Pro-Life Means Protect the Earth

[David Floyd]

This, again, is the anti-human attitude that I am combatting. Why are condoms more valuable than food?

Because you only replied to the section of my sentence that you could parse to "improve" your argument. Saying that I think condoms are more valuable than food implies that I actually think that, which is of course a ridiculous blanket statement.

HOWEVER, if we are looking at a society as a whole, and if said society suffers famine after famine, regardless of how much aid is sent to them in terms of food, then obviously the food isn't doing any good overall, is it?

Now, obviously since we mostly agree that the main problem is government corruption, not actual numbers of people, then....well, wait a second. You're not gonna back me into that corner, either, because you still haven't responded to my point that given an EXISTING FAMINE, regardless of root cause, adding more people IS A PROBLEM. Try responding to that point, as well as the points about condoms also combating STDs as well as pregnancy, and we can move on.

Generally speaking, though, if government corruption is the problem, then neither food nor condoms will do much to solve the problem. After all, if the food isn't getting to the people who need it, why would the condoms? That's why I'm completely against sending aid to corrupt dictatorships in the first place.

However, we are still getting bogged down. You made a ridiculous assertion, that assertion being that doubling the population of an already starving country would be beneficial to said country. Regardless of any other factors involved, that assertion is idiotic on the face of it. The rest of this debate between us is just post parsing and differing philosophies.

So much for lassez faire! Short term help is better than long-term dependency and sexual imperialism.

What your second sentence has to do with your first one, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure why you think sending food does not create dependency, nor am I sure why you think voluntarily controlling births does. As for sexual imperialism, well, I think most of us would agree that the Catholic Church is the entity most engaged in sexual imperialism, from the standpoint of they are the ones saying not only don't have sex, but also actively ordering adherents of Catholicism to NOT have sex safely, and to NOT avoid childbirth, regardless of the economic consequences of having children.

Which brings up another good point. Having a child would be economically disastrous for me. Even so, do you think it would be a positive thing if I got someone pregnant and couldn't talk her into abortion/adoption?

[David Floyd]

I'm sure that eventually someone would have. Just would have taken longer.

Or maybe not. You're peddling a counterfactual bull**** version of history, that, well, ignores history. Discoveries are made near-simultaneously all the time, with probably the best example being both Newton and Leibniz discovering Calculus. Either way, though, Lord Kelvin was but one person. What about the other 99.9% of 7th children born in England at the time who either didn't survive to adulthood, or didn't contribute jack-squat?

[Berzerker]

Again...condoms did not create promiscuity or adultery, you're blaming rubber for human emotions and desires. People can die (be killed) when they get AIDs from having sex with a carrier, condoms reduce that possibility. How about the wife of some guy who is cheating on her? He doesn't wear a condom, cheats, gets AIDs, and then gives it to her...again, by not wearing a condom. And while the Church is telling the guy not to cheat, the Church is also telling him wearing a condom is not God's will. She gets AIDs and dies... That has undoubtedly happened many many times already.

[David Floyd]

Sigh, Africans are saying they don't want or need them. Why would you need them if you are married?

To, I don't know, PREVENT PREGNANCY, for example?

Additionally, married folks use condoms all the time, if one of them does not want to spread an STD to the other. And don't tell me that condoms DON'T practically eliminate the spread of most STDs, because they do. Any claim to the contrary is about as valid as Creation Science.

People will only die if they have sex with someone who has AIDS. Not using a condom is irrelevant to whether or not someone will die from AIDS.

Use your head. In nations with a massive rate of AIDs, such as South Africa or Thailand, using a condom is simple common sense. Your partner might be lying to you or might not know they have AIDs. Oh, yes, I know, the simple answer is to just be abstinent, right?

