Had Sex: Now, I'm Blind?

I agree if people held to their marital vows and abstained before marriage there would be no transmitted diseases.

Then we could use the money used for cure research on cancer and other diseases that are not self inflicted. I know in Africa and some other 3rd world countries AIDS is not self inflicted, but in America it is, the only way to get it now is by ones choice either sexually or through drug use.

jkstuff wrote:

AIDS is not self inflicted, but in America it is, the only way to get it now is by ones choice either sexually or through drug use.

Yes, I understand that's why healthcare workers have stopped wearing gloves and masks. It is truly a miracle of modern science. The only way to get HIV/AIDS in America is through actions you've deem to be un-wholesome.

Jason Coleman writes: Yes, I understand that's why healthcare workers have stopped wearing gloves and masks. It is truly a miracle of modern science. The only way to get HIV/AIDS in America is through actions you've deem to be un-wholesome.

Well it would stand to reason that healthcare workers have stopped wearing gloves and masks, since apparently they've also stopped caring for any and all patients that they disapprove of or disagree with their treatment. :)

allgood2: I was being sarcastic. Admittedly, that may be hard to distinguish from extremism. I agree, it is sad that a very small percentage of healthcare workers have brought such an issue into the news. However, the vast majority of people working in the healthcare field care about patients and improving the quality of life for us all. Even though The Truth wanted to make a political statement by posting this story, the story itself supports this. I'm assuming your smiley emoticon means you, too, were being sarcastic, but I just wanted clear up any misunderstandings about my position.

Of course I'm jumping to a conclusion here, but judging by the moniker and slogan, you're probably coming at this from a Christian angle. I'm curious if you could explain something to me: why are all the Christians I know hung up on other people's sex lives but pretty much unconcerned with world poverty, wartime injustice, corporate and political corruption, religious persecution of non-Christian faiths, and global ecological destruction. Thing is, when I search my Bible, I find very few verses in which Jesus talks about sexuality, but I find a whole lot about peacemaking, benevolence, charity, good shepherding, honesty, and open-minded religious dialogue. Am I missing the passage where Jesus says that the greatest sin is fornication (oops, I mean homosexual fornication followed by the regular less icky girl-on-guy kind), and that it is okay to go to war, ignore the poor, lie to voters, destroy the environment, and slander non-Christians as long as you're not fornicating?

Yes, Mr. Coleman; I recognize snark and respond accordingly. No confusion on my part, but I do understand the need for clarity as well.

According to Article Two of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. [emphasis added]

Article Three states

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person [emphasis added]

It is the job of health care professionals, researchers, pharmacists, etc. to preserve, protect, and maintain human life at any cost. It would be impossible to research every person's background to determine whether their illness is "self-inflicted" or "sinful"... but more importantly, it goes against everything we stand for.

It may work on an individual level, but there is evidence that as health policy, "purity" doesn't work particularly well. For preventing teen pregnancies in this country and lowering HIV transmission in the developing world, abstinence-only is less effective than more comprehensive education programs.

I went to a conservative Christian high school, and china-blue is exactly right. While less students were sexually active there than at public schools, every girl who was active ended up pregnant. Not surprisingly, the guys got through relatively unscathed. The point is, abstinence-only education does not work as a public policy. My 17-year-old sister-in-law got pregnant because she and her boyfriend thought the pull-out method was effective.

P.S. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that misinformation is the best way to encourage purity. Withholding important data from curious teenagers is not the way to influence their sexual behavior. Again, marital monogamy is a personal choice that one should make for oneself based on all the available information.

Quoth Stephen Colbert the other night: "Help control the pet population. Teach your dog abstinence."

The Truth,

You pick and choose the parts of the Bible that make sense everyday. Don't tell me your wife wears a head covering and never speaks in church? Paul's pretty specific on that.

It is true that abstinence followed prevents disease. Not leaving my house also prevents my getting killed in a car accident. There are many things we can avoid in life to keep "safe," but I think airbags and seatbelts are a better idea than giving up cars.

To me the bottom line is who's view it actually is. If there is one Creator of the universe that designed every human being. Then I think that that Creator would know what is good and not good for all of us as a whole as a society.

I trust in the view of the One who knows me better than I know myself.

The Christian faith is a completely separate discussion.

The idea "not having sex leads to no STDs" is a simple concept. The point is, our actions have consequences. We come down on the fatties who eat at Mickey D's everyday and tell them to stop eating there. We don't coddle them. Health professionals seem to agree. Yet, with sex it's different. We make excuses for promiscuous behavior. Not only do I not see outrage, I see a culture of promoting risky sexual behaviors. Where's the outrage? Just as self control is needed among those who desire to eat in excess, self control is needed among those who desire to have sex.

Food for thought: the fact that humans tend to have sex so much and that we're not very good at staying monogamous is a good indication that humans did not evolve to be monogamous. Whether or not you think being monogamous is the "right" thing to do, the fact is that it is human nature to want have sex, and it may be human nature to want to have sex with multiple partners. All this talk of "God's will" or blaming people for doing what their instincts tell them to is a little silly. The spread of AIDS is the result of human nature, not a punishment for being impure. We should treat finding a cure for it no differently than any other deadly disease, and we should educate people about how to protect themselves without relying on them ignoring their instincts.

"Not having sex leads to no STDs" has a couple of problems, though:

• Not all sex takes place with the willing consent of both partners; rape can spread STDs, and, as has been pointed out, in a number of places around the world women are treated as the property of their husbands, to be used sexually at any time. If the husband has been unfaithful, the wife will be infected with any STDs he has acquired, though she may have been perfectly faithful to her husband after abstaining until her marriage.
• Not all transmission of STDs takes place via sex; in many cases, the requirement is transmission of certain type sof bodily fluids, which means that non-sexual procedures such as blood transfusions can spread STDs as well.

I'm concerned that we're conflating moral and pragmatic arguments here. "Purity is good," is a moral argument. "Abstinence protects against STDs," is a pragmatic one. When we mix and match the two, we end up posing moral solutions to pragmatic problems, which only works when everybody shares the same morals.

The point is, our actions have consequences. We come down on the fatties who eat at Mickey D's everyday and tell them to stop eating there.

Imagine for a second that a magical condom was created that by wearing, any fries and cheeseburgers consumed were 95% converted into nutritious foods. Are you telling me you would prevent your child from wearing the McCondom? Because while you might encourage your child to eat healthily, kids eat fast food whether we like it or not. If you refused to give your child the McCondom and teach him how to use it, you're being a stubborn, selfish, irresponsible parent by placing your stalwart ideology above your child's health.

"Abstinence protects against STDs," is a pragmatic one.

And pragmatic people rarely trust one method of anything, as pragmaticism demands we use all means necessary to prevent societal ills. Are unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission bad for society as a whole? Yes. Is abstinence the best way to prevent these ills? Yes. It is the only way? No. Can abstinence be encouraged alongside other methods? Yes. So why not use all the weapons in our arsenal?

All of this is fallacy. Were you aware that a child can get a sexually transmitted disease from its mother during childbirth? Even if that child grew up to be a god-fearing minister, he would have the same chance of spreading his disease to his monogamous partner as any $2 whore.

Get with the program.