EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
You might call it another inconvenient truth. While condoms can reduce the possibility of contracting AIDS through sexual intercourse, the only way to completely avoid the disease is still the unpopular practice of abstinence. Absintence is also the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
The Pope is in Africa right now, and he finally articulated for the press what everyone has known anyway: his stand on how to help eradicate AIDS is to counsel people to practice absinence and sex exclusively within a monogamous marriage. Of course, there are many people who don't like this stand. Many people put their faith in little rolls of latex, which while effective in reducing the transmission of AIDS and other STD's, are not fool-proof. One hole in one condom can change the course of a person's life. People are being taught to put their lives in the hands of a tool that has, at best, and 85% chance of working. Still, ignoring the research, some people are accusing the pope of seeking to advance religious dogma. (They're the same people who are cheesed off when people want to teach absintence in high school sex ed.) Yet the fact remains that the only sure-fire way to avoid contracting AIDS and/or becoming pregnant is through the practice of abstaining from sex altogether, or practicing sex through a mutually monogamous marriage where neither partner is infected. So what would serve people more? Teaching them to trust condoms? Or encouraging them to do something that works every time? Inconvenient, but true.
|
Comments
Just want to point out a hole in the pope's educational theory - just because a couple is in a monogomous, married relationship does not mean they want, or can afford to care for, another baby. This is especially true in 3rd world countries like Africa.
I think the best way to serve people is to teach about birth control, STD prevention, AND abstinence.
Great point, Mama! And I concur. I'm all for contraceptives as a means of reducing the risk of an unintended pregnancy.
I wrote this as a reaction to the folks who equate abstinence with religious dogma (like the woman quoted in the NY Times article.) The extra comments about pregnancy were more of an aside.
But for the record, unlike the pope, I'm in favor of using contraceptives. I'm just not in favor of looking to condoms as the solution for the AIDS epidemic. It's not as simple as just teaching abstinence. As you rightly put it, we must teach about all aspects of prevention.
Thanks for commenting!
My position, which will not be popular with anyone, is that a balanced approach be taught. That is to say, we ought to inform people of how much protection they get from condums from various diseases and effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. The only way to be 100% sure of not contracting AIDS or some other sexually transmitted disease (of which there are several), as you have pointed out, is either abstinence or sex within a monogamous relationship in which neither partner is infected. However, if someone is going to have sex outside of such a relationship 85% protection may be better than no protection at all. I remember in medical school, in the pre-AIDS era, that condom use was ridiculed as an ineffective method of contraception. Now it has become politically correct to support condom useage. I suppose advising people to use condoms if they are going to engage in sexual activity outside a monogamous relationship is similar to advising an intravenous drug user to use clean/sterile needles. We may feel that the behavior is morally wrong and that there are other non-moral reasons why the person should not engage in the behavior, but if they are going to engage in the behavior using a condom or a clean needle may somewhat mitigate the consequences from an infectious disease perspective. The feared downside is that if there is some protection that people will increase their likelihood of engaging in the behavior. I don't think this is likely in either example.
I also agree that it improves the health of mother and children to be able to space out pregnancies and say when they have enough children. However, we need to be sensitive and careful about imposing our own values on third world people. Just because we think they can't afford to have more children does not mean that they won't want more. The most effective way of bringing down family size is to raise the level of education and economic security within the country. It is sort of a catch 22, in that reducing family size may be important to improving the economic situation in the country as well.
doc
Great input, Doc, and I agree with you. Thanks so much for chiming in.
I agree with you, too, Doc. I hope that yours is not an unpopular idea. I think it is the most sound. As Christians we can't assume that everyone will share our same values and standards, and to keep people in the dark about disease prevention is never ideal.
I agree we can't put our own values on women and how many children they want. I was just thinking specifically of a ministry I know in Haiti that provides birth control to women who want it, and the flack they get for doing so under as a Christian organization. They see a lot of women, some married, who have 5+ children and are desperate to stop having babies, but don't have the education or resources to stop. They still see women who believe that chewing certain berries will prevent a pregnancy, and then they are devastated when they find themselves pregnant again.
I think this is one of the best sites out there. It has so much information.
cheap cigarettes | winston cigarettes