Abstinence only education doesn't do jack ****, because the urge to have sex is both natural and powerful. Just because you're a virgin doesn't mean that abstinence only education is effective, it just means that it happened to be effective for you. And I suspect that your ultra-orthodox beliefs had something to do with that decision, as well - hell, if I thought having sex would cause me to go to Hell, I'd probably abstain, too. As it is, the consequences of sex are the possibility of pregnancy, or the possibility of an STD. Fortunately, a condom pretty neatly covers both of those possibilities, as does making common sense decisions about who to sleep with.

Additionally, I'm not at all sure that your abstinence-only stance is as much a deeply held belief as it is a self-justification for why you've never had sex. Hmmm...

[Ben Kenobi]

given an EXISTING FAMINE, regardless of root cause, adding more people IS A PROBLEM.

The solution to an existing famine is to get some food in there, not condoms. What population control does to alleviate existing famines I don't know. You are harping on a tangential point.

I'm also not sure why you think sending food does not create dependency, nor am I sure why you think voluntarily controlling births does.

To alleviate the immediate need would not, but extended aid would certainly create dependency.

WRT to sexual imperialism, it's the imposition of Western standards on the rest of the world that has no need nor desire to embrace these values.

What exactly does a condom do for anyone?

As for sexual imperialism, well, I think most of us would agree that the Catholic Church is the entity most engaged in sexual imperialism.

Unfortunately for you, there is no distinction between Africa and the Church, African values are no different. Get married, have children. We were once the same before all this crap came around arguing that you need to have as much sex as you can with as many people as once, and we are shocked and surprised when we get sick.

Which brings up another good point. Having a child would be economically disastrous for me. Even so, do you think it would be a positive thing if I got someone pregnant and couldn't talk her into abortion/adoption?

I think it would be a positive thing if you got married and had a kid. You seem to like sex quite a bit, or you can wait until you are willing to take on the responsibility.

[Ben Kenobi]

To, I don't know, PREVENT PREGNANCY, for example?

Uhh, dead simple to avoid pregnancy. Don't have sex. Why do you need a condom?

Additionally, married folks use condoms all the time, if one of them does not want to spread an STD to the other.

Again, what use is a condom if you stay with the gal you married. Is this such a difficult concept to understand?

And don't tell me that condoms DON'T practically eliminate the spread of most STDs, because they do. Any claim to the contrary is about as valid as Creation Science.

Which is why STD rates have increased many fold over the last 50 years. Right, I gotcha. Condoms good, abstinence bad. That's such a compelling and scientific perspective.

Use your head. In nations with a massive rate of AIDs, such as South Africa or Thailand, using a condom is simple common sense.

Umm, no. Using a condom means putting your life in the hands of a half inch of latex. Common sense would dictate not having sex with anyone unless you know they are clean, and only with one person.

Your partner might be lying to you or might not know they have AIDs. Oh, yes, I know, the simple answer is to just be abstinent, right?

Yep, exactly. See, you aren't stupid. You're getting it DF.

Abstinence only education doesn't do jack ****, because the urge to have sex is both natural and powerful.

No question there. Question for you Floyd, if you like sex so much why haven't you gotten married? I agree the urge is powerful and natural which is what marriage is for.

Just because you're a virgin doesn't mean that abstinence only education is effective, it just means that it happened to be effective for you.

I don't believe I'm special or peculiar. Recall, I'm a convert to Christianity. I don't see what I've managed is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

And I suspect that your ultra-orthodox beliefs had something to do with that decision, as well

Actually, the opposite. I was drawn into Christianity because they shared that view that you should wait until marriage. My desire to wait was because I believed you shouldn't have sex till you were ready to raise a kid, and you should only have sex with someone that you love.

Additionally, I'm not at all sure that your abstinence-only stance is as much a deeply held belief as it is a self-justification for why you've never had sex. Hmmm...

I take comfort in your remarks, though you'll wonder why.

You've met me. Do I strike you as particularly unattractive or unappealing?

[Ben Kenobi]

Or maybe not. You're peddling a counterfactual bull**** version of history, that, well, ignores history. Discoveries are made near-simultaneously all the time, with probably the best example being both Newton and Leibniz discovering Calculus. Either way, though, Lord Kelvin was but one person. What about the other 99.9% of 7th children born in England at the time who either didn't survive to adulthood, or didn't contribute jack-squat?

