 Apostolic Apologetics: Condom Controversy"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected." ( Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel, Paragraph 3 ) By Paul Swonger ( commodianus@gmail.com ) 3.27.09 Please e-mail all typographical or grammatical errors. I'm only human. This article was originally composed and available on My Blog. I have decided that it is appropriate to have this article here, for permanent reference. While I haven't remained silent on the issue, I thought I would take the time to offer my comments on the current "mania" sweeping the internet regarding Pope Benedict XVI's recent comments on condoms, and the spread of the AIDS epidemic. One of the world's most "prestigious medical journals" (according to BBC news), the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use. Quotes used here are taken from that article, which can be found here. Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue". It said (according to BBC news) the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids. "Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal. But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction. "When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," it said. (The Lancet) "Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide."(The Lancet) "Our correspondent says the article shows how far the Pope's attempts to clarify the Vatican's position on condoms have backfired. " (BBC News) It's really interesting an enlightening to me to see how people react to this "story". On the one hand we have an allegedly renowned scientific journal (and many others) calling the Pope a liar, and accusing him of distorting "scientific facts". So let's begin there. Let's just all take a deep breath, set aside our opinions, and perform some basic logical evaluations. I'm certain we can arrive at the truth, and I would like also to note, your comments are encouraged, and I will respond to them in this post. The Lancet Science Journal Claims: "It
[The Lancet] said [according to BBC news] the male latex condom was the single most
efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids." Single most efficient? Even more than not risking it in the first place? Absurd. "Sexual transmission" - Does anyone else notice that? This is basic math and basic logic. Let me pose an analogy: Are you more likely to die from space travel by going into space, or by remaining on Earth? To die from space travel, you actually need to, space travel. The greatest insight people seem blinded to, is the phrase "sexual transmission" the scientific journal uses. But to me, this entire issue is being sidestepped, and ignored. Sexual abstinence, when practiced, is more effective at avoiding sexually transmitted diseases than having sex, even while properly using a condom. Fact.How do we know this? Well first there's common sense: If you don't have sex, you eliminate (not reduce) the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease through sexual contact outside of being raped. Fact. Secondly, we do have statistics, and we do have a scientific idea of exactly how effective condoms are at preventing sexually transmitted diseases. According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years. The same review also found condom use significantly reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men. ( Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention" (PDF).: pp.13-15. Download the PDF of the Study here ) This means according to the study that Fifteen Percent of the time condom users are at risk for contracting a disease while using condoms. The Mathematics Solution: A: Ratio of people wearing condoms. B: People at risk for infection while wearing condoms. A and B be the proportions of the populations s.t. A + B = 1.0 let p and q be the probabilities, p = 0.15, q = 0 A*p + B*q = ? Who is correct? The Pope, or the Journal? But wait, there's another argument. Because dealing in scientific and logical fact isn't enough to appease the scoffers, we have another point to deal with, which is "people aren't going to stop having sex, or start following the morals the Church has been teaching for 2000 years". But does that make the Pope wrong? Let's take a look. At this point opponents commit any number of well known logical fallacies. I'll do a step by step break down. First, a quick note on logic: "A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true." (Source: Nizkor Project; Dr. Michael C. Labossiere ) Clicking any of these will bring you to a definition and huge explanation of each fallacy. Appeal To Nature: It's natural to have sex, people shouldn't be told not to because it's natural. Fallacy. Appear to Common Practice/argumentum ad antiquitatem: People are having sex regardless of what the consequences are, therefore trying to convince them to abstain is wrong. Fallacy. Appeal to Authority: Renowned Scientists say the Pope is wrong, therefore he is wrong. Fallacy. Renowned scientists say that condoms are more effective than not having sex with infected partners, that means it's true. Fallacy. Argumentum ad populum/Appeal to Majority:
