quote: "...Worldwide 28 Million children die from easy curable diseases each year and 17 million children die from malnutrition and starvation each year. The estimated cost to prevent these deaths is 80 billion or about $270 each for every American."
Assuming this figure is approximately true, I have a question. Wouldn't the money that we used and are using towards Iraq be better spent, and be more effective, towards the war on terror, if applied to saving all those lives and helping those people lead productive lives?
Assume for the sake of argument that we can't do both.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about all of the money that has been spent on, say, Furbies? Snap bracelets? Designer meshback hats?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Would it be more effective towards the war on terror?"
I'm not sure what connection you are drawing between more people alive and lessening terrorist attacks - unless you are suggesting that terrorism is bourne from fundamental inequalities?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
However, this is always the problem with "the money is better off being spent on x" arguments. With very very few exceptions, most people can always identify a better goal for any sum of money. I guess the comparison only becomes meaninful if there is some kind of connection between where the money has gone (a) and where it (arguably) should have gone instead (b).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about all of the money that has been spent on, say, Furbies? Snap bracelets? Designer meshback hats?
These things are a vital part of the global teen economy that is basically the foundation of capitalism as we know it, which is to say, the source of the billions that are paying for curing illness, etc.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, I'm not making an argument either way. I'm leaving that up to the board.
What do you think would be the result generally if we saved all those lives and specifically on the WOT?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.K. I did say that it would probably be more effective in the WOT. So, I did make an argument. Pardon.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone could explain 1) The infrastructure 2) how to make it sustainable I'd listen. As an added bonus, we could get a return on all of those farm subsidies we are handing out for people not to grow food.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you start down this road all these kids who lives you are saving are going to want to be fed and housed and educated, etc. and you've got this huge global socialism thing going on. Capitalism doesn't really work if there aren't people starving to death and dieing of easily preventable diseases.
And that's not to mention the overpopulation issues.
There's a lot more involved in this propsal than just the initial money spent on curing simple diseases.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I like the idea of a global socialism. In any sane world, I think that's where we would have been for some time now. But that's the not world we live in.
Incidentally, I think that this is a good place to reintroduce this thread.
edit: Yeah, you know what, I think I'll just bump it. I could probably get away with that.
The Forum: There are a lot of variables involved with answering that.
Me: And?
The Forum: We don't particularly want to explore the question, thanks. Especially since you didn't do anything yourself, we get to be lazy, too.
Me: But I am a beloved member of the forum. If it was some teen newbie who wandered in and asked the question, you would be all over it.
The Forum: Actually, we hate you. If we had to choose between hanging out on one of your threads and wasting our valuable time doing your thinking for you, or having our eyeballs gouged out with rusty spoons, we'd take the spoons.
posted
Storm, It'd be an interesting thought exercise, but that's all it would be. Read the thread I linked.
I could spend my time designing my perfect anarcho-socialist world, but I'm a little busy trying to figure out how to get people of different races/religions/countries/etc. to see each other as human beings and not as things. Not as flashy, but with more practical applications.
This could either be a cute fluffy puppy topic where all the world's troubles go away because we spent a couple of million dollars or it could be a very, very complex but essentially meaningless one where you figure just how many starving children can dance on the head of a needle. Either way, not my cup of tea.
Although, if you wanted a revenue source for the medicine that wouldn't have many negative capitalistic effects, I'd suggest looking into professional sports.
It's far from just a thought exercise. It's the basic difference in view that lies at the heart of a lot of debate between 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' people. It speaks to where a nation's time and energy should go to in order to fight 'evil'. It's at the heart of the disagreement between what's left of the peace liberals in this country and the rest of the country.
I layed my question out in pretty easy, general terms that speak to a current problem that I hoped would shed some light on this subject. My thread and your thread speak to each other. You didn't type much more in yours than I did in mine, but yet you stick your nose up at mine as just a thought exercise instead of perhaps using your thread as a way to piece them together.
Nice.
I mean, do you thin people on this forum aren't aware of the support for Rabbit's statement==the millions dying of malnutrition and illness==that they need your thread to tell them that stuff exists?
If we came up with all that money, our infrastructure people wouldn't be talking about saving lives; they'd be talking about funding abortions. Does it really matter how old you are when you die?
We need to leave those poor countries alone and stop trying to export our values. Death is a reality that is accepted in most countries. Nobody lives forever, and most sane people don't want to.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about spending some money on those within our borders who don't have access to our wonderful medical technology? What difference do the borders make? Is it wrong for one person to have better medical technology than another? If we can't give something to everyone, should it be kept from anyone?
