science finds a way!

[BlaqueKatt]

due to certain religious objections to preventing the spread of HIV through condom usage, by married (and at times unmarried) individuals scientists have come up with a new HIV prevention method that is not a form of contraception-story here-vaginal rings originally designed for contraception have been altered to only deliver HIV preventing microbicides without contraceptive effects-will there be objections to this?

If so what would the basis be?

That it's unnatural?
That it was based on a technology originally invented for contraception?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Do they need a reason?

If so, they can always fall back on 'it interferes with God's will!'

[HYHYBT]

I'm going to guess, based on no factual knowledge whatsoever, that objections will be based on it being more expensive or less effective than condoms.

From a religious view, I can't see any... at least, not any against its use by chaste, married, heterosexual couples.

(and 'heterosexual' may be redundant there, given the way it's used)

[Hobbs]

From the sounds of it, I don't see a reason to object to it. I find offense at the "God's Will," comment. The Church does not want anyone to be afflicted by this horrible disease.

[AdminAssistant]

The Church does not want anyone to be afflicted by this horrible disease.

Then why won't they advocate the use of condoms, which is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV?? Doctrine is not more important than the millions of people dying of AIDS due to a lack of information and outright lies.

[Hobbs]

Then why won't they advocate the use of condoms, which is the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV?? Doctrine is not more important than the millions of people dying of AIDS due to a lack of information and outright lies.

The Church teaches abstinance...does abstaining from sex prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's? Yes, it does. Doctrine is more important than any petty human judgement.

[Red Panda]

They support restraint. Aids isn't spread if people don't go around having unprotected sex with anything that moves

[BlaqueKatt]

The Church teaches abstinance...does abstaining from sex prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's?

And I'm sure telling a rapist you are abstaining from sex will stop them

Aids isn't spread if people don't go around having unprotected sex with anything that moves

wow-so it's not spread by anything other than sex-better alert the medical community-they can stop screening blood, stop worrying about blood in surgery, stop worrying about needle sticks...etc

problem is the church will not make an exception to it's condom "doctrine" even for those that have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, rape, needle stick, etc while married(which may not happen in the US, but does still occur in other countries), and according to "doctrine" the uninfected partner cannot refuse their infected spouse sex. So doctrine condemns the uninfected spouse to death, and leaves any children as orphans.

Muslims also are forbidden to use condoms-however because their religion allows the taking of more than one wife, they also have a clause that you can have a "temporary marriage" to a prostitute in order to have sex, but since you are "married" it's not a sin-Muslim women who contract HIV from their husbands due to this practice are considered Martyrs.

[AdminAssistant]

The Church teaches abstinance...does abstaining from sex prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's? Yes, it does. Doctrine is more important than any petty human judgement.

Yes, because we all know that abstinence is so effective. It doesn't work with horny teenagers, why would it work with anyone else?

While the disease is relatively under control here and in other 1st world countries, millions...millions of Africans are dying every year because their priest told them using condoms would send them straight to hell. People aren't going to stop having sex, and to think so is horribly naive. The Church needs to step in to save the lives of its practitioners and join the rest of us here in the 21st century.

[Hobbs]

And I'm sure telling a rapist you are abstaining from sex will stop them

Why's it always rape with you people?

wow-so it's not spread by anything other than sex-better alert the medical community-they can stop screening blood, stop worrying about blood in surgery, stop worrying about needle sticks...etc

I'm not familiar with any Church policy to refuse blood transfusion or blood testing. If there is, please cite it. If not, it's more uneducated rhetoric.

problem is the church will not make an exception to it's condom "doctrine" even for those that have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, rape, needle stick, etc while married(which may not happen in the US, but does still occur in other countries), and according to "doctrine" the uninfected partner cannot refuse their infected spouse sex. So doctrine condemns the uninfected spouse to death, and leaves any children as orphans.

And as for that...

At least, this is the view of many Catholics at the front lines of the global HIV battle. Catholic organizations mercifully provide around 25 percent of the care AIDS victims receive worldwide. Many of the clergy and laity involved in treating people with AIDS, who otherwise fully ascribe to the church’s teachings on sexual ethics and the sanctity of marriage, nevertheless endorse the use of condoms. They argue that the preservation of human life is paramount.

source: http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=19561

[Rebel]

Prevention is better than any cure.

It's all well and good that the Church is helping out those that are infected, but at the same time they seem very opposed to anything that could be used to prevent the disease spreading.

Why's it always rape with you people?

Why is it always abstinence with you people?
Sex is natural.
Marriage and monogamy and abstinence are man-made.

And the bottom line is that diseases have always existed in the world, and they will be around long after humans are extinct. AIDS and HIV are in the world, many are infected. Why not gives those uninfected people a better chance at staying that way?

[Hobbs]

Prevention is better than any cure.

It's all well and good that the Church is helping out those that are infected, but at the same time they seem very opposed to anything that could be used to prevent the disease spreading.

To the millions inflicted with this terrible disease, I think they'd differ on what is better.

Why is it always abstinence with you people?
Sex is natural.
Marriage and monogamy and abstinence are man-made.

There are several examples of animals who pair-bond for life and some will even waste away and die when the other passes on.

I'm not saying abstinence is the only preventative...but not having sex pretty much prevents contracting AIDS.

As for the transfusion argument: since tests on blood are common, when was the last time someone contracted HIV that way?

[Boozy]

What actually happens (in Africa especially) is that the man goes out and has sex with a prostitute, contracts HIV, and then brings it home to infect his wife. Any subsequent children are often born infected.

It's hard to blame a faithful wife and innocent children for contracting the disease.

In some parts of Africa, HIV and AIDS affects 1 in 4 people. Abstinence-only education has surpassed "inadequate". It's surpassed "irresponsible". I'd now call it "cruel".

[Rebel]

There are several examples of animals who pair-bond for life and some will even waste away and die when the other passes on.

But for every example of an animal species that take lifelong mates is a species that have orgies at the drop of a hat.
An exception does not make the rule.
Plus, I kinda thought we were talking about Homo-sapiens, and with us, all sorts of sexual practices and mating situations have been recorded throughout history. No one situation is the rule for everyone else.

I think the main point of the OP was to point out a new invention that could help prevent the spread of the most feared disease of the modern day. You don't have to use it, hell, you don't have to ever have sex if you don't want to, but you shouldn't be allowed to prevent other people from doing so. Church and Religion should have no say in whether or not a new scientific advancement can be implemented.

[Hobbs]

I think the main point of the OP was to point out a new invention that could help prevent the spread of the most feared disease of the modern day. You don't have to use it, hell, you don't have to ever have sex if you don't want to, but you shouldn't be allowed to prevent other people from doing so. Church and Religion should have no say in whether or not a new scientific advancement can be implemented.

If you read my previous posts, which I can see you haven't, I stated that there is no reason, in my opinion as a member of the faithful, for the device-whatever-not to be used.