A: You can avoid HIV infection by abstaining from sex, by having a mutually faithful monogamous sexual relationship with an uninfected partner or by practicing safer sex. Safer sex involves the correct use of a condom during each sexual encounter and also includes non-penetrative sex."
no1 - you're probably right. Medical experts do appear to use the term "safer sex" rather than safe sex for condom use. However, ivanhoe is right about one thing - the site makes no mention of the risks of condom breakages (which can happen even if the condom is used correctly); instead the WHO says it can be used to avoid HIV.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Given how the Catholic Church and the Pope seem to get blamed for condemning millions to death by AIDS in Africa because of its/his opposition to condom use, I decided to do a simple piece of analysis.
I took the Adult Rate of AIDS by country from this website
http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm
and looked at the statistical correlation with ...[text shortened]... on was more significantly negative once one added the Anglican/Episcopelian communities as well.
Given that it supposedly takes 10+ years for full blown AIDS to emerge after infection, and the policy's haven't been in force for too many years, and many other variables could moderate reported or actual AIDS prevalence, the presence or absence of a correlation is not particularly good evidence either way.
Most of the AIDS stats in Africa are iffy extrapolations anyhow, not conscientiously recorded deaths whose causes have been medically verified, so it's unlikely you can draw any conclusions from them.
Originally posted by no1marauder Speaking of telling lies, I'm sure that nobody is proposing we tell anybody that condoms give "100% protection" against anything. You are setting up a strawman to argue against. The truth is that condoms give a considerable degree of protection against the transmission of the HIV virus. As far as I know, no medical measures are 100% effecti ...[text shortened]... vaccinated against polio or other diseases because the vaccination isn't "100% protection".
Originally posted by no1marauder I would agree with the sentence up to "has put millions at risk on the continent" which is hyperbole. I do not think its "unfair" criticism but it is an exaggerrated claim for the reason nobody takes the Pope's position seriously on condom use anyway. If people actually took the claim seriously it would endanger lives, particulary those of ...[text shortened]... ffairs (the Church, of course, opposes adultery but the innocent spouse would still be at risk).
In your legal opinion, would this hyperbole qualify as libel if JPII were living?
You make a good point about people being at risk if they are unaware that their spouse is having an extramarital affair. Suppose the Church permitted condom use. Who would be culpable in the following two scenarios:
1. The couple has "safer sex", but the condom breaks and the unaware spouse is infected.
2. The couple tries for a child and the infected spouse does not warn the innocent spouse that he has had an affair and is, possibly, infected.
Originally posted by lucifershammer In your legal opinion, would this hyperbole qualify as libel if JPII were living?
You make a good point about people being at risk if they are unaware that their spouse is having an extramarital affair. Suppose the Church permitted condom use. Who would be culpable in the following two scenarios:
1. The couple has "safer sex", but the condom b ...[text shortened]... d spouse does not warn the innocent spouse that he has had an affair and is, possibly, infected.
One more scenario - suppose the Government passes a law banning the purchase and sale of firearms. A woman (who may or may not have purchased firearms had it been legal), who lives alone, is killed by a burglar who breaks into her home. Had the purchase of firearms been legal, she could have bought one and used it to defend herself.
Is the Government responsible/culpable for the death of this woman?
Originally posted by lucifershammer In your legal opinion, would this hyperbole qualify as libel if JPII were living?
You make a good point about people being at risk if they are unaware that their spouse is having an extramarital affair. Suppose the Church permitted condom use. Who would be culpable in the following two scenarios:
1. The couple has "safer sex", but the condom b ...[text shortened]... d spouse does not warn the innocent spouse that he has had an affair and is, possibly, infected.
Libel against public figures is virtually impossible in the US; hyperbole certainly wouldn't qualify.
Please clarify your use of the word "culpable" in your example. Are you talking legally or morally or something else?
Originally posted by lucifershammer One more scenario - suppose the Government passes a law banning the purchase and sale of firearms. A woman (who may or may not have purchased firearms had it been legal), who lives alone, is killed by a burglar who breaks into her home. Had the purchase of firearms been legal, she could have bought one and used it to defend herself.
Is the Government responsible/culpable for the death of this woman?
Originally posted by lucifershammer I think it unlikely they would be held legally culpable (or would they?). I meant morally culpable.
There have been some cases in the US where people have been charged with some sort of reckless assault for having sex with another knowing they were HIV-infected and not telling the other person; how these cases turned out, I don't know but will research. Are you assuming the spouse KNOWS he is HIV-infected?
I guess I would personally say anybody who is engaged in dishonest behavior and causes another to suffer for it is primarily morally culpable. If the other spouse was unaware that his/her partner had engaged in unprotected sex outside the marriage, then I would find the first spouse doubly culpable (one for cheating and one for infecting his spouse). The burglar/killer would also be primarily responsible. The Government would hold some degree of moral responsibility in the case you mentioned assuming the law contributed to the outcome.
EDIT: I would not hold the Church morally culpable if they permitted condom use in the case mentioned of a condom breaking (rare) as the couple would be aware that this was a possible outcome and took such a risk.
Originally posted by no1marauder There have been some cases in the US where people have been charged with some sort of reckless assault for having sex with another knowing they were HIV-infected and not telling the other person; how these cases turned out, I don't know but will research. Are you assuming the spouse KNOWS he is HIV-infected?
I guess there are three scenarios:
A. The spouse knows he's HIV-infected
B. The spouse knows (or can be reasonably expected to know) that he could be HIV-infected given his sexual conduct
C. The spouse has never heard of AIDS or has heard of it but is not aware that it could be transmitted by sexual contact
How does the legal culpability stack up in each of these cases?
Originally posted by lucifershammer I guess there are three scenarios:
A. The spouse knows he's HIV-infected
B. The spouse knows (or can be reasonably expected to know) that he could be HIV-infected given his sexual conduct
C. The spouse has never heard of AIDS or has heard of it but is not aware that it could be transmitted by sexual contact
How does the legal culpability stack up in each of these cases?
In NY Penal Law 15.05:
A) "A person acts knowingly with respect ........... to a circumstance described by a statute when he is aware ........ that such circumstance exists." 15.05(2);
B) "A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." 15.05(3)
C) "A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by the statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation". 15.05(4)
These are graded in seriousness in the order given; "knowing" being the most culpable in the law (besides intentional) and considered most deserving of punishment, then "reckless", then "criminally negligent". An argument could be made that any of the situations would fit in any one of the categories based on the specific facts but the definitions leave a lot of room for argument (that's how I make a living). Will research the actual cases to see how they've come down when I have time.
Originally posted by no1marauder In NY Penal Law 15.05:
A) "A person acts knowingly with respect ........... to a circumstance described by a statute when he is aware ........ that such circumstance exists." 15.05(2);
B) "A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciou ...[text shortened]... ng). Will research the actual cases to see how they've come down when I have time.
Originally posted by no1marauder So is my personality a 100% effective method of birth control, but I wouldn't urge it on a whole continent!
Yeah, your personality could scare a buzzard off a carcas...😉...just kidding ....abstinance is not for everyone except those who want 100% protection from AIDS, via sexual contact. 😀
The Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa
20 Apr '05 18:02
Back to Top