Personally, I don't see western medical technology as always a good thing. Drug interactions are a major killer here in the U.S. Our food choices and modern lifestyle (high stress and sedentary) cannot be discounted in the major causes of death- Heart attack, stroke, and cancer. If with medical care comes education (because as pointed out, inculcation of our values viz. birth control is necessary) all the other ills of our culture is necessary.
If we wish to fight evil by exporting our own lifestyle, we have to be certain first that we ourselves are not evil.
In the past we've tried to give food to the starving, and what we've learned is that the people weren't starving from actual lack of food much of the time. They were starving from poor government that fails to distribute the food to those who need it most. At worse the government might be corrupt warlords who intercept the food aid.
P.S. Boy, I sound cynical. I don't really think people are all bad. But organizations and businesses are exempt from the altruism that is required of individuals in any successful species. So as a rule, I am cynical of organizations and businesses. Including those attached to medicine. I think people are good, and doctors are good. But organizations exist in order to harness us.
posted
I can't prove this but based on the policies of the site from which I gathered the data, I believe that the $80 billion is what would be required for long term infrastructure changes not simply food and drugs today. I wish I could find a more detailed analysis.
A number of people have made statements here that seem horribly cold.
quote:Does it really matter how old you are when you die?
quote:Death is a reality that is accepted in most countries. Nobody lives forever, and most sane people don't want to.
quote:Personally, I don't see western medical technology as always a good thing. Drug interactions are a major killer here in the U.S.
quote:If someone could explain 1) The infrastructure 2) how to make it sustainable I'd listen.
quote:If we wish to fight evil by exporting our own lifestyle, we have to be certain first that we ourselves are not evil.
quote:We need to leave those poor countries alone and stop trying to export our values.
Now, while these comments might be appropriate in some context, we aren't talking here about trying to turn all the world into American materialists. These are CHILDREN. They are dying of disease and starvation!! I don't know of any culture where its considered good to die as a child. I don't know of any culture where its considered good to die of starvation.
Poverty is relative. Cultures are different. But there are certain things that are universal. At some point, poverty is no longer simply comparative but it is an objective fact. If you are starving to death -- you are poor by any standard imaginable!
If we were actually leaving these countries alone, it would be a different story. But our wealth and prosperty to a large extent comes at the expense of the extremely poor. In Ethiopia, for example, the largest and best agricultural lands are used to grow cash crops, like coffee beans, for export to wealthy nations. These leaves barely sufficient land for the people to grow food in good years. If there is the slightest droubt, they can't produce enough food to feed themselves because there land is being used to grow coffee beans for starbucks. And this is only one example.
[ October 27, 2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why are we talking about caring for children when that is the parents' responsibility? Why aren't we talking about feeding FAMILIES? ...because someone has sold us on the crap that "it takes a village." What has happened to the family as the basic unit of society?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are we talking about caring for children when that is the parents' responsibility? Why aren't we talking about feeding FAMILIES? ...because someone has sold us on the crap that "it takes a village." What has happened to the family as the basic unit of society?
No one has saide we shouldn't be feeding families.
We talk about feeding children because children are the most vulnerable. When there is no food for anyone in the family, children die first.
These parents aren't shirking their responsibilities. Most of them are subsistance farmers because they have no other options. When the crops fail, they have no resources with which to feed their children. Many of the children are orphans. 50% of children in Ethiopia have lost at least one parent to the AIDS epidemic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
When the family can't feed the child, the village must. When the village can't feed the child, the nation must. When the nation can't feed the child, then the world must.
The problem is when a nation and a world WON'T feed a child.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they really were orphans, then we could adopt them. That would be better than sending them food.
quote:These parents aren't shirking their responsibilities...50% of children in Ethiopia have lost at least one parent to the AIDS epidemic.
I'd say any parent who comes home with AIDS was out shirking (or shaking) his responsibility. Please don't tell me these parents got AIDS from a transfusion or were born with it. Let's pool our money and have their zippers welded shut.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thought that skillery actually believes what he is saying is so repugnant to me that I am going to assume he is a troll and ignore him from now on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, It's one of my favorite parts of the Bible as well. Whenever I hear esoteric arguments about who is Christian and who is not, I read that section and realize that I still have a long way to go before I am ready to have Jesus judge whether or not I have truly become one of his followers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a search and rescue crew here that is constantly helping idiots out of backcountry trouble. Idiots figure that as long as they have a cell phone, they can go anywhere and do anything. If there were no search and rescue crews, I suppose those idiots wouldn't be so daring.
I guess there are idiots in starving countries who figure that they can make babies, and then some search and rescue crew will come feed them.
