Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

AZN_FLEA

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
0
Location
.
if we stop having sex for about ten years maybe we wont have aids anymore. abortion is sick. killing a innocent and the baby is your creation too. ugh.

every country is going to have their own opinion though i doubt most will leave it legal
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Thejanitor said:
No one is going to get people to stop having sex, so... it would be a great help if religion didn't condem contraception. I remember Raya posting a article about schools only teaching abstainment because of religious issues. I'll have to try find it. Here's a random shitty quote: Now I'm going to say; crappy abstinence only programs don't work. It's obvious why they want them, it doesn't matter, they don't teach kids what they really need to know then they act surprised when they end up with a baby or STD's. There's not logic in programs like that, they just don't work.
No one, unless God himself comes to earth and changes natural law, is going to stop the church from condemning contraceptives. As you pointed out no one is going to stop people from having sex, and the earliest time God would change natural law (which he probably wouldn’t) and make himself known would be no sooner than the apocalypse due to him telling us there won’t be another general revelations until the end of time. Unless you feel like waiting until the end of time, the earliest time it could, though probably wouldn’t happen, that option isn’t going to work either. Anywho, it was their choice to have sex with their body, regardless of if they use contraceptives or not. There is not any contraceptive, to the best of my knowledge, that is 100% effective other than not having the sex.

People have sex and it is their responsibility to accept the consequences. Probably every person who has sex knows it is the way in which humans reproduce. If you know that much, then that is all you need to know. I could care less what your excuse is. You committed the reproductive act. You reproduced. Even someone as dumb as our president could figure that out! You commit the reproductive act then you have a chance a reproducing. All you need it common sense, no special sex ed class or anything. Accept the consequences of your actions, that is all I ask.

It would help if he tried to stop the Cause intead of making it worse.
The cause of having a baby and/or getting a STD… that would be sex.
 

TheJanitor

Aka ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
1
No one, unless God himself comes to earth and changes natural law, is going to stop the church from condemning contraceptives.
They don't just condemn them for religious reasons but they have also claimed that they don't protect against STD's effectively with absolutely no evidence. Vatican has claimed that condoms are laced with STD's, a scare tactic with no backing.
Even someone as dumb as our president could figure that out! You commit the reproductive act then you have a chance a reproducing. All you need it common sense, no special sex ed class or anything. Accept the consequences of your actions, that is all I ask.
The president can't help but stick his views into things. Normal sex ed covers abstainment as well but he doesn't like it because it conflicts with his religion. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is going to abstain and for them condoms and other contraceptives are neccessary. If people believe these rediculous claims the Church is effectively ****ing a lot of peoples lives up(Unless they follow what the church says of course).
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Thejanitor said:
They don't just condemn them for religious reasons but they have also claimed that they don't protect against STD's effectively with absolutely no evidence. Vatican has claimed that condoms are laced with STD's, a scare tactic with no backing.

The president can't help but stick his views into things. Normal sex ed covers abstainment as well but he doesn't like it because it conflicts with his religion. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is going to abstain and for them condoms and other contraceptives are neccessary. If people believe these rediculous claims the Church is effectively ****ing a lot of peoples lives up(Unless they follow what the church says of course).
I started writing a response and then I realized something. Regardless of how our sex education programs work, or what or president thinks, or etc, how does that give someone an excuse the infringe on the rights of another human being? Every human being under the jurisdiction of the United States (and though I'm not sure, I believe the same goes for the United Kingdom) is guaranteed the right to life. There is no denying that a embryo is genetically identical to a human being, meaning it is a human being. How can any public program, person, or organization give you an excuse to terminate a human life?
 

TheJanitor

Aka ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
1
I started writing a response and then I realized something. Regardless of how our sex education programs work, or what or president thinks, or etc, how does that give someone an excuse the infringe on the rights of another human being? Every human being under the jurisdiction of the United States (and though I'm not sure, I believe the same goes for the United Kingdom) is guaranteed the right to life. There is no denying that a embryo is genetically identical to a human being, meaning it is a human being. How can any public program, person, or organization give you an excuse to terminate a human life?
I would like a response to my post please. It's before the baby can feel, think ect when they are allowed to abort it. I don't think it has rights.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Thejanitor said:
I would like a response to my post please.
No problem, here you are.

