Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Pope has killed millions in Africa

ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:45:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When Pope Benedict XVI visited Cameroon he was quoted as saying, HIV/Aids is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". Instead, the pontiff was "advocating sexual abstinence and fidelity within marriage as a way of fighting the disease."

The resolution I'm confronting is: By Clamming Condoms Can Complicate the Issue of AIDs in Africa, the Pope is Directly Responsible for the Deaths of Millions.

Although I agree that the pope should have supported the use of condoms (which he later did 1 year later), I don't see how this resolution holds any truth.

My issues with this resolution:

1) This resolution has several severe logic issues. There is a premise that the Catholics in Africa are so devout that they knowingly risk their lives in order to obey the pope when it comes to condom use. When it comes to infidelity and abstinence, they are no long devout? It is reasonable to believe that anyone that would ignore the pope regarding abstinence and fidelity would also ignore him regarding condoms.

2) This resolution commits the incomplete comparison fallacy. The proponent of this resolution ignores all of the other factors related to the spread of AIDs because they weaken the resolution. These include, among others: poverty, famine, low status of women in society, corruption, naive risk taking perception, resistance to sexual behaviour change, uncertainty of safety of blood intended for transfusion, polygamy, etc. [1]

3) The data does not correlate any relationship between the Pope's speech and HIV cases in Africa. In fact, HIV cases were actually decreasing steadily until the year the Pope declared condoms could be used to protect against STDs. [2]

Ultimately, it is extremely irresponsible to make such a claim as the above resolution. It takes quite a lot of ignorance to close your eyes to all the key factors of the spread of AIDs while shouldering the entire burden on an old man that lives on another continent. In reality, the responsibility lies between the transgressions of two people in their bedroom.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.avert.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:45:15 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Although I agree that the pope should have supported the use of condoms (which he later did 1 year later), I don't see how this resolution holds any truth.

False.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:38:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:45:15 PM, Sensitive wrote:
When Pope Benedict XVI visited Cameroon he was quoted as saying, HIV/Aids is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". Instead, the pontiff was "advocating sexual abstinence and fidelity within marriage as a way of fighting the disease."

The resolution I'm confronting is: By Clamming Condoms Can Complicate the Issue of AIDs in Africa, the Pope is Directly Responsible for the Deaths of Millions.

Although I agree that the pope should have supported the use of condoms (which he later did 1 year later), I don't see how this resolution holds any truth.

My issues with this resolution:

1) This resolution has several severe logic issues. There is a premise that the Catholics in Africa are so devout that they knowingly risk their lives in order to obey the pope when it comes to condom use. When it comes to infidelity and abstinence, they are no long devout? It is reasonable to believe that anyone that would ignore the pope regarding abstinence and fidelity would also ignore him regarding condoms.

2) This resolution commits the incomplete comparison fallacy. The proponent of this resolution ignores all of the other factors related to the spread of AIDs because they weaken the resolution. These include, among others: poverty, famine, low status of women in society, corruption, naive risk taking perception, resistance to sexual behaviour change, uncertainty of safety of blood intended for transfusion, polygamy, etc. [1]

3) The data does not correlate any relationship between the Pope's speech and HIV cases in Africa. In fact, HIV cases were actually decreasing steadily until the year the Pope declared condoms could be used to protect against STDs. [2]

Ultimately, it is extremely irresponsible to make such a claim as the above resolution. It takes quite a lot of ignorance to close your eyes to all the key factors of the spread of AIDs while shouldering the entire burden on an old man that lives on another continent. In reality, the responsibility lies between the transgressions of two people in their bedroom.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.avert.org...

Many Africans believe AIDS is a white mans ploy to reduce the birth rates of blacks - not to mention what the South African president said in denial of AIDS...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Pope is the least of Africa's concerns.

It seems unlikely to believe that Africans will think "I can't wear a condom while I am having sex with this prostitute at a truck stop because the Pope says it is wrong"
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:32:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:31:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:45:15 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Although I agree that the pope should have supported the use of condoms (which he later did 1 year later), I don't see how this resolution holds any truth.

False.

Could you please clarify? The pope did rescind his original decree.

http://www.nytimes.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:41:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:32:38 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:31:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/22/2015 10:45:15 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Although I agree that the pope should have supported the use of condoms (which he later did 1 year later), I don't see how this resolution holds any truth.

False.

Could you please clarify? The pope did rescind his original decree.

http://www.nytimes.com...

It was no decree. The pope was a theologian prior to becoming Pope and he spoke as a theologian to those who understand Catholic theology. This was not a teaching of the faith, but a personal theological opinion which was twisted by the liberal media to imply something that he did not say.

So let's dissect the pope's statement for the true meaning behind what the Pope said and then how the NY Times twisted his statement.

From the article Pope Benedict XVI - condoms were not "a real or moral solution" to the AIDS epidemic, adding, "that can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality." But he also said that "there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.

He chose a very specific example to discuss. First of all this is about male gay sex. Thus this has nothing to do with artificial contraception - which is itself a mortal sin according to Catholicism. In this case the condom cannot act as a contraceptive because there is zero possibility of pregnancy resulting from homosexual sex. Thus a condom is not immoral to use in the sense that it is being used to prevent pregnancy.

Next we will note that he is describing the user not as any male, but specifically a male prostitute. So he is not talking about two gay males who meet in a bar and decide to go home and get it on. Yet they choose to use condoms for self protection. In this case the condom is an enabler of another mortal sin(s); namely extra-marital sex and/or gay sex. So since the presence of a condom for a male prostitute is not aiding in the decision to commit a mortal sin, its use is not specifically illicit.

What Benedict XVI is describing is a homosexual prostitute. A prostitute is someone who has entered into a situation where habitual mortal sin is endangering their soul and who will commit this sin regardless. Given the large number of clients, and the relatively high prevalence of AIDS within the male homosexual population, it is not unreasonable for the prostitute to be aware that he may be infected. Thus in this situation the use of a condom would be out of care and concern that his "Jon" will become infected. This concern for the other is a form of love. And though the prostitute is still in a sinful life, the use of a condom in this particular situation could be "a first assumption of responsibility." This could be the first step towards God and out of the sinful life he is trapped in.

Now the NY Times (and other liberal mags) attempt to twist this into something else. It says the Pope justifies the Use of Condoms. He did no such thing. He merely theorized a possible situation whereby an the intent for using a condom could be a spark that leads to change in an otherwise evil situation.

The NY Times goes on to say that this is "the Vatican"s first exception to a long-held policy banning contraceptives." As noted before it isn't a statement on contraceptives at all. The media wants you to believe that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine when it hasn't.

So, contrary to your assertion, the Pope was supporting the use of condoms to fight AIDS. He is a theologian and thus he speaks like one. To understand what he means you have to understand the theology that underpins his statements.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:26:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

So, contrary to your assertion, the Pope was supporting the use of condoms to fight AIDS. He is a theologian and thus he speaks like one. To understand what he means you have to understand the theology that underpins his statements.

Thank you very much for the improved interpretation. Responses such as these reinforce the reason I joined this site.

Judging from your comprehension of these matters, I think we would all benefit from your reaction to the total resolution as presented, if you are willing to expand on your response.