Working for your enemy

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

However, why are we sending condoms, when we could send food? That makes not a whit of sense to me, that we care more about reproductive rights, than about basic needs.

Theres this little thing called the AIDS virus...

[Dinner]

Condoms save lives it's a proven fact just like abstinance only programs nearly always fail. You want to destroy a nation then infect 1/3 of the adult population with aids as has occured in some southern African countries. Condoms and sex education is the best way to save lives and as an added benifet it improves quality of life for the people there because it means the same income gets divided up among smaller families. More income per head will improve their quality of life.

[Cruddy]

I WOULD take the job... but only so I could subvert the enemy from within. Naturally I would expect my enemy to pay me highly and my ally to pay me even more for double crossing them.

Of course it's very, very dangerous... but the boredom of unemployment could make the danger seem attractive.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ah, there's the rub. The west is to blame for all the corrupt governments in poor countries?

Regardless of what the West does, the reality is that there will always be corrupt governments. There will always be international sales of arms, and there will always be poor people.

However, why are we sending condoms, when we could send food? That makes not a whit of sense to me, that we care more about reproductive rights, than about basic needs.

I don't see me saying 'the West' is responsible for all corrupt governments in all poor countries.


But it certainly is guilty of subverting governments and supporting corrupt governments in sub-Saharan Africa. I could supply a lengthy list, and namecheck the various gruesome dictators and despots, and which Western governments propped them up and when, but that would just allow you to evade the point yet again.

Try brushing up on who farms, and who cares for children in sub-Saharan Africa, and who is the mainstay of agricultural African societies.

And do some research into which sub-Saharan African countries have a comprehensive system of national insurance, or state medical systems, or even widespread private insurance schemes, and who in the female population might have the necessary income to afford them.

Then do some more research into infantile and child H.I.V. infection rates, into how many children are being brought up by their grandparents, or great grandparents, or are in orphanages dedicated to coping with the result of the effect of H.I.V./A.I.D.S. on the African population, and the effect that dislocated economies and civil wars and coups have on migrant populations and workers.



Then come back with this nonsensical dichotomy of condoms or food aid.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because unless we're talking about a major crisis, sending food is usually a bad idea. It hurts the local economy more than it helps. What they need is better knowledge and infrastructure to get them to fix their own problems, not tons of wheat to run local farmers out of business, making them even more helpless and dependent.

Agreed. Teach a man how to fish, and all.

Sending condoms doesn't help either, unless they're accompanied by the proper education to discourage the many rituals and customs that involve unprotected sex.

None of which would encourage the limitation of partners, eh? Why should we foist our own troubles on these African countries?

So sending condoms can save lives (e.g. less mouths to feed, less HIV/AIDS), while sending food only helps in times of need.

So we come back to the point. If I were to live with these people, would I say that the world would be better off without them?

This is one of the reasons why they are suspicious of these condoms, because they don't believe them to be in their best interests. And considering their ineffectiveness in curtailing the spread of AIDS, they have a point.

Are we really trying to help them by trying to limit their mouths through outside pressure, or would we be better off to improve their standard of living such that they do so on their own?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

This is one of the reasons why they are suspicious of these condoms, because they don't believe them to be in their best interests. And considering their ineffectiveness in curtailing the spread of AIDS, they have a point.

If you're going to come out with lies about condoms then support your assertions with facts, not opinions and propaganda.


Any suspicion relating to condoms and condom usage couldn't possibly be down to lying religious bigots, could it?

Like Catholic cardinals for instance.

" The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0%2C7369%2C1059068%2C00.html

Still, not all Catholic cardinals want Africans to die prematurely:

" Cardinal Danneels, 70, said sex with a person infected with HIV should be avoided.

"But if it should take place, the person must use a condom in order not to disobey the commandment condemning murder, in addition to breaking the commandment which forbids adultery," he said.

He added: "Protecting oneself against sickness or death is an act of prevention. Morally, it cannot be judged on the same level as when a condom is used to reduce the number of births."

UK campaign group the Terrence Higgins trust also welcomed the cardinal's comments.

"We very much support the cardinal's view," a spokeswoman told BBC News Online.

"The preservation of life must be of higher importance than the preservation of church regulations. Abstinence is not a practical option for many people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3394097.stm

[Ben Kenobi]

Theres this little thing called the AIDS virus...

And condoms prevent the transmission of AIDS?

The only successful program in combatting the transmission of AIDS in Africa has been in Uganda where they have focussed on the limitation of partners, either through marital fidelity, or abstinence. Condoms are a last resort, not the first step to preventation.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're going to come out with lies about condoms then support your assertions with facts, not opinions and propaganda.

Fair enough.

Any suspicion relating to condoms and condom usage couldn't possibly be down to lying religious bigots, could it?

You push as many people away from your argument, as you draw, Molly. There is no need to demonise those who have valid grounds for disagreement in order to prove your point.