They don't just condemn them for religious reasons but they have also claimed that they don't protect against STD's effectively with absolutely no evidence. Vatican has claimed that condoms are laced with STD's, a scare tactic with no backing.
From what I read when looking up information about a response, all I read was secondhand information that said “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.†Get me a source from where a priest backs that or a link to an official Vatican document supporting this please. And if your talking about this interview ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm), then here you are:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html

(See introduction part in link)

What the Catholic Church actually said, as is in the link above is:

“For instance, some permeability and electric tests indicate that latex may allow passage of particles bigger than the HIV. Likewise, holes and weak spots in condoms may be detected by tests, as can be seen in a 1998 article on the US Food and Drug Administration website. “Condom manufacturers in the United States electronically test all condoms for holes and weak spots. In addition, FDA requires manufacturers to use a water test to examine samples from each batch of condoms for leakage. If the test detects a defect rate of more than 4 per 1,000, the entire lot is discarded. The agency also encourages manufacturers to test samples of their products for breakage by using an air burst test in accordance with specifications of the International Standards Organization.â€] If four leaking condoms are allowed in every batch of 1,000, there could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of leaking condoms circulating all over the world, either sold or distributed for free, and most probably contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS and STD’s. Does the public know this? Does the public know that the risks increase the more often and the more promiscuously one is exposed, considering the cumulative risk factor, as explained earlier?…â€

(This is only a clip from the article, the rest of this can be seen under “Condom Failure and its Latex Material†and the next articles after it.)

The president can't help but stick his views into things.
Sadly enough, that is what happens when we pick a human as president. No matter who we pick, their religion, or lack of one, will influence the ways in which they make decisions and is one major reason why church and state can never be separated.

Normal sex ed covers abstainment as well but he doesn't like it because it conflicts with his religion. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is going to abstain and for them condoms and other contraceptives are neccessary. If people believe these rediculous claims the Church is effectively ****ing a lot of peoples lives up(Unless they follow what the church says of course).
The use of condoms is intrinsically evil and I, nor the church, would ever support them regardless of the effect. I have pointed out many times that the ends never justifies the means in my opinion, and that stands firm here. Many other people along with me do not want our taxpaying money to support acts of evil, such as teaching public programs that support condoms. That is the reason that many people protest the evil things our money is going towards, an example being this war on terror. If people believe the church then they are not screwing themselves, on the contrary, they are making their lives far better by becoming closer to God by following his teachings.

It's before the baby can feel, think ect when they are allowed to abort it. I don't think it has rights.
And now to get back on topic, since when have people been able to discriminate rights based on physical characteristics or age, other than in cases of safety?
 

TheJanitor

Aka ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
1
Companies can test every condom for leaks, with a gentler but telling electrical procedure. In one variant of the test, each condom is placed on a charged metal form and swept over by a soft, conductive brush. Minute holes in the condoms trip circuitry that shunts many "leakers" aside. Sometimes this test finds thin spots as well. The FDA, which regulates condoms as medical devices, sends inspectors to factories unannounced. They review production records and examine stock at random, checking for cracked, moldy, dry or sticky rubber. The inspectors also test the condoms, until recently primarily with a water-leakage test. In the water-leakage test, manufacturers pour 10 ounces of water into a condom, then press and roll it along blotter paper. If leaks turn up in the equivalent of more than 4 per 1,000 condoms in a run, the entire lot must be scrapped.
I took this off a website. Everyone knows that condoms aren't a 100% effective, everyone knows there is a risk. It seems like they have a very high standards they can be sorry it's not 100% like abstaining but it's more effective than nothing.
The programme includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choir master not to use condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".
Don't use condoms because it lets the virus pass through? Yeah because obviously no using protection is much more effective than a condom.
"Aids...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms," he said.