You play the lottery Floyd? Would you throw away a free ticket because you don't know if it's worth anything?

[David Floyd]

The solution to an existing famine is to get some food in there, not condoms. What population control does to alleviate existing famines I don't know. You are harping on a tangential point.

Misdirection. The question was whether or not doubling the birthrate in the midst of a famine would be harmful or helpful. Sure, you could always ship in more food to counter the additional mouths to feed, but that's a stupid ass answer.

Common sense dictates that if you are in a nation that is perpetually short of food, maybe you should stop having children. 4 starving kids is enough, who needs 9?

What exactly does a condom do for anyone?

Asked and answered. Briefly, it drastically reduces the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission, while still allowing the user to have sex. Sounds like a win-win to me Of course, if you disagree, no one's forcing you to use a condom.

Unfortunately for you, there is no distinction between Africa and the Church, African values are no different. Get married, have children. We were once the same before all this crap came around arguing that you need to have as much sex as you can with as many people as once, and we are shocked and surprised when we get sick.

Well, apparently, people like the sexual revolution, shockingly enough. If the Church wants to both essentially deny that it happened, and label as "TEH SINFUL" any practice you can do to decrease risk (which, AFAIK, they had already labeled prophylactics of any kind), that's their business. If you want to buy into that ****, that's your business. But don't absolve the Catholic Church of "sexual imperialism" just because you happen to agree with the message. Using the threat of Hell/excommunication/whatever to prevent people who don't know any better from protecting themselves is pretty janky.

I think it would be a positive thing if you got married and had a kid. You seem to like sex quite a bit, or you can wait until you are willing to take on the responsibility.

Well, y'see, some of us have no desire to ever have kids. Fortunately, many measures of birth control exist so that we can stay responsible.

[Ben Kenobi]

Misdirection. The question was whether or not doubling the birthrate in the midst of a famine would be harmful or helpful.

Are 9 month famines common where you are?

Common sense dictates that if you are in a nation that is perpetually short of food, maybe you should stop having children. 4 starving kids is enough, who needs 9?

Now we get past the smokescreen. This runs right into my earlier point, if you are perpetually short of food, you live in North Korea or Mugabe's Rhodesia. The problem is not children, but management.

Asked and answered. Briefly, it drastically reduces the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission,

Are you more likely to get someone pregnant if you choose to have sex with them with a condom, or if you choose not to have sex with them?

while still allowing the user to have sex.

This is all it's about isn't it. What if I told you, that you could get all the sex you want without having to wear a rubber?

Sounds like a win-win to me Of course, if you disagree, no one's forcing you to use a condom.

Actually, yes I do. My money is going to pay taxes, that go to ship condoms to Africa. So no, I don't have a choice about it.

Well, apparently, people like the sexual revolution, shockingly enough. If the Church wants to both essentially deny that it happened

Again, this is sexual imperialism, spreading the so-called sexual revolution to the rest of the world. Are you a Napoleon fan by any chance? Don't you think it's cool that he crowned himself emperor, and established his own dynasty?

Using the threat of Hell/excommunication/whatever to prevent people who don't know any better from protecting themselves is pretty janky.

Earth to Floyd, do you think the church is threatening anyone. Africans do not want condoms.

Well, y'see, some of us have no desire to ever have kids. Fortunately, many measures of birth control exist so that we can stay responsible.

Why's that David? I'm rather curious that's all.

[David Floyd]

Uhh, dead simple to avoid pregnancy. Don't have sex. Why do you need a condom?

In your Black and White universe, sure, good point. In the real world, you asked why people need condoms, and one obvious and valid reason is to avoid pregnancy. Why is this a controversial answer?

