--- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think ideological propaganda is unconscionable, > irresponsible and dangerous, especially in regards > to a grave public health-related issue such as this > one. Abstinence, fidelity and condoms are all very > important in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. The > roles played by these commonsensical measures are > quite obvious, as are their limitations. > > Advice to abstain from sexual activity outside of > marriage would be great if followed, but is quite > obviously impractical because of low compliance. It > is also utterly impractical, and perhaps, cruel, > within marital relationships, wherein one spouse is > HIV-positive, as Josebab has pointed out elsewhere. > In such a case, use of the condom is a very valid > option. Condoms and other forms of contraception > are also useful in preventing pregnancies when a > woman has AIDS, and maternal-to-fetal transmission > is a possibility, irrespective of whether her male > partner has HIV/AIDS or not. > Mario observes: > Unfortunately we see once again blatant distortions and obfuscations couched as serious and indignant commentary. > The opening sentence reads, "I think ideological propaganda is unconscionable, irresponsible and dangerous, especially in regards to a grave public health-related issue such as this one." Santosh then proceeds to do exactly what he says is "...unconscionable, irresponsible and dangerous,..." > My main objection is to the use of the blatant falsehood called "safe sex". > The proponents of this myth strenuously object to sex that is truly safe, for reasons that are not clear, and have yet to explain the limitations of abstinence and fidelity to a safe partner, when it is actually used. > Instead they use red herrings like "...utterly impractical, and perhaps, cruel..." IF one partner is already infected, fetal transmissions, etc. which are all subsequent ripple effects to the INITIAL incidence of this disease among those that don't have it to begin with. > UTTERLY IMPRACTICAL AND CRUEL? Compared to what? Contracting this deadly disease? > What is more CRUEL? When sophisticates like Santosh and Jose and Kevin and Bosco, all of whom I dare say studiously avoid any risky behavior themselves come along and put some poor sod in harm's way by telling them that condoms alone represent "safe sex"? Or is it CRUEL to honestly warn him or her that all it represents is "safer sex" than not doing anything, and that, too, only if they uses the right condoms, yada, yada, yada. > Once the virus is contracted, there is a horrible ripple effect. Once the virus is contracted, the options change dramatically. Once the virus is contracted, there is little anyone can to but use the more risky stop gap measures. AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.
> But we're talking about stopping a pandemic here, not just coping with those that already have the disease, which is what the purveyors of the "safe sex" myth seem to focus on at the exclusion of everything else. > AND STOPPING THE PANDEMIC INVOLVES STOPPING THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE THE VIRUS FROM GETTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. > Santosh says, "Advice to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage would be great if followed, but is quite obviously impractical because of low compliance." > QUITE OBVIOUSLY IMPRACTICAL??? SAYS WHO??? > Most of us on this forum follow this advice. Most of us do not put ourselves in harm's way. So, why is it PRACTICAL for most of us and IMPRACTICAL for the poor sods in Africa, India and China that are being fed the safe sex nonsense? > WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE PREACH WHAT WE OURSELVES PRACTICE??? > _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