In Kenya, one in five people are HIV positive.
Why the hell do they mention Kenya? Poorer countries have a lot of kids so they can work. They are going to have sex if we give them condoms or not, it's obvious that if a condom is used, it lowers the chance significantly. This quote wraps it up:
"Only the Catholic Church could not think it's bad enough that there's a global pandemic of AIDS and HIV transmission -- they have to make it worse by condemning the most effective barrier against spreading the disease sexually."
You're main quote: The church took information of the FDA website? Then it asks if the public knows this as if it was a massive cover-up. They're defintely making it public. All they did was tell us something we already know.
The use of condoms is intrinsically evil and I, nor the church, would ever support them regardless of the effect. I have pointed out many times that the ends never justifies the means in my opinion, and that stands firm here. Many other people along with me do not want our taxpaying money to support acts of evil, such as teaching public programs that support condoms. That is the reason that many people protest the evil things our money is going towards, an example being this war on terror. If people believe the church then they are not screwing themselves, on the contrary, they are making their lives far better by becoming closer to God by following his teachings.
I don't give a shit about your teaching. So there is a chance someone will share my view, well it's a fact that Christianity doesn't dominate the word, perhaps you should start the crusades again and convert everyone.
There are people who believe science and logic > Religion. Why the hell can't the church acknowledge that they can't force everyone to wear a chasity belt? The war on terror? You voted for the guy who started the war on terror so it's your choice that caused that. That real Christian, he will spend a bit of money on supporting marriage by taking away from Charity for homeless, Children, sick, elderly but he's not Christian enough to not start wars.
Sadly enough, that is what happens when we pick a human as president. No matter who we pick, their religion, or lack of one, will influence the ways in which they make decisions and is one major reason why church and state can never be separated.
It's a pity, I thought maybe we got to a point where a dumb president couldn't start changing the education because of views that should be seperated from the state.
And now to get back on topic, since when have people been able to discriminate rights based on physical characteristics or age, other than in cases of safety?
When a baby is going to have to live a life with servere disability, what are they supposed to do? I wouldn't let a child live that way. I bet there has been someone killed for the sake of mercy in the bible.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
I took this off a website. Everyone knows that condoms aren't a 100% effective, everyone knows there is a risk. It seems like they have a very high standards they can be sorry it's not 100% like abstaining but it's more effective than nothing.

Don't use condoms because it lets the virus pass through? Yeah because obviously no using protection is much more effective than a condom.
“[the use of a] condom reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV by 85%. There is then a 15% risk that remains… There is no such thing then as a 100% protection from HIV/AIDS or other STD’s through condom use todayâ€

Apparently you agree with the information the Catholic Church reported. The only difference is the Catholic Church says that governments supporting the use of condoms is wrong because “they do not contribute towards prevention, but rather to a greater spread of risky behaviour, since they imply that the health authorities are giving their approval to behaviour and lifestyles that are responsible for the epidemic.â€

The Catholic Church is just stating that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS because they contribute to a lifestyle where you have that 15% chance every time you use a condom. Notice how the BBC edited the interview to take this completely out of context. The Vatican says condoms don’t stop the spread of AIDS because it spread acceptance of the lifestyle that causes it, while the BBC only reported the church says condoms don’t help stop AIDS.

Note: The 85% number is from a study done in combination by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

You're main quote: The church took information of the FDA website? Then it asks if the public knows this as if it was a massive cover-up. They're defintely making it public. All they did was tell us something we already know.
The Catholic Church has reported nothing more than safe sex does not exist. As you pointed out, condoms are not 100% effective so once again you are agreeing with the Catholic Church.

I see virtually no difference between the scientific facts you presented and what the Catholic Church presented. The only reason that you see any difference is because the BBC, who obviously had a political agenda for bashing the Catholic Church at every opportunity, edited the interview. The only thing you differ on is how AIDS should be fought. I fail to see how anything reported by the Vatican on this matter has been ridiculous.

I don't give a shit about your teaching. So there is a chance someone will share my view, well it's a fact that Christianity doesn't dominate the word, perhaps you should start the crusades again and convert everyone.
I was only pointing out that my opinion that the church isn't "****ing a lot of peoples lives up" because it was what I believe is best for them. You stated your belief without me saying " I don't give a shit", why can't I state mine? Also, the crusades are against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There are people who believe science and logic > Religion.
And there are people who see that religion and science are actually the closest of friends.