Again, what use is a condom if you stay with the gal you married. Is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Again, avoiding pregnancy. Also, avoiding unknown STDs, although obviously, once married, condom use is primarily for avoiding pregnancy if you can't afford or don't want to use other solutions. However, I already pointed out that condom use in a marriage to avoid STDs is perfectly reasonable, if one of the partners HAS AN STD and doesn't want to transmit it.

Or are you saying that anyone unfortunate enough to contract an STD should never be able to have sex again?

Which is why STD rates have increased many fold over the last 50 years. Right, I gotcha. Condoms good, abstinence bad. That's such a compelling and scientific perspective.

Disingenuous. STD rates aren't increasing because people are using condoms; they're increasing because people AREN'T using condoms. PART of the reason they aren't is because of the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, it's well and good to say that in your ideal Leave it to Beaver world, on one would be having extra- or pre-marital sex, but I think the genie's pretty much out of that bottle, isn't it? Deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

Umm, no. Using a condom means putting your life in the hands of a half inch of latex. Common sense would dictate not having sex with anyone unless you know they are clean, and only with one person.

Common sense would also dictate never driving on the freeway, as not driving on the freeway is the only way to avoid a collision at 70 mph. Of course, I've never had a problem with head on collisions, or with getting an STD even though I used a condom, so I think we'll go ahead and side with experience, here.

The FACT is that if you and I each go out and have sex with 10 random people, and I use a condom every time, and you do not, the odds are vastly greater that you will contract an STD.

No question there. Question for you Floyd, if you like sex so much why haven't you gotten married? I agree the urge is powerful and natural which is what marriage is for.

Because I don't want to be married, and, in not-unrelated news, I like sex. The only way you would be having more sex after marriage than before is if you were not having ANY sex before marriage.

I don't believe I'm special or peculiar. Recall, I'm a convert to Christianity. I don't see what I've managed is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

Sure, but why would they want to when there are other alternatives out there?

You've met me. Do I strike you as particularly unattractive or unappealing?

Presumably, I'm not the one whose opinion matters on that topic. What do you think?

You play the lottery Floyd? Would you throw away a free ticket because you don't know if it's worth anything?

For those of you just joining us, BK peddled the above answer to my following point:

"Or maybe not. You're peddling a counterfactual bull**** version of history, that, well, ignores history. Discoveries are made near-simultaneously all the time, with probably the best example being both Newton and Leibniz discovering Calculus. Either way, though, Lord Kelvin was but one person. What about the other 99.9% of 7th children born in England at the time who either didn't survive to adulthood, or didn't contribute jack-squat?"

Is it just me, or did he flat out ignore the question?

[David Floyd]

Are 9 month famines common where you are?

Nope, but I guarantee you that if women perpetually stayed at home to take care of their 7 children, then we wouldn't have 2 income households. I see a 2 income household as a positive - were I to ever get married, I would certainly expect my wife to hold down a job, to increase our standard of living. If she wasn't willing to do that, and just wanted to stay home and take care of children, well, then she'd probably be more your type than mine.

Now we get past the smokescreen. This runs right into my earlier point, if you are perpetually short of food, you live in North Korea or Mugabe's Rhodesia. The problem is not children, but management.

That's the root problem, yes, but you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. Even though Kim Jong Il and Mugabe are the root cause, adding a higher birthrate into the mix isn't the solution.

Are you more likely to get someone pregnant if you choose to have sex with them with a condom, or if you choose not to have sex with them?

That wasn't the standard. Those of us who have sex, and are responsible about it, understand that condoms aren't a 100% guarantee. Fortunately, other options exist, such as RU-486 and abortion. Yes, I know, you don't like those solutions either, but my point is that sexual risk is not nearly as black and white as you pretend.

This is all it's about isn't it. What if I told you, that you could get all the sex you want without having to wear a rubber?

You're referring to marriage. Since neither of us are married, let's ask the married folks to chime in - guys, did your sex life increase or decrease in terms of quantity after marriage, assuming you were having sex before marriage?

Actually, yes I do. My money is going to pay taxes, that go to ship condoms to Africa. So no, I don't have a choice about it.

