saying that pagan’s were better. Where did I make that claim?
It’s just not possible for you to avoid using strawman, is it?
EQ:
Did you give up defending yours and the Pope’s stupid idea?
I’m sorry, I don’t think you told me yet what you would do with the African prostitute that refused to find another job.
Did the Catholic Church oppress women or was the Catholic Church merely a part of a society which oppressed women?
No, I’m not. The Pope and I are right. YOU ARE WRONG.
Ten years from now, people who abstain from sex will have managed not to spread AIDS to others or contract it themselves. Meanwhile, your position will continue to throw condoms into Kenya and wonder why AIDS hasn’t gone away.
I’m just not going to argue with someone who fails to see that very real, provable logic.
And I’m not going to. I am not going to give you any more ammunition to twist my words or continue your tirade against the Holy Father.
This says it all. You couldn’t understand the theology behind the male priesthood because you don’t have the honesty to examine it without bias.
My church has never said I don’t have the skill set to be in a leadership position. You’re making that implication and continuing to insult the millions of Catholic women who believe Christ ordained men for a a reason and that we are not marginalized because of it.
As a matter of fact, they trusted me with the very big responsibility of producing a film about the parish for a major fundraiser. Alone. Without male supervision or this “patriarchy” that people are so afraid of. Women in my parish – and countless others – lead parish councils, teach religious education, run groups and social activities.
You’re using the strawman. You said Christianity did nothing for women’s rights historically. I pointed out that before the rise of Christianity, women’s rights were non-existent. If Christianity was no better than paganism, why did it appeal to women living under paganism? Why does it still appeal to women today – women like me who, as adults, converted to Catholicism?
It’s not my fault that cold dose of reality doesn’t fit your anti-Catholic meme.
Best of luck to you in everything.
No. A better analogy is the child seats on airliners.
I don’t know. I’ve never seen any epidemiological studies which suggests that condom distributions reduce the spread of HIV.
corkie:
I guess it’s a hard distinction to make, but surely, the idea that woman cannot be Church leaders is inherently patriarchal and sexist.
EQ:
Says Green, right?
…and those that had sex but used condoms will be better off on the whole than the ones that didn’t.
Strawman again. What is wrong with you?
Right, because you can’t answer it. You can’t answer it because the logical and obvious choice is to give that prostitute condoms and teach her about how important they are and how to use them. You don’t care about her, you care about the Holy Father getting made fun of for being stupid.
You are making excuses for an organization that was historically patriarchal. You are the one that is biased here.
In the PRESENT DAY. STRAWMAN AGAIN. Good god.
No I didn’t. I said it did not lead the way in woman’s rights. Just because it may have been better than pagans at some distant point in the past doesn’t mean it was doing the same thing in the past few centuries.
I have no idea why you converted and I never said that Catholism TODAY is against women’s rights.
I’m anti-religion, not just anti-Catholic.
To include being a racist and misogynist?
corkie:
I think that would suggest that you favor the Pope’s opinion, however, you say that you don’t know.
Consider my example of the prostitute that refuses to get a new job. Would it be helpful to supply her with condoms?
corkie:
Why exactly are child seats on airliners dangerous? They have been shown to be dangerous in themselves, correct?
Yes, it is a well known fact that child seats on airliners have been known to attack children.
There was the famous Lipinsky Incident in 1947 where a child restraint waited until all the passengers on an DC3 were asleep before it attacked an otherwise peaceful child. Fortunately, alert Air Marshalls seized the child restraint and wrestled it to the ground.
This is just one of many such incidents over the years. It was later learned that the child restraint had in fact at one time considered becoming a priest and had a rosary in it’s possession when it was taken into custody. The Catholic Church settled out of court…
Zero misses the point as to why we are having this discussion in the first place. Leftists and atheists muddy the waters as a rule…it’s their self-proclaimed job.
Short answer…YES.
False sense of security, and a ‘bandaid’ that leads to the promotion of sexual activity outside of a marital committment.
Zero sees humans as just another animal in the world, one that does not have the ability to apply reasonable morals, and therefore needs progressives to provide license for poor choices.
I never stated that they were dangerous. I merely stated that requiring them would result in the deaths of more children.
jangar:
Morning jangar. Good job stereotyping atheists again. Did I mention I have consistently voted Republican more or less my whole life based on my defense and fiscal stances?
I’m curious, how would you solve the dilemma of my aforementioned African prostitute? Would you solve it? Or does she deserves to die for being a whore?
corkie:
I never stated that they were dangerous. I merely stated that requiring them would result in the deaths of more children.
Please exaplin because I am not familiar with this.
jangar:
I see, so you also think EQ’s Dr. Green has a point? Does it trouble you that he can’t keep his story straight? Does it bother you that he agrees with me?
We are another animal, and you apparently can’t recognize that there exist social animals other than humans. This is not the point though, you are just trying to pretend to yourself that I think humans as a whole are equal to chimps.
*sorry the above to corkie I screwed up the blockquote.
You have not done the same to Christians at every turn? Especially those who do not fit into your world view? Those whom you see as the enemy to
evolutionaryprogressive thought?jangar:
I have attacked IDEAS. Can’t you get this through your head? How many times have I said that I have absolutely no problem with the religion of moderate Christians like (for example) my wife.
jangar:
The difference between me attacking fundamentalists and you sterotyping atheists is I don’t pretend that all christians are far-right, or “muddy the waters.”
Get it?
Moderates never cramp pop culture, they just go along like sheep.
jangar:
Are you honestly trying to compare moderates to sheep? Pot, kettle…
I see you completely ignored my point that I do not stereotype Christians by making blanket generalizations as you do with atheists.
You also failed to respond ref. our African prostitute.
Obama?
jangar:
Honestly, that was funny and kind of cute. I chuckled. However, it’s still a dodge.
Either have the intellectual courage to admit you don’t care about such a woman and maybe even she deserves to get HIV, or conceed my point.