Why the hell can't the church acknowledge that they can't force everyone to wear a chasity belt?
The church is only doing what is in your best interest. It’s the job it was appointed by God with.

The war on terror? You voted for the guy who started the war on terror so it's your choice that caused that.
I wasn’t eighteen in 2000, I couldn’t have voted for him. I only voted for his reelection, and by then the war had already been going on for quite awhile.

That real Christian, he will spend a bit of money on supporting marriage by taking away from Charity for homeless, Children, sick, elderly but he's not Christian enough to not start wars.
And you have pointed out some of his many downfalls. If I vote for someone that doesn’t mean I support everything he does. As I have said many times, I picked the lesser of two evils, the lesser being Bush in my opinion.

It's a pity, I thought maybe we got to a point where a dumb president couldn't start changing the education because of views that should be seperated from the state.
There is most likely never going to be a time where any president’s religion, or lack of one, is going to not effect his job. I’m not too sure where you got the idea that time could ever exist. Maybe if we lived in a Brave New World type environment where all sorts of religion has been eradicated (unless you count the religion like thing towards Ford).

When a baby is going to have to live a life with servere disability, what are they supposed to do? I wouldn't let a child live that way. I bet there has been someone killed for the sake of mercy in the bible.
Well, I would rather live with disabilities than not at all. You would rather not live than live with disabilities (assuming that you are included in the children you would not let live with a disability). That only points out one thing: we don’t know what the child would want. If we don’t know what he or she wants, then we don’t have the right to take away that child’s right to life. And no, the teachings of Jesus Christ don’t support mercy killing.
 

TheJanitor

Aka ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
1
I underestimated your counter argument.
I was only pointing out that my opinion that the church isn't "****ing a lot of peoples lives up" because it was what I believe is best for them. You stated your belief without me saying " I don't give a shit", why can't I state mine? Also, the crusades are against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Ok point taken. I was harsh. I thought that you're religious rant was a part of your counter argument.
.

I see virtually no difference between the scientific facts you presented and what the Catholic Church presented.
It said something about testing condoms individually, that's the bit I wanted.
Apparently you agree with the information the Catholic Church reported. The only difference is the Catholic Church says that governments supporting the use of condoms is wrong because “they do not contribute towards prevention, but rather to a greater spread of risky behaviour, since they imply that the health authorities are giving their approval to behaviour and lifestyles that are responsible for the epidemic.â€
Very good, this argument is a lot better that the quotes I have seen so far. It's completely correct I must admit.
The Catholic Church is just stating that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS because they contribute to a lifestyle where you have that 15% chance every time you use a condom. Notice how the BBC edited the interview to take this completely out of context. The Vatican says condoms don’t stop the spread of AIDS because it spread acceptance of the lifestyle that causes it, while the BBC only reported the church says condoms don’t help stop AIDS.
Ok ok, I noticed. Have the church questioned the safety checking of condoms? It's they way they want to solve it I don't agree with. It would please the church if everyone only had sex on the occasion they are 'supposed' to but that isn't a word wide solution. The best solution is to improve the safety of the condom, then give proper teaching about safe sex. The largest reason of failure is because the condom is simply not applied properly (?).
The church is only doing what is in your best interest. It’s the job it was appointed by God with. [/quote[ The spread of aids and STDs in Africa have very little to do with safe sex. I don't believe realeasing statements like that will help much.
I wasn’t eighteen in 2000, I couldn’t have voted for him. I only voted for his reelection, and by then the war had already been going on for quite awhile.
Bush had done so much wrong his first term. I wouldn't of voted for anyone, voting for someone who you describe as evil despite his convient christian tendancies that appears to of kept him in office. If Bush was really the best choice voting would be a waste of time.
There is most likely never going to be a time where any president’s religion, or lack of one, is going to not effect his job. I’m not too sure where you got the idea that time could ever exist. Maybe if we lived in a Brave New World type environment where all sorts of religion has been eradicated (unless you count the religion like thing towards Ford).
There should be limits. It's not going to be completely seperate but if a president can't keep what he knows are his views and not the countries and just make decisions like that... he shouldn't of been voted.
Well, I would rather live with disabilities than not at all. You would rather not live than live with disabilities (assuming that you are included in the children you would not let live with a disability). That only points out one thing: we don’t know what the child would want.
The best thing to go off on a extreme situation is the mother. The childs going to have servere disabilities, I'd trust the mother to make the right decision.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Ok ok, I noticed. Have the church questioned the safety checking of condoms? It's they way they want to solve it I don't agree with. It would please the church if everyone only had sex on the occasion they are 'supposed' to but that isn't a word wide solution. The best solution is to improve the safety of the condom, then give proper teaching about safe sex. The largest reason of failure is because the condom is simply not applied properly (?).
With religious morality aside, I completely agree with you. The most effective way to fight AIDS would be a combination of sex ed in condoms and abstinence. That would most likely be the most effective way to fight it, I do not disagree with you there.