Just as I don't have a choice about shipping food to Africa, yet that wasn't the point. The point was that no one is forcing YOU to use a condom, and in fact, no one is forcing AFRICANS to use condoms.

Again, this is sexual imperialism, spreading the so-called sexual revolution to the rest of the world. Are you a Napoleon fan by any chance? Don't you think it's cool that he crowned himself emperor, and established his own dynasty?

That's rich, since you are basically describing organized religion much more so than changing sexual mores. It isn't Napoleonic to say "Hey, guess what? The Church is full of ****. As it turns out, you CAN have sex outside of marriage, you CAN take precautions, and you DON'T HAVE TO sit at home barefoot and pregnant all day." No one's forcing anyone to have sex - however, the Church is certainly coercive with regards to people NOT having sex.

Earth to Floyd, do you think the church is threatening anyone. Africans do not want condoms.

Well, in that case, why does the RCC make such a big deal about them? I mean, if Africans don't want them, why should the Church care if they have the opportunity to use them?

Why's that David? I'm rather curious that's all.

Condoms, the pill, the patch, the morning after pill, abortion, etc. Don't play dumb.

If you're going to be asinine enough to say that no measure if 100% effective every time the subject gets brought up, then I'm just going to come back at you by saying that abortion is 100% effective. Of course, I don't think abortion should be used as a primary means of birth control, but then again, you don't really think that condoms, etc., are as ineffective as you are making them out to be.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or are you saying that anyone unfortunate enough to contract an STD should never be able to have sex again?

I'm saying if you followed my advice in the first place, you'd not have an STD to worry about. Now, what you are asking, what are the appropriate steps to take when condoms have already failed you?

All I can say is get treatment, inform your partner and wait till you are asymptomatic. It wasn't fair to you that your partner put their pleasure ahead of you, why do you inflict that same choice on someone else? Consider it a warning sign. Weren't you the fellow bragging about no STDs awhile bacK?

Disingenuous. STD rates aren't increasing because people are using condoms; they're increasing because people AREN'T using condoms. PART of the reason they aren't is because of the Roman Catholic Church.

Right, blame the Church, I see how that works. If the church were the reason why, we would expect to see higher STD rates in the faithful who practice what the church teaches. The reality is just the opposite. Those who follow the Church teachings don't use condoms, and they don't have STDs. They also wait till marriage and don't sleep around afterwards.

What we do see are STD rates increasing among those who are sexually active outside of marriage. Once again the fault is not 'inadequate condom use', the fault is in unhealthy sexual procilivities.

Also, it's well and good to say that in your ideal Leave it to Beaver world, on one would be having extra- or pre-marital sex, but I think the genie's pretty much out of that bottle, isn't it? Deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

There are tradeoffs. You've chosen pleasure, and the consequences associated with pleasure. That's definitly real world advice to everyone out there. You want to contract an STD, do what David does. You want to avoid getting one, wait till marriage, and don't sleep around with other folks.

Common sense would also dictate never driving on the freeway, as not driving on the freeway is the only way to avoid a collision at 70 mph. Of course, I've never had a problem with head on collisions, or with getting an STD even though I used a condom, so I think we'll go ahead and side with experience, here.

Are you selling bonds? What's your payout rate? I'd take those odds.

The FACT is that if you and I each go out and have sex with 10 random people, and I use a condom every time, and you do not, the odds are vastly greater that you will contract an STD.

No disagreement here. This is like saying, sticking my finger in a light socket is safer outside of the bathtub than inside.

Because I don't want to be married, and, in not-unrelated news, I like sex. The only way you would be having more sex after marriage than before is if you were not having ANY sex before marriage.

And what would you know about this?

Presumably, I'm not the one whose opinion matters on that topic. What do you think?

I'm curious what gave you that impression. What makes you think so?

Is it just me, or did he flat out ignore the question?

Haven't ignored your point at all. What would you do David? Would you keep the ticket or would you throw it away? I agree with you that the chance of having an einstein is unlikely, but just as with the lottery ticket you don't know the value beforehand.