" The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

Are condoms impermeable to HIV? That's the issue here. Just because one source says they are is no more credible, than the statement made by the Vatican to the contrary.

Look at Planned Parenthood Molly. We had a thread not too long ago, where it was shown that they were doling out substandard condoms. Why should we assume better for all these other organisations that thrive off the condom trade?

To say that the Catholic church is the only one with a vested interest in this issue distorts the truth.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. "

And why should we trust the WHO? How much money do they make every year off funding for family planning programs?

Still, not all Catholic cardinals want Africans to die prematurely:

" Cardinal Danneels, 70, said sex with a person infected with HIV should be avoided.

"But if it should take place, the person must use a condom in order not to disobey the commandment condemning murder, in addition to breaking the commandment which forbids adultery," he said.

True. But that's no different from what I said in the earlier thread. Condoms are a last ditch method, not the first step taken.

He added: "Protecting oneself against sickness or death is an act of prevention. Morally, it cannot be judged on the same level as when a condom is used to reduce the number of births."

Do you agree with this Cardinal, molly, that to use a condom to regulate fertility is sinful?

UK campaign group the Terrence Higgins trust also welcomed the cardinal's comments.

"The preservation of life must be of higher importance than the preservation of church regulations. Abstinence is not a practical option for many people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3394097.stm

Why not? Why isn't it practical? That's always puzzled me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Condoms save lives it's a proven fact just like abstinance only programs nearly always fail.

How is this a proven fact. You demand proof from me, yet no proof is necessary for this claim.

You want to destroy a nation then infect 1/3 of the adult population with aids as has occured in some southern African countries.

Not at all. I'd rather teach them what works, rather than a method that does not work.

Condoms and sex education is the best way to save lives and as an added benifet it improves quality of life for the people there because it means the same income gets divided up among smaller families.

That's one thing. How about the other? What if each person were not just a mouth to feed, but also had hands to work, and a creative mind? Would it benefit a family to limit their number of working hands?

More income per head will improve their quality of life.

True. But it's mighty difficult to run a business without people to work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then do some more research into infantile and child H.I.V. infection rates, into how many children are being brought up by their grandparents, or great grandparents, or are in orphanages dedicated to coping with the result of the effect of H.I.V./A.I.D.S. on the African population, and the effect that dislocated economies and civil wars and coups have on migrant populations and workers.

Then come back with this nonsensical dichotomy of condoms or food aid.

It's mighty hard to till the fields if there is no one healthy enough to do so.

Molly, why do you assume, that I haven't looked into these things. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not necessarily mean they are ignorant. It is just as likely, that they see the same fact, but disagree to their causes.

I do not doubt what you say here about the suffering in Africa. I challenge whether handing them condoms is going to help.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It's mighty hard to till the fields if there is no one healthy enough to do so.

Molly, why do you assume, that I haven't looked into these things. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not necessarily mean they are ignorant. It is just as likely, that they see the same fact, but disagree to their causes.

I do not doubt what you say here about the suffering in Africa. I challenge whether handing them condoms is going to help.

How does preventing the transmission of H.I.V. not help?


What a bizarre assertion.

I don't assume you haven't 'looked' into 'these things', I simply doubt that anyone could wilfully propose withholding protection from women once having studied them.

I'm not a fan of the ostrich approach to global health issues.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And condoms prevent the transmission of AIDS?

The only successful program in combatting the transmission of AIDS in Africa has been in Uganda where they have focussed on the limitation of partners, either through marital fidelity, or abstinence. Condoms are a last resort, not the first step to preventation.

Another lie, which has been exposed (by Boris G. among others) before.

If you're going to propagandize, get some new stuff.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
None of which would encourage the limitation of partners, eh? Why should we foist our own troubles on these African countries?

Yes it would, or possibly so anyway. From what I've heard, sex is often used in rituals. For instance, (um, working from memory here) a woman whose husband has died has to be "prepared" before she can marry again. Basically she'll just get raped by a few village elders, so to speak. That isn't exactly plain promiscuity, so promoting abstinence isn't gonna help there either. It'll take a bit more than sex-education to fix that.

So we come back to the point. If I were to live with these people, would I say that the world would be better off without them?

But you're promoting abstinence, while we promote the use of condoms. The only difference between the two is that those using condoms have sex. This has nothing to do with saying the kids aren't wanted. Now if we'd be promoting aborting all babies you'd have a point.

And considering their ineffectiveness in curtailing the spread of AIDS, they have a point.

The ineffectiveness isn't because the condoms don't stop the virus, it's because they only use them sparingly, if at all. That's why just dropping some condoms doesn't help either.

[alva]

" Cardinal Danneels, 70, said sex with a person infected with HIV should be avoided.

He's actually a pretty cool guy ( for a priest).

At one point he was a front runner to become pope, a shame he isn't anymore, ( too old? and outmanouvered by the conservatives).
He's one of few who can combine catholic beliefs and the (modern) real world without being a traitor to either one.