11 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRead the article at the last link Nemesio provided. It's very informative.
Why do you think this case got international attention? Because it is the norm?
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.
12 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are as out of touch as the Catholic church you follow.
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 ...[text shortened]... where, as your article points out, contraception is the opposite intention of the sexual act).
"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."
OMG - have you any idea of reality at all?
You sound like Lawrence Logic (see Viz cartoon).
Rape is all about power and abuse of the victim. The perpretator is extremely unlikely to grant any wishes to the victim. (apart form one obscure case notable for its unprecedented nature).
Considerate rapists? Whatever next; a kind and useful Spanish Inquisition? - Oh wait - you've already argued for this.
You are completely clueless.
12 May 06
Originally posted by howardgeeAnd you're a complete bigot. But, hey, Freedom of Expression and what not...
You are as out of touch as the Catholic church you follow.
"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) ...[text shortened]... ish Inquisition? - Oh wait - you've already argued for this.
You are completely clueless.
Is anyone here going to discuss the second part of that argument?
12 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see what you are saying. How can 70% of HIV transmission occur
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.
within a marriage? One must already be infected, which means only
50% (an unlikely maximum) could be infected.
I'm not sure implausible is the word. Impossible seems to be
more correct.
Dr S., you're the expert on numbers. Do you see the problem that
LH has observed with that statistic? Are we both misunderstanding it?
Nemesio
P.S., this doesn't reduce the urgency, of course, of addressing the
problem of condom use for protection from disease within the confines
of marriage for the Church. As I said, a drop in even 5% points would
be more than justification as far as I am concerned, but LH does
observe what appears to be a problem with the data.
12 May 06
7 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe statistic is certainly not impossible. I don't even believe the statistic is suspect at all. These aren't typical couples we're discussing.
I see what you are saying. How can 70% of HIV transmission occur
within a marriage? One must already be infected, which means only
50% (an unlikely maximum) could be infected.
I'm not sure implausible is the word. Impossible seems to be
more correct.
Dr S., you're the expert on numbers. Do you see the problem that
LH has observed with t n as far as I am concerned, but LH does
observe what appears to be a problem with the data.
After all, AIDS kills people. If you're 18 and you have been infected with HIV by your young wife who contracted HIV a few years before marrying you, she's going to die at such an early age that you'll have plenty of time to remarry. Perhaps you won't know that you too are infected, or perhaps you won't care, or perhaps you do care but you're so scared that you'll go to hell that you won't wear protection with your new wife.
HIV also breaks relationships. Finding out your wife has contracted HIV while cheating on you is a strong cause for divorce. As above, do you suppose that somebody who has left an HIV infected wife at age 18 is going to remain chaste and celibate the rest of his life? Probably not. He will proabably remarry and probably have sex, without using a condom in fear of damnation.
It is conceivable for the intra-marriage transmission rate to approach 100%. It just takes a handful of extra-marriage infections to get the ball rolling. From there, it can propagate entirely within marriages, due to the vicious cycle of HIV causing marriages to be short-lived.
13 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCould you humor me with an example of some sort using, say, 100
The statistic is certainly not impossible. I don't even believe the statistic is suspect at all. These aren't typical couples we're discussing.
After all, AIDS kills people. If you're 18 and you have been infected with HIV by your young wife who contracted HIV a few years before marrying you, she's going to die at such an early age that you'll ...[text shortened]... ithin marriages, due to the vicious cycle of HIV causing marriages to be short-lived.
individuals? My limited fluency in math isn't allowing me to wrap my
mind around this.
🙁
Nemesio
13 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioSure. Start with one guy who has HIV. Assume he got it outside of marriage.
Could you humor me with an example of some sort using, say, 100
individuals? My limited fluency in math isn't allowing me to wrap my
mind around this.
🙁
Nemesio
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/1 = 0%
A married woman sleeps with him and gets infected.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/2 = 0%
That woman infects her husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 1/3 = 33%
That woman dies, and her husband remarries. He infects his new wife.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 2/4 = 50%
That man dies, and his new wife remarries, infecting her new husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 3/5 = 60%
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI know these aren't typical couples - which makes the 70% figure even more unlikely.
The statistic is certainly not impossible. I don't even believe the statistic is suspect at all. These aren't typical couples we're discussing.
After all, AIDS kills people. If you're 18 and you have been infected with HIV by your young wife who contracted HIV a few years before marrying you, she's going to die at such an early age that you'll ithin marriages, due to the vicious cycle of HIV causing marriages to be short-lived.
First, in the African situation (any conservative patriarchal society, in fact), it is usually going to be the husband who is first infected. And, based on most news reports, it is usually going to be the result of an extra-marital sexual encounter (usually a prostitute). So, your whole "damnation from condoms" idea isn't a priority to a guy who's just been unfaithful. It might be to the wife - but do you have any figures to back this? Nemesio's article suggests that even when a wife suspects her husband may be infected, she might very well choose not to use contraception.
Second, given the usual progression of AIDS, even if there is a year's gap or so between infection of the spouses, the surviving spouse is going to be so sick by the time she (usually it is the wife) is widowed that she won't really be "marriage material". In fact, even if she weren't visibly sick, widows are not usually marriage material in conservative societies.
If you're going to try and pin it on Church teaching, at least make your arguments plausible.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis example illustrates my point - you need a very high remarriage rate (much higher than the 30% odd BdN highlighted earlier) to justify the 60-70% intra-marital transmission rate.
Sure. Start with one guy who has HIV. Assume he got it outside of marriage.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/1 = 0%
A married woman sleeps with him and gets infected.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/2 = 0%
That woman infects her husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 1/3 = 33%
That woman ...[text shortened]... fe remarries, infecting her new husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 3/5 = 60%
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerHold on a sec. If this comment was directed at me, then you've misread me. I don't think that
If you're going to try and pin it on Church teaching, at least make your arguments plausible.
the Church is responsible for the epidemic in Africa, by any means. I simply believe that their
stance on condoms in this case is absurd and that offering tacit support for the use of condoms in
life-threatening situations within the confines of marriage is a right and just thing to do. And, as I
said, if it reduces the rate of infection by just 5%, I will consider it a victory.
Wouldn't you?
Nemesio
15 May 06
8 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was refuting the notion that the statistic was impossible or implausible. I have demonstrated by theory and counterexample why it is neither.
This example illustrates my point - you need a very high remarriage rate (much higher than the 30% odd BdN highlighted earlier) to justify the 60-70% intra-marital transmission rate.
It is not the case that it requires higher than a 30% remarriage rate. The remarriage rate can approach 0% while the intra-marriage transmission rate can meet and exceed 60-70% and even approach 100%.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't need to make any further arguments, since I have already proven my position in the matter - merely that the experimental results are possible and plausible. Is this still in doubt?
If you're going to try and pin it on Church teaching, at least make your arguments plausible.