U N Exaggerates Aids Crisis

[XIX]

[quote name='philothea' post='1741721' date='Jan 2 2009, 09:37 PM']When I got married (20 years ago) the state required an AIDS test...

After a couple years of that, they learned that statistically, people getting married are the least likely demographic of all to have AIDS. Nitwits.[/quote]
What's so horrible about an AIDS test?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='XIX' post='1741990' date='Jan 3 2009, 12:03 PM']What's so horrible about an AIDS test?[/quote]

When we tried to pass a law making it mandatory for pregnant women, it was trounced on because the gay lobby didn't want any testing to be made mandatory for fear we would try to make it across the board. Something about outing people from the closet by finding out they had AIDS, or segregating them into new leper colonies. We just wanted AIDS babies to be a thing of the past.

[princessgianna]

Well when I first saw the UN was involved realized that there is no reason to be surprised!

[philothea]

[quote name='XIX' post='1741990' date='Jan 3 2009, 01:03 PM']What's so horrible about an AIDS test?[/quote]
Well, it was a new law at the time, caught us by surprise, and nearly caused a wedding that had been planned for a year to be cancelled.

Mandatory testing for STDs as a requirement to get married is just a little silly nowadays.

[XIX]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1741982' date='Jan 3 2009, 01:59 PM']Uganda, the country that has had the most effectiveness in preventing AIDS doesn't use condoms but instead abstinence education. You'd think that others would catch on to that. Honestly there is no such thing as "safe" sex. You may be less likely to contract a disease or get pregnant but to be protected from such circumstances is only possible using chastity and NFP.[/quote]
Interesting. I've heard from the other side the exact same argument, saying that the most effective states in the US at preventing unwanted pregnancies in teens were the states that educated teens about contraception. Or something like that. Why should people believe you instead of them? Maybe you have a concrete unbiased source?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just like to know how better to defend the position of abstinence education.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='XIX' post='1742011' date='Jan 3 2009, 01:23 PM']Interesting. I've heard from the other side the exact same argument, saying that the most effective states in the US at preventing unwanted pregnancies in teens were the states that educated teens about contraception. Or something like that. Why should people believe you instead of them? Maybe you have a concrete unbiased source?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just like to know how better to defend the position of abstinence education.[/quote]


Got some links here.

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=234"]AIDS Preventions[/url]

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=256"]What they won't teach you in sex ed. [/url]

Go under the section that says, "Abstinence vs. 'Safe' Sex" and you'll see some articles that discuss the findings on both abstinence education, sexual education, and comprehensive sexual education. [url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=41"]Abstinence Education[/url]

[CatherineM]

The reason we used to test for STD's had mostly to do with syphilis. We've had 5 babies stillborn, and many more born blind here in Alberta in that last couple of years because the mom had syphilis and didn't know, didn't care, or had no prenatal to know it could be a problem. We'd probably still test if most babies were actually being born in wedlock these days.

[MithLuin]

Uganda's program was not exactly as you described it. It was ABC

Abstinence for unmarried people.
Be faithful to your spouse.
Condoms for people who don't practice the above (ie, sex workers).

So, it wasn't that condoms weren't used to combat AIDS in Uganda, it's that they were used as a last resort, while the [i]emphasis[/i] was on abstinence and fidelity education. Clearly a system more likely to work, if you can do it effectively. There was lots of information available and frank discussions of this very scary topic, which has not been the case in other African nations. And it is true that young people there took this message to heart and waited until they were older to have sex. (Now that there are treatments, though, AIDS is not such a stark death sentence and it remains to be seen in this behaviour 'sticks.')

[url="http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm"]AVERT[/url] gives a synopsis of the AIDS crisis in Uganda that is very critical of abstinence-only initiatives. But they still acknowledge that it worked - that the message of 'zero-grazing' encouraged people to be faithful to their spouses and stop engaging in casual sex. Condoms weren't really imported on a large scale or touted as an option for preventing AIDS until the mid-90s.

[url="http://www.aidsuganda.org/pdf/hiv_aids_impact.pdf"]HERE[/url] is how the government of Uganda views the crisis.


Condoms aren't the solution; they just reduce the risk of transmition for people who are engaging in risky behaviour. If you don't want to get AIDS, you don't engage in risky behaviour in the first place.


But regardless; even if the UN numbers are inflated, no one can deny that HIV infection is a serious epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, resulting in millions of orphans and completely devastating already fragile societies.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1740503' date='Jan 1 2009, 01:30 PM']AIDS is unique because, as a deadly pandemic spread mainly through promiscuous sexual activity, it threatens some of the most cherished modern norms concerning sexual liberation. So to promote the most obvious response to such a pandemic — do not engage in promiscuous sexual activity — would in essence be a capitulation, an admission that the dream of consequence-free sexual activity was not only impossible, but perhaps at least partly responsible for the scourge.[/quote]
This, I believe, is very much to the point.

The demand for absolute sexual license free of any personal responsibility or consequence is at the heart of modern liberal ideology.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Socrates

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1742409' date='Jan 3 2009, 11:15 PM']This, I believe, is very much to the point.

The demand for absolute sexual license free of any personal responsibility or consequence is at the heart of modern liberal ideology.[/quote]


Thank you.

[CatherineM]

I just noticed how close the terms "Liberation Theology" and "liberal ideology" are.

[Didacus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1740537' date='Jan 1 2009, 01:03 PM']Why is it that people talk about sexual freedom and depravity in the same sentence. True sexual freedom should include the freedom from worrying about catching a disease that can kill you. I'm free because I never have those worries. Monogamy is very freeing.[/quote]

I second this notion.

If the doctrine of the Church was adhered to 100% by 100% of humans - sexual deseases would cease to exist in a single generation and simply be a thing of the past.

This is something the liberal minded sexual revolutionists don't like to admit.