[Berzerker]

Which is why STD rates have increased many fold over the last 50 years. Right, I gotcha. Condoms good, abstinence bad. That's such a compelling and scientific perspective.

Thats one of the negatives of population growth/density - more STDs. Cant blame condoms for either... I think you're imagining a world where promiscuity didn't exist, stop watching old black and white TV shows from the 40-50s

Umm, no. Using a condom means putting your life in the hands of a half inch of latex. Common sense would dictate not having sex with anyone unless you know they are clean, and only with one person.

Uh oh, Freudian Slip there Ben? If they're "clean", but only one clean person? Why not 2 clean people, or 3 clean people?

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope, but I guarantee you that if women perpetually stayed at home to take care of their 7 children, then we wouldn't have 2 income households. I see a 2 income household as a positive - were I to ever get married, I would certainly expect my wife to hold down a job, to increase our standard of living. If she wasn't willing to do that, and just wanted to stay home and take care of children, well, then she'd probably be more your type than mine.

You'd be surprised. Our rationales couldn't be more different, but I'd suspect we have very similar tastes.

That's the root problem, yes, but you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. Even though Kim Jong Il and Mugabe are the root cause, adding a higher birthrate into the mix isn't the solution.

Agreed, neither is population control. Arguing that population control is an effective means of combatting famine, is like arguing that passenger pigeons are effective as missile defense.

That wasn't the standard. Those of us who have sex, and are responsible about it, understand that condoms aren't a 100% guarantee. Fortunately, other options exist, such as RU-486 and abortion. Yes, I know, you don't like those solutions either, but my point is that sexual risk is not nearly as black and white as you pretend.

Is killing a partner an acceptable outcome?

You're referring to marriage. Since neither of us are married, let's ask the married folks to chime in - guys, did your sex life increase or decrease in terms of quantity after marriage, assuming you were having sex before marriage?

And there's the rub. Funny how that works no? You're already having to assume that they've had sex before.

My argument would be that getting married first and then having sex would have more sex then if you had sex with them first. And I'd be surprised if any polytubbies were in that category.

Just as I don't have a choice about shipping food to Africa, yet that wasn't the point. The point was that no one is forcing YOU to use a condom, and in fact, no one is forcing AFRICANS to use condoms.

That's true. I'm not against the use and sale of condoms. I'm against the promotion of condoms with my tax dollars.

That's rich, since you are basically describing organized religion much more so than changing sexual mores. It isn't Napoleonic to say "Hey, guess what? The Church is full of ****. As it turns out, you CAN have sex outside of marriage, you CAN take precautions, and you DON'T HAVE TO sit at home barefoot and pregnant all day." No one's forcing anyone to have sex - however, the Church is certainly coercive with regards to people NOT having sex.

The attitude that the sexual revolution should be spread around is no different then Napoleon's zeal for the French revolution. Rather than guillotines you have condoms, but they cut off different heads.

Well, in that case, why does the RCC make such a big deal about them? I mean, if Africans don't want them, why should the Church care if they have the opportunity to use them?

The Church is making a big deal to fight population controllers based in the west from dumping all their crap. That's the issue. If it were about the opportunity for them to use them, they would go through the free market. That's not the case though. They insist on taking yours and my tax dollars in order to promote condoms around the world. Surely you can agree this has nothing to do with the obligations of a state.

Condoms, the pill, the patch, the morning after pill, abortion, etc. Don't play dumb.

Was asking different question. Why don't you want to have children?

[Ben Kenobi]

Thats one of the negatives of population growth/density - more STDs. Cant blame condoms for either... I think you're imagining a world where promiscuity didn't exist, stop watching old black and white TV shows from the 40-50s

Simpler times, Berz. You've been there, I've not.

Uh oh, Freudian Slip there Ben? If they're "clean", but only one clean person? Why not 2 clean people, or 3 clean people?

Bastard. Do I really have to spell that out every time. Stick to your husband or wife.