However, when I add my religious morality into the equation that tips the balance in the other direction. I cannot support the use of a device that I believe defiles the very meaning of sex.

Though there is one downside to your plan. The use of condoms is never going to be able to create a victory situation in the battle against AIDS. It would probably significantly lower the spread of AIDS if everyone had an effective condom and knew how to use it, but in the end, it could not totally stop AIDS. No matter how effective the condoms are or how knowledgeable the person using it is, there is always going to be human error. Whether it be in using the condom, or a screw up in manufacturing or whatever, human error is going to keep it alive, maybe at a lower rate, but alive. One specific thing to point out is that the FDA standard is 4 out of every 1000 and for worldwide I believe the ISO’s standard is roughly 6 out of every 1000, what if in the lot there are three condoms that fail. There are tons of condoms shipped out every year, what about that 4 or 6? From my knowledge of condom testing, which I admit is quite limited and if I am mistaken please correct me, you can’t be absolutely certain the condom is in perfect condition unless you actually test such as in that water testing thing. The only way to create the victory situation would be through abstinence until AIDS was basically eliminated.

The spread of aids and STDs in Africa have very little to do with safe sex. I don't believe realeasing statements like that will help much.
The Catholic Church was stating its’ plan to help fight the worldwide battle of AIDS. Not everyone is, I guess lucky would be the word from your viewpoint, lucky enough to have as effective condoms as we do. The example given in the Vatican link above is where one of the leading brands in Brazil completely failed the ISO’s standard and helped spread the AIDS virus in Brazil. Some people around the world do also teach that sex with condoms is ‘safe sex’, and that condoms will always stop AIDS and pregnancy period.

Bush had done so much wrong his first term. I wouldn't of voted for anyone, voting for someone who you describe as evil despite his convient christian tendancies that appears to of kept him in office. If Bush was really the best choice voting would be a waste of time.
He has tendencies that are Christian such as the ones I talked about, and he has unchristian tendencies that you pointed out. I just think a second term for Bush would help this country more than a first term for Kerry would, even if only slightly. Though you are probably right about the Christian thing, polling of Bush voters showed somewhere around 20% voted because of morality I believe, and take even half of that number and that’s still millions of votes.

And the evil thing is just my glass half empty way of saying voting for the better man (glass half full way). I don’t actually believe a human can ‘be’ evil, just that one can commit evil. But hey, as South Park put it, nearly every election you vote in will be a vote for either a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

There should be limits. It's not going to be completely seperate but if a president can't keep what he knows are his views and not the countries and just make decisions like that... he shouldn't of been voted.
Technically, the Supreme Court should be stopping overly religious things. Bush could say that he is just supporting secular institutions that just happened to agree with his religion and the ‘it’s church in state’ argument goes right out the window.

The best thing to go off on a extreme situation is the mother. The childs going to have servere disabilities, I'd trust the mother to make the right decision.
How does the mother have the right to do that? If the same thing happened after the baby was born it would be considered child abuse. The act you suggest would involve the discrimination of rights.
 

