1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't need to. The objection is purely a priori - infection rates by sexual transmission within a monogamous relationship cannot exceed 50% (assuming no widows/widowers).
Can you find a study that says differently?
Think about it.
But, if you're interested, you might want to check this article out:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/apic-100802.html
Briefly, the authors say that the evidence available from an exhaustive review of research does not support the standard assumption that over 90% of HIV/AIDS in African adults is from heterosexual intercourse. Instead, they argue that (1) the data available is not adequate to make good estimates of the relative importance of means of transmission, and that (2) the likely proportion of transmission through unsafe medical procedures, including injections, transfusions, and other contact with infected blood, is being grossly underestimated.
Speaking with Africa Action, one of the authors, David Gisselquist, while stressing that data was not adequate for good estimates, said that a review of studies linking HIV in African adults to sexual behavior accounts for only about a third of HIV infections, which suggests a very large role for unsafe health care in Africa's HIV epidemic. The implications: while safe sex is vital, measures to provide safe blood supplies, prevent reuse of unsafe needles, and address related issues of medical safety, are just as urgent.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAssuming the relationship is faithful, and the partner has not had prior partners, and so on.
I don't need to. The objection is purely a priori - infection rates by sexual transmission within a monogamous relationship cannot exceed 50% (assuming no widows/widowers).
...The implications: while safe sex is vital, meabsures to provide safe blood supplies, prevent reuse of unsafe needles, and address related issues of medical safety, are just as urgent.[/quote]
Of course contraception is not the only aspect of AIDS prevention. But if someone is infected with a needle or what have you, contraception can prevent the infection from being transmitted.
What are your views on all this? I assume you wouldn't have a problem if the Church said it was ok to use condoms under special circumstances?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAssuming the relationship is faithful, and the partner has not had prior partners, and so on.
Assuming the relationship is faithful, and the partner has not had prior partners, and so on.
Of course contraception is not the only aspect of AIDS prevention. But if someone is infected with a needle or what have you, contraception can prevent the infection from being transmitted.
What are your views on all this? I assume you wouldn't have a problem if the Church said it was ok to use condoms under special circumstances?
The faithfulness of the relationship does not matter - whether one partner is infected by needles or by having an affair with an infected person, the rate of transmission in couples still cannot exceed 50%.
Prior partners would matter but, as I pointed out in my earlier response, your 60-70% figure requires a rather high remarriage rate. The article I cited alludes to this in another way - it points out that African men need to have a considerably higher rate of sexual activity than men in other regions to justify the high numbers commonly circulated.
Originally posted by lucifershammerGoogling "Africa remarriage rate" I find that Mauretania has a 72.5% remarriage rate. I don't have figures for other countries but generally speaking Africans get married very young. The remarriage rate is however apparently getting lower primarily because of AIDS. And haven't you heard of the legendary African libido?! Maybe you could find some figures on remarriage rates to prove your point.
[b]Assuming the relationship is faithful, and the partner has not had prior partners, and so on.
The faithfulness of the relationship does not matter - whether one partner is infected by needles or by having an affair with an infected person, the rate of transmission in couples still cannot exceed 50%.
Prior partners would matter but, as I p ...[text shortened]... te of sexual activity than men in other regions to justify the high numbers commonly circulated.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioFirst of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the use of condoms in all circumstances. For instance, if a woman is about to be raped, I think she is justified in requiring (if possible) that her rapist wear a condom to reduce the chances of transmitting an STD. By extension, a spouse (usually the wife) who is being forced into the sexual act against her wishes (i.e. marital rape), I think she is justified in asking for a condom.
First of all, this doesn't simply apply to husbands who blatantly and
repeatedly disregard the Church's teaching on fidelity. It includes all
people who have reconciled with unfaithful, but HIV+ partners, not to
mention those who acquired it from other means.
And, part of this is about empowerment: if the Church forbids condoms,
then women haven't ...[text shortened]... rcumstance would
enable that % to drop by 5 points. Wouldn't that be worth it?
Nemesio
But that, I believe, will not be the focus of the Vatican document (I don't actually know of any Church document that speaks about the use of contraceptives before rape). Its focus would be on consensual sex between spouses where one member is known to be infected - and that, as your own article points out, is not typical of the African situation (except when dictated by economic factors - where, as your article points out, contraception is the opposite intention of the sexual act).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHere's the whole sentence from the article you found:
Googling "Africa remarriage rate" I find that Mauretania has a 72.5% remarriage rate. I don't have figures for other countries but generally speaking Africans get married very young. The remarriage rate is however apparently getting lower primarily because of AIDS. And haven't you heard of the legendary African libido?! Maybe you could find some figures on remarriage rates to prove your point.
http://www.afrol.com/html/Categories/Women/profiles/mauretania_women.htm
The rate of divorce among Moors is estimated to be 37 percent and the remarriage rate after divorce is 72.5 percent.
This means a gross remarriage rate of only 26.8%, as opposed to the 133% the 60-70% figure requires.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt was a quick Google. But it doesn't mention the remarriage rate of widowers etc. Why do you find it strange that there should be a high remarriage rate in general?
Here's the whole sentence from the article you found:
http://www.afrol.com/html/Categories/Women/profiles/mauretania_women.htmThe rate of divorce among Moors is estimated to be 37 percent and the remarriage rate after divorce is 72.5 percent.
This means a gross remarriage rate of only 26.8%, as opposed to the 133% the 60-70% figure requires.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't see how this follows. You have 100 cases of infection. 70 of those cases occur with couples, faithful or not. The other 30, elsewhere. And?
Let's take the higher figure of 70% for the moment and assume that all those infections occur within married couples. What you're saying is that 30% of the population in question are infected (let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were all infected by the use of infected needles or unscreened blood in transfusions) elsewhere and somehow manage to infect more than twice their number through marriage.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf that is how you interpret it, then it simply says that 70% of HIV+ patients in Africa are married/in a monogamous medium or long-term relationship.
I don't see how this follows. You have 100 cases of infection. 70 of those cases occur with couples, faithful or not. The other 30, elsewhere. And?
But I believe the citation you gave said that 70% of HIV transmission occurs within marriage/live-in relationships; i.e. 70% of the HIV+ patients in Africa were infected by their spouse/partner. And that is implausible.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO. The main scenario in which you think condom use is permissible is one in which it is practically infeasible. Hilarious!
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the use of condoms in all circumstances. For instance, if a woman is about to be raped, I think she is justified in requiring (if possible) that her rapist wear a condom to reduce the chances of transmitting an STD.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think you can go ahead and make the assumption that the rapist/perpetrator would not be in a mood to listen to "requirements" of his victim. It's kind of like asking a murderer to give you a second to put on a bullet proof vest.
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the use of condoms in all circumstances. For instance, if a woman is about to be raped, I think she is justified in requiring (if possible) that her rapist wear a condom to reduce the chances of transmitting an STD. By extension, a spouse (usually the wife) who is being forced into the sexual where, as your article points out, contraception is the opposite intention of the sexual act).
Originally posted by kirksey957Not exactly. In general, rapists are not trying to infect or impregnate their victims.
I think you can go ahead and make the assumption that the rapist/perpetrator would not be in a mood to listen to "requirements" of his victim. It's kind of like asking a murderer to give you a second to put on a bullet proof vest.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy do you think this case got international attention? Because it is the norm?
http://ww4.aegis.org/news/ads/1993/AD930879.html
The article does not indicate that he respected her wishes to use a second condom when he sodomized her.
The story is also over ten years old. I will grant that your policy may be helpful once in ten years.