22 Jun '07 16:48>
Originally posted by lucifershammerLOL. Hey Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?
Maybe you're just shutting your eyes to reality to accomodate a simplistic ideology.
D
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSo because intercourse may be the second method that AIDS is being transmitted, the Catholic Church are the "most successful" in helping the fight against AIDS by teaching non-use of condoms?
Happily, then, heterosexual intercourse may not even be the main vector for HIV transmission:
Potterat, J.J., Brewer, D.D., Muth, S.Q., & Brody, S. (2007). Converging evidence suggests nonsexual HIV transmission among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 290-293.
Brewer, D. D., Gisselquist, D., Brody, S., & Potterat ...[text shortened]... transmission in Ugandan children. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 45, 253-254.
Originally posted by lucifershammerUnder the rules of the Catholic Church, abuse of children isn't allowed. But it happens, right?
Under the rules of Magdalene asylums, non-consecrated residents were free to leave when they wished it. Do you have substantiation for your "could never leave unless a family member signed them out" claim? If you look at the Wikipedia Talk page you will see that such claims have been removed because they cannot be substantiated.
Originally posted by RagnorakMy point is that, if the Catholic Church is recommending sexual abstinence as a means of combating HIV transmission via heterosexual intercourse, when sexual abstinence is inferior to wearing latex as means of preventing STDs generally, then it is just as well if the transmission of HIV through heterosexual intercourse may be a secondary mode of transmission.
I'm afraid I've missed your point then. Specifically, what part of my post were you referring to when you quoted the studies?
D