Forged

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
5,433
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Website
www.securegamers.com
The problem with your arument tipsy is that while condoms are not 100% effective they are the second best thing next to abstinence. Unfortunatlly for you and the rest of the catholic faith the rest of the world is not blinded by an invisble diety so not everyone is going to be abstinent. No one can argue that condoms are not the second best method of disease and preagnancy avoidance.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Forged said:
The problem with your arument tipsy is that while condoms are not 100% effective they are the second best thing next to abstinence. Unfortunatlly for you and the rest of the catholic faith the rest of the world is not blinded by an invisble diety so not everyone is going to be abstinent. No one can argue that condoms are not the second best method of disease and preagnancy avoidance.
I believe I just said that:

Tipsy said:
With religious morality aside, I completely agree with you. The most effective way to fight AIDS would be a combination of sex ed in condoms and abstinence. That would most likely be the most effective way to fight it, I do not disagree with you there.
Preventing AIDS with condoms for those that have sex and abstinence for those who can is the most effective way.

and...

Tipsy said:
The use of condoms is never going to be able to create a victory situation in the battle against AIDS. It would probably significantly lower the spread of AIDS if everyone had an effective condom and knew how to use it, but in the end, it could not totally stop AIDS.
The sex lifestyle with condoms cannot stop AIDS alone, though it would most likely significantly reduce it.

and...

Tipsy said:
However, when I add my religious morality into the equation that tips the balance in the other direction. I cannot support the use of a device that I believe defiles the very meaning of sex.
Talking about being blinded by that invisible deity thing.

How exactly are you pointing out a problem in my argument by making a response that is only rewording what I just said?
 

TheJanitor

Aka ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
839
Reaction score
1
The example given in the Vatican link above is where one of the leading brands in Brazil completely failed the ISO’s standard and helped spread the AIDS virus in Brazil.
Wern't they recalled?
The use of condoms is never going to be able to create a victory situation in the battle against AIDS. It would probably significantly lower the spread of AIDS if everyone had an effective condom and knew how to use it, but in the end, it could not totally stop AIDS.
Condoms, like abstaining only limits the spread, what we need is a cure.
The only way to create the victory situation would be through abstinence until AIDS was basically eliminated.
How does waiting untill you're married to have sex eradicate aids? The truth is, you'd have to eliminate every generation of people who have aids. Aids are passed from mother to daughter aswell.
How does the mother have the right to do that? If the same thing happened after the baby was born it would be considered child abuse. The act you suggest would involve the discrimination of rights.
There are a lot of rights you don't have as a kid, there are also rights that you wouldn't have as a fetus.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Thejanitor said:
Wern't they recalled?
Yeah, that's what happens when you fail the ISO's standards. The point was, to quote my source from before, "in 1991, IDEC (Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor) published a study that reported that five out of the seven top condom brands in Brazil, including the nation’s number one brand, Jontex, manufactured by Johnson and Johnson, flunked international safety tests" and "several lots of condoms (some from leading brands) were recalled from the market in Brazil in 1999, 2000 and 2003, due to failure in different tests and to the discovery of counterfeit products." What I was pointing out is although there are safety precautions, there is nothing as strict or enforced as with the rest of the world. The case with the condom brand I talked about earlier resulted in "1,036,800 units" of condoms being recalled.

Condoms, like abstaining only limits the spread, what we need is a cure.How does waiting untill you're married to have sex eradicate aids? The truth is, you'd have to eliminate every generation of people who have aids. Aids are passed from mother to daughter aswell.
A cure would certainly be nice, but since we don't have one we have to go to the next closest thing. Condoms will spread AIDS on a more limited, but still existant, basis. Abstinence will 'probably' only spread it to your wife or husband, instead of multiple partners. The thing is, there is something that can be done to stop AIDS from being passed from parents to children. Today, though probably only possible in first world countries, when given antiviral medications in the third trimester, and/or at the time of birth, reduces the chance of the child getting being infected to only 5%. Even if they do get infected, the amounts of the virus will be lowered and their chance of survival will massively increase.

Abstinence can cause a victory situation, though however unlikely, while condoms will only reduce the spread.

There are a lot of rights you don't have as a kid, there are also rights that you wouldn't have as a fetus.
The right to life is something that cannot be taken away by any mother with very few exceptions, such as taking one off life support who will never get better. Also, if that argument is used, it would take away the excuse used by the United States' Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. The whole thing about, "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense alone."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top