Liberal writer Max Blumenthal has a provocative piece charging that Rick Warren's anti-AIDS allies in Africa have actually made matters worse. (Hat tip: Progressive Revival)
Specifically, he writes, Uganda had been a great success story as a result of their "ABC" program (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms). After they implemented the strategy, AIDS rates dropped 10%. Then, he writes, the country's leadership was taken over by evangelical Christians who began de-emphasizing condoms, one of them setting a box of condoms ablaze and declaring, "I burn these condoms in the name of Jesus." Then AIDS cases began rising. Many fascinating details here.
Blumenthal uses this info to blast Warren, who has embraced the Ugandan leadership. I do want to hear Warren's reaction. But I'd like to make a broader point: conservative discomfort with condoms repeatedly clashes with other conservative goals. They want to reduce the number of abortions, but resist greater use of condoms. They want to reduce the prevalence of AIDS but resist the use of condoms. They want to reduce teen pregnancy but resist the use of condoms.
The conservative Protestant argument often is that prevalence of condoms will encourage sexual activity among teens. (The Catholic Church agrees with that assessment and adds that it;s spiritually unhealthy because it encourages non-procreative sex). The left mocks that argument saying "they're doing it anyway," whether they've got condoms or not.
I happen to think the liberal rejoinder is naive. Conservatives have a strong case when they say making sex safer will increase sex.
But I want to sidestep that unproductive argument and pose a different challenge to conservatives. Let's posit that conservatives are right that greater condom availability does encourage teen sex and sex among unmarried adults. Let's also posit that increased condom use decreases abortions and AIDS.
Which is more important to you: reducing abortion and AIDS or discouraging teen sex?
You've avoided confronting this question by asserting that no such tradeoff exists (i.e. that condom use neither curbs AIDS use nor abortion) but, for now, humor me and answer: if you could be convinced that greater condom use reduced the number of abortions and AIDS, would you support its wider availability and stop discouraging their use -- even if it also increased teen sex or sex outside of marriage?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I find this whole condoms vs abstinence thing to be somewhat bizarre. The debate seems to devolve into a "there should be consequences for sex" thing. As Gerard Nedal said, "The only people who should be having sex are married couples. Period. Anything else is fornication. On this, the Bible and teachings of the Apostles are quite clear. It is contrary to the Church’s mission to teach people how to sin without consequences. We are in the business of teaching the benefits of virtuous living. As Cardinal O’Connor used to say, “Good morality is good medicine.” So you see disease and/or pregnancy as divine punishment? Thus people are escaping it when they use condoms? The whole idea of escaping divine punishment is ridiculous? An omnipotent god is inescapable. The church seems to get upset when people can do things that it forbids without punishment or remorse. If god doesn't punish the trangressor, people might start to think that no crime as committed.
Personally, I think reckless sex always has consequences even it's just psychological. However, married couples aren't supposed to use condoms either. In regards to the forementioned unitive and procreative aspects; when condoms are used does that mean the unitive aspect disappears? So people who can no longer have children should quit having sex? Of course, I don't understand how the so-called rythem method varies from any other birth control except for the fact that it's effectiveness seems to be remarkable low. Yet condom failure is usually brought up.
Your Name,
The Catholic Church doesn't say that there SHOULD be consequences for extramarital sex. The Church recognizes that there ARE consequences for extramarital sex. CDC recently released the statistics on American teen females. By age nineteen, one in four will have an STD. For African American girls, that number is 48% !! Other physical and emotional consequences are mentioned in my posts above. A loving God doesn't want this for His children.
Even if CDC guaranteed the safety and efficacy of condoms, which it will not do based on the data, there are the psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences of promiscuity.
As regards condom use in marriage, google HUMANAE VITAE and spend some time with that document for deeper answers to why we believe what we do. The same goes for Natural Family Planning (NFP). The rhythm method is to NFP, what a banjo is to a symphony orchestra.. All the Best.
Gerry,
Your position is explicit, informed, endowed with reason, and absolutely accurate. It has been reassuring amd refreshing reading your posts. I am delighted that you are still revealing the way to our Father. Whatever your vocation is today, I believe that you were always called to inspire us, just as you were in the '80s.
God bless you!
Suzanne
Suzanne,
Wow! Thanks for the affirmation. I'm a molecular microbiologist, homeschooling my children and writing. I'm still in the same phone book as in the 80's. Give a call. God Bless You. Gerry
This response is in harmony with the writer that mentioned people who are beyond child bearing age no longer having sex. I just wonder what religion says about using artificial methods to have sex such as viagara? Older people enjoy sex too.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.