Rather than allowing those parents to drop their starving kids off at a hospital and having the red cross deal with the dead bodies, let those moms and dads bury their babies themselves. That'll put an end to their drunken promiscuity.
Promiscuous idiots, not trolls on BBSs, are causing suffering in starving countries.
Suppose you're a guy stranded on a desert island with a gorgeous woman; would you have sex with that woman and risk putting her through the pains of childbirth in such primitive conditions, and risk bringing new castaways into the world? Idiot!
I guess lower animals are idiots too. They continue to produce offspring even after being captured and placed in zoos.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually aren't the french pushing for a world tax to solve hunger?
When you're filling out your 1040UN do you think you'll be in the "rich" tax bracket compared to the rest of the people in the world?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me say one thing about Christians - I happen to think one of the saddest things out there is a church whose missions budget is smaller than their electric bill. When it's more of a priority for you to have cushy air conditioned sanctuaries with high tech sound equipment and giant projector screens than it is to care for the poor, you've got a problem. And, I think there needs to be a very good balance between evalgelistic missions and care missions. Many times the two can be combined, as in our work in Honduras, which I'm exceedingly proud of. The doctor/missionary my church supports recognizes that he is there to help lead souls to Christ, but he also knows that a woman isn't going to listen to a sermon while her baby is dying in her arms. Care for their basic needs first - you speak volumes for the gospel of Jesus Christ when you actually DO the things he says to.
Yes, we should be doing all we can. Yes, we should spend money on aid programs. Doesn't the USA already do that? Don't Christians (most of them, anyway) already do that?
And yes, there are other problems. There are orphans by the millions in Africa because of promiscuous, irresponsible sex that is spreading AIDS like wildfire. I think those people should indeed take some responsiblity for their actions and wake up. But you can't punish the kids for the stupid things their parents did. Everyone should be fed, if it's at all possible.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
We're not talking about punishing kids; we're talking about do-gooders intervening when parenting appears to outsiders to be inadequate.
Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for taking a bite of forbidden fruit. Nobody, not even God intervened when they chose to bring children into their new world of misery and hardship where eventual death was assured.
Nanuk and his wife spend their winters hunting seals on the pack ice. They eat raw meat and blubber, and their average life expectancy is less than 35 years. They will probably die of exposure or disease or end up in a polar bear's stomach. Should we intervene when they choose to bring children into their world?
Mary sleeps on the dirt floor of a tin shack. She keeps a small herd of goats and tends a garden of squash and beans. Does she need an outsider coming around with latex gloves and inoculations every time she chooses to have a baby?
It's not simply a question of whether we should feed starving children. Do-gooders are rarely satisfied to do just that. They would like to monitor all aspects of parenting and step in whenever the parents fail. They think the state can do a better job of parenting, and they won't be completely satisfied until the day when the state takes custody and begins indoctrinating the child with the consensus viewpoint the minute the child is decanted.
Helping FAMILIES is a great idea, but when you bypass the parents and start talking about helping their children, then the warning signs go up.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you can rest assured that Kerry and Edwards have a plan to solve this. Hope is on the way.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you really too stupid to understand how an adult can get AIDS without doing anything to "deserve" it?
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig if you directed that to me I can assure you that I am not stupid - but that the AIDS epidemic is indeed due in large part in Africa to irresponsible sexual activity.
quote:"The conclusion remains that unsafe sex is by far the predominant mode of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa," the experts concluded.
This from a joint meeting of World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) last year, you can find details at http://www.unaids.org (I had to pull that quote off a pdf.)
Not everyone who gets AIDS has done something reckless to get it - but let's face it - the vast majority do. (speaking of adults, and not children who are exposed in utero) A person in a monogamous relationship with someone else who is clean, and who does not do intravenous drugs has very little chance of being exposed to the virus.
Edit: Grr! Put in wrong url.
[ October 28, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem, I wasn't sure to whom you directed it, which is why I put that qualifier in there. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not enough to be monogamous and refrain from using needles. <tangent> Although lower risk than sharing needles, sharing straws can also transmit diseases. </tangent> One's spouse must also do the same. And perhaps I am generalizing unfairly, but I was under the impression that Africa is not nearly as far along the path to feminism as America or Europe. Rape alone would seem to be a significant vector. Nor are non-monogamous relationships irresponsible if both parties had no expectation of it. Reckless? To one who is educated about the disease, yes. Are most Africans? What about the spouse of an adulterer? Admittedly they did not bring it home, so I guess technically skillery gets an out there, but that is not the tone I got from any of his posts.
