 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Of course, it's much easier to get morally indignant and censorious about women's reproductive rights, than it is the big scary hard targets such as the international arms trade, corrupt governments and their western backers and global poverty and its causes.
But its nice to see that, as usual, someone has their priorities Right.
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
Life is short, why do something you hate? |
quote: 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. |
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.
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.
So sending condoms can save lives (e.g. less mouths to feed, less HIV/AIDS), while sending food only helps in times of need.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
Both of those are illegal if blatantly done.
It can be done if it's not blatant. |
To sum up -- its illegal but it may be possible to get away with it.
The same can be said for murder, armed robbery, rape etc etc
Stealing company secrets cann definitely bring civil liability and depending on the circumstances could bring criminal liability as well ( I find that Canadian police might be likely to consider theft of intellectual property to be a "commercial dispute"-- I think it WOULD have to be pretty blatant toget the police to see it as an offense.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: 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. |
Huh--- one box of condoms, if actually used, may prevent the birth of yet another baby in an imopoverished area. If that baby lives, it will require food water shelter etc. The fact that that baby was not born means more of those things for the rest of the people.
I don't get why you are against condoms. Is it ok if only the people married in a Christian church use them??
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yeah, it's one thing to worry about yourself, quite another when you have others to look after.
For me, nothing would make me work at an abortion clinic. I don't care what you pay me, or what you offer me. |
A fair comment. I believe that everyone would have SOME job they wouldn't do in any realistic circumstance. But even then, you can create unrealistic ones like " Ben Kenobi-- you must work in the abortion clinic or your only child will starve to death. There are no other choices", where the choice is less easy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote: 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...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
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
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:26
|
|
quote: 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
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:26
|
|
quote: 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/stor...59068%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
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
If you're going to come out with lies about condoms then support your assertions with facts, not opinions and propaganda.
|
Fair enough.
quote:
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.
quote:
" 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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Why not? Why isn't it practical? That's always puzzled me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|