How logic works: A = A A Stays A A != B (A Cannot Equal B). Note: See Inequation So the "answer" that people "are still going to have sex" is really nothing more than a logical fallacy. It may be factually true, but using it as a basis to claim the Pope is lying or wrong, is false. I will further demonstrate this now. I've already demonstrated scientifically that abstaining is undeniably more effective than using a condom. I have one friend who still won't admit that fact, so before I move on, I'd like to quote statistics from more reliable scientific publications. I will address the "they're still going to have sex" argument momentarily. Condom effectiveness and failure: Condoms are widely recommended for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). They have been shown to be effective in reducing infection rates in both men and women. While not perfect, the condom is effective at reducing the transmission of HIV, genital herpes, genital warts, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other diseases. (Source: "The Condom". Planned Parenthood. 2004-01-04. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/condom.htm ) How people still get infected while using Condoms: One study found that semen exposure from a broken condom was about half that of unprotected intercourse; semen exposure from a slipped condom was about one-fifth that of unprotected intercourse. (Source: Walsh T, Frezieres R, Peacock K, Nelson A, Clark V, Bernstein L, Wraxall B (2003). "Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to measure semen exposure resulting from male condom failures: implications for contraceptive efficacy and the prevention of sexually transmitted disease". Contraception 67 (2): 139–50. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00478-X. PMID 12586324. ) In this study, 1/5 of people using condoms are still exposed to semen through their sexual conduct. You don't need to write for a science journal to know that this semen may be infected, and that the chance of contact with infectious fluids is much higher than that of no sexual contact, as the Pope has pointed out. In fact, falsely relieving anxieties about sexual conduct in the AIDS capital of the world, will do exactly as the Pope says, and add false security, increasing risk as opposed to abstaining, which actually reduces the risk better than condoms. Some studies have associated larger penises and smaller condoms with increased breakage and decreased slippage rates (and vice versa), but other studies have been inconclusive. Slippage results in failure and exposes the user to risk. ( Source: Spruyt, Alan B. (1998). "Chapter 3: User Behaviors and Characteristics Related to Condom Failure". The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions (Family Health International). http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/behavcharac.htm. Retrieved on 2007-04-08. ) Holes in Condoms: One of my friends brought up to me a comment allegedly made by Pope John Paul II saying that condoms have holes in them. He then proceeded to call the Pope an idiot, still to this day having failed to cite his source for the alleged quote. However, my friend seemed to be unaware of Lamb Intestine (Naturalamb) and similar condoms, which do have holes in them, do not protect from disease, and are meant for "more pleasure" and to protect against pregnancy, not STDs. These condoms are also used by people who have a latex allergy. Quote: "NATURALAMB® Brand Condoms are ideal for the monogamous couple who desire heightened sensitivity with trusted pregnancy protection. NATURALAMB® does not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)." ( Source: http://www.naturalamb.com/faqs.aspx 3.27.09 ) One percent of people have a Latex allergy according to Health Grades. That might not sound like much, but in the USA, 1% is 2.7 Million people. On permeable: Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens. ( Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel, Paragraph 3 ) Note the word essentially there. Back to "they're going to anyways". It has been clearly demonstrated in this article, why the Pope was correct. Conclusion:
Is this a result of unavailability of Condoms? No. Is it because most minorities follow the Pope? No. Is it a natural associated risk as a consequence of irresponsible behavior? Yes. Irresponsible behavior is not limited to minority groups either.  You can download the PDF I got this image from here. It contains many CDC statistics. Education of the facts are essential in this matter. More statistics: South Africa is by far the hardest hit on the African continent by the AIDS epidemic, with an estimated 5,300,000 adults and children living with aids as of a study done in 2003. The reported deaths due to aids in South Africa in 2003 were 370,000. The reported adult literacy rate in south Africa during these studies in 2003 is 14.8%. ( Source: "AIDS In Africa" ) How likely is it then that the person will be able to read condom instructions and use them properly? Again: 14.8%. How likely is a person so gravely affected by lack of education to use a condom in the first place? What's the solution to the AIDS Epidemic? Education. Everywhere in the world it is education.