The amusing thing is that I actually do believe that it is the parents' and only the parents' responsibility to care for their children, and not that of the village, nation, or world. The idea that anyone is owed a postponement of the inevitable by uninvolved third parties is absurd. Yes, I could give all my excess cash to charity. It might arguably be a noble act. But there is nothing wrong with my spending it on myself, my family, or my friends, or even burning it in front of a homeless shelter.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its easy to blame Aids on sexual promiscuity. If you do that, then hey, you don't need to do anything about the problems to society and innocent victims that is caused by Aids.
Its easy to say that these people deserve their starvation because their parents broke the Western/Judeo Christian taboo about adultry--even if the husband broke the taboo and the wife dies of aids, hey, if they weren't such promiscuous heathens they'd be safe with full stomachs.
On the other hand its easy to say lets spend money giving out rice instead of bombs. Its nice. It doesn't work.
One of the main reasons I supported the war in Iraq was because there were starving kids in Iraq. They were starving because Sadaam Hussein believed he was safer keeping his own people hungry and impoverished, and his own bank account overflowing with cash. He took money that the US and others were giving him to feed children, and used it to buy guns and build bombs.
Both the "Dead Children" posts and the "Its There Fault" posts show a lack of being in touch with reality.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Capitalism doesn't really work if there aren't people starving to death and dieing of easily preventable diseases.
Huh? Did you think this up, too, or is there some evidence for it?
I could just as well say socialism doesn't work without someone else footing the defense bill, and with more accuracy and evidence than you have for that statement.
---------
As to your question, Storm, if it were a choice between fighting the war on terror and saving those many millions of child lives, then of course I'd say to hell with the War on Terror, start cranking out the hypodermic needles.
But infrastructure is only one of the problems. It would require massive changes of infrastructure in America, as well as massive changes (or simply building in the first place) in infrastructure of the places we'd be sending the medicine.
Then there's the question of would people let us do that? You may think we'd be taken at our word if we said, "We're going to be sending thousands and thousands of Americans into your nations, to interact with and save your vulnerable, carefully controlled populations on whose shoulders your power is built." Yeah, I can just imagine dozens of corrupt governments across the world signing right on the dotted line for that offer.
Finally, I resent the implication (it's not one you made, Storm, but present in the quote) that it is somehow America's responsibility for that. $270.00 per American. Why exactly is America morally obligated to foot that bill? Why should American citizens shell out $270.00 each to help others? (Oh, and I take issue with that 'estimate', too-it's such an enormous, lengthy process that any estimation is as likely to be wrong as right)
Personally, I believe America does have such an obligation, to help others who cannot help themselves, for two reasons. One, doing so is what good people and nations do. Two, we've got lots of stuff and money anyway, and smacks of obscenity for us to have so much while others have so little.
So rhetoric about how we 'owe' it to the world is only going to persuade those who already think we do, anyway. For the people who-quite sensibly and understandably-say, "It's not my problem," it's only going to cause eye-rolling and an increase in apathy and antagonism.
---------
As for the impact, if any, on the War on Terrrorism, I think it would be a major victory, drastically reducing the sympathy terrorists currently enjoy from native populations at present.
Of course, many of the people we'd be saving with that $270.00 each currently live in places that already have populations frequently sympathetic with terrorists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its easy to blame Aids on sexual promiscuity. If you do that, then hey, you don't need to do anything about the problems to society and innocent victims that is caused by Aids.
*sigh* You know this isn't my opinion - right? I'm not the one who thinks that sexual promiscuity is the reason AIDS is spreading - experts who have far more training and experience than I do think that.
I don't deny there are innocent victims - certainly the babies who inherit it in utero are innocent. Certainly a wife who is infected by an unfaithful husband. Certainly a woman who is raped.
But I also have heard testimony from missionaries who work in Africa that say people ignore the education and refuse to use condoms. Not all of them, but many. That is irresponsible behavior - and it causes innocents to suffer.
I think it's wrong to state that every one who gets AIDS in Africa deserved it or behaved recklessly - but I also think it's wrong to say that all of them are innocent victims. Clearly that's not the case. There are many people fully aware of how AIDS is transmitted that continue to behave in unsafe practices that contribute to the spread of the disease. And, that's not unique to Africa either. In America we have in place plenty of education, plenty of access to things like condoms (and even places where people can get clean needles, if I'm not mistaken) and the disease continues to spread.
But this is all a tangent, and off the original subject. Sorry if I've derailed things too much.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I'm not argueing against you. I know that you are saying that Some of the problem is caused by stupid people doing stupid things, and that they must take responsibility for their stupidity. I have heard others who believe we should cut funding to Aids research because "Most" of the people who get it got it by being stupid.
Belle is not one of "those" people.
The problem with all these easilly curable diseases and hunger has a lot to do with people doing stupid things, but its not the woman who sleeps with her husband because she believes that is God's commandment, even though she knows he is sleeping with prostitutes who may have the disease.
Stupid is the husband who brings the disease into the house, and then blames the wife for unfaithfulness when they both get the disease.
Stupid is the political leader of that country who says the disease is a biological weapon of the West--who says Sex has nothing to do with it.
Stupid is, yes, the religous leader who attacks people with aids for being caught fornicating, but ignores the sex industry that passes it around. (Please note the BUT is what makes him stupid)
Stupid is the political leader in that country who refuses to close down the sex industry, because he gets good kickbacks from it, but refuses to allow the sale of condoms as being subversive to his country's innocent children.
Stupid is the dictator who takes mone for the food and the medicine and uses it to buy guns and bombs.
Stupid is the seller of guns and bombs who takes the money that should be going to food and medicine.
Stupid is the Pharmacuetical company who offers a months worth of cure at the cost of a years wages.
Perhaps if we could cure this stupidity, this petty greed and this grand greed, then those children would live. However, the cost of that cure is beyond even BIll Gate's wealth.
Never underestimate the raw beauty and power of human stupidity.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, ASFAIK you are not catholic. But I take issue with this:
quote: But I also have heard testimony from missionaries who work in Africa that say people ignore the education and refuse to use condoms. Not all of them, but many. That is irresponsible behavior - and it causes innocents to suffer.
That may be the case for some, but there are also many who take heed of the pope's unscientific and vitriolic campaign against condoms. In that case, they aren't ignoring the education, but listening to incorrect information disseminated by a trusted source, the Catholic Church : The pope vs. condoms John Paul II harms the fight against AIDS by frowning on condom use
quote: Why, more than a decade after identifying the epidemic and means of prevention, are so many people still dying? One powerful reason is the pope's misleading and irresponsible campaigns concerning the inefficiency of condoms.The pope and many other Catholics have been hurting the fight against AIDS by preaching against condom use throughout the world. The mere suggestion that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV is deceptive and wrong. This is made thousands of times worse when it is preached as fact to such an AIDS-ridden area.
The pope is dismissing decades of scientific research and scientific fact that prove condoms greatly reduce the risk of transmission of STD like HIV to further his agenda towards abstinence.
posted
Actually, if the Pope was as influential as you seem to think, a lot of the AIDS problem would evaporate.
There are lots of people in the world who are not Catholic who choose not to use condoms when engaging in extra- and pre-marital sex. If people are ignoring the Pope's exhortations on extra- and pre-material sex, why then is he to blame for these same people's refusal to use condoms when they engage in the risky behavior? Is there any evidence that these people would use condoms in activities which go directly against what the Pope is preaching if he stopped telling them not to use them?
I oppose misrepresentation of scientific facts for any reason. But there's a large gap in proof from the statement, "The Pope is telling lies about condoms" to "People are dying because of those lies. The linked article, at least, fails to provide any evidence linking the two propositions.
posted
Dying because of them? Perhaps not. But it certainly is giving people an excuse to kill themselves that they did not have before.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there's no doubt that if the entire message was listened to (edit: and followed) by most/all people, the spread of AIDS would slow dramatically.
quote: Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds
quote: Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."
Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.
quote: “The current Roman Catholic theology is one that favors death rather than life. [The Vatican’s] ‘better-dead-than-condomed’ position has not been blessed by any of the world’s religions or by common sense. It is flat-earth embarrassing.” Theologian Daniel C. Maguire on the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programs [“Vaticanology,” Religious Consultation Report, November 2000].
“The ‘changeless doctrine’ keeps coming back in many absurd ways. For instance, the danger of AIDS cannot be averted by using condoms…even by a married couple when one has AIDS.... The condom is more evil than death by AIDS.” Gary Wills [Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. New York: Doubleday, 2000].
quote: However, after five days of closed debate, the conference reaffirmed the Church's total ban on condoms and specifically and forthrightly condemned the argument for the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. This will have a direct, practical effect in the area of the world most ravaged by the illness.
In Honduras, with the highest incidence of AIDS in central America, the Church succeeded in stopping a health education campaign involving the distribution of a million free condoms.
In Zambia, the Health Ministry withdrew an anti-AIDS programme which encouraged safe sex and condom use, after pressure from the Catholic bishops.
The Kenyan government withdrew a sex education module from the school curriculum after Church pressure. And so on.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