Effective Parts of the Solution:
Thanks for reading. I will add to this article in the future and correct errors if I notice any. Responses To This Article: This comes from IRC (EFNet) from an Atheist friend of mine (3.27.09). (10:54:44) (@nirv) Single most efficient? Even more than not risking it in the first place? Absurd. (10:54:50) (@nirv) you want to go that far? (10:55:11) (@nirv) then let's say it's even more effecient to just have an abortion so they don't even have to SAY NO TO SEX because they're NOT ALIVE (10:56:48) (@nirv) HUMANS NOT EXISTING AT ALL is an EVEN BETTER OPTION THAN ALL OF THOSE! Interestingly this sounds like a pro-life argument albeit an odd one. In other words, in this line of reasoning, it's more important to live and suffer (even with AIDS) than it is to not be born. I'm not sure he realizes this. Pretty strange coming from my pro-choice friend who just recently said: (21:20:48) (mawst) I don't believe humans have the right to kill people out of convenience. (21:21:02) (@nirv) it's so weird (21:21:06) (@nirv) think about it (21:21:11) (@nirv) if a man somehow got pregnant (21:21:18) (@nirv) where is the baby going to come out? (21:21:19) (@nirv) his ass? (21:21:24) (@nirv) you damn right I'd have an abortion (21:21:32) (@nirv) so if you can have an abortion in that state (21:21:38) (@nirv) what's wrong with women being able to do it? (21:21:47) (@nirv) because they're women? They're SUPPOSED to have kids? First, no, obviously the uterus is no indication women are supposed to carry a child, let alone their ability to get pregnant. What we do know though, is that it's not my error, the error lies in thinking you can act without consequences, and that it's OK to murder because "you don't feel like having kids". You felt like having sex though didn't you? I hesitate into turning this into an abortion debate but: Basing justification of abortion on a non existent hypothetical concept does not work, especially since most abortions are made out of convenience. Not because "men get pregnant and there's nowhere for the baby to come out". This is perhaps the single most ridiculous comment I have ever heard any pro choicer make EVER. Abortions occur not mostly because of rape, not mostly because of health concerns, but the facts (government statistics) show, out of "convenience". Back to the United States AIDS Epidemic, the 4th largest cause of death for African Americans in these statistics (see the PDF) was AIDS. Do you know what the #1 killer was? Abortion. Abortion remains a GENOCIDE against blacks in America. Funny how Obama supports it, don't you think? The most dangerous place for an African American in the United States is in the Womb of an African American mother. Get the facts here: http://www.blackgenocide.org/ In getting back to the previous comments, the argument just reiterates the common theme: "We can't control ourselves, so if you expect us to it'd be better if we just weren't born in the first place." This is the "modern thinking human"? Interesting. It's actually terrifying how many people think this way. This is how opposed to self control people are. If there's a better example of people being completely angry and irrational about the fact that our actions have consequences, I haven't found it yet. (11:21:40) (@nirv) why are we even talking about religion? (11:21:43) (@nirv) it isn't taught in schools (11:21:50) (@nirv) that should be your first clue that it's dumb First I notice this as an argumentum ad hominem. He doesn't have any valid counterpoint to anything I've said in the article so he attacks the argument itself (classic ad hominem). Apparently nirv is unaware that the University system is an invention of the Catholic Church, and further, how many Universities and other colleges have Catholic affiliations (e.g. Georgetown, Notre Dame, and many many others). There are dozens with Catholic affiliation in our state alone. Anyone that's shopped for a college should be able to recognize all the "St. Mary's" and "St. Thomas'") etc. Additionally, the idea that religion, theology, and specifically in this case Catholicism isn't taught in respectable colleges that also excel in the sciences is a sad naivety and an ignorance of fact. These statements are simply false. The most affordable private schools are in fact Catholic private Schools. |
|
|
Visitors 
|
Editorials >
